NBN might be under pressure from Whirlpool and commentators, but they won't be going broke anytime shortly.
In amongst all the hoo-ha, they will be around for a while yet. And they have planned it for years now.
Repeat after me, NBN is here to stay (until T4...)
No they're not going broke. Because we...you and I.. pay for it.
Sorry, I'm confused.
I know.
Are you asking me for a hard news article with the headline that the a Liberal MP has changed his agenda to keep in line with the party message?
Yes.
Hell, maybe you should write it if you think there's a huge contradiction.
I don't claim to be a journalist.
Can you say hand on heart that broadband and choice of broadband capacity fits into the same category as the other types of social infrastructure that you're holding up as examples?
Yes, absolutely. You choose your electricity retailer, you choose your options ("green", solar, etc.), you choose how much you use, etc.
They didn't achieve it.
According to you and unnamed sources � many independent reviews and audits disagree.
As always (and not just by Labor) the city was going to cover the country.
What does that have to do with your claim?
But again, did everyone get a proper chance to decide in the environment back when these decisions were made?
Absolutely � the NBN played a role in the Coalition losing the 2007 and 2010 elections according to their own postmortem analyses.
Not confused on that point at all, Queeg.
Then why do you claim that the NBN was rolling out infrastructure to people who don't need it?
You mean the MTM or... *any* NBN rollout can't go on? Can't address this.
If you had read the thread or followed the industry for the last three years you'd be able to address it. I said the NBN because I meant the NBN, not the MTM (and has has been repeatedly stated, there's no such thing as "any" NBN rollout because the NBN is one specific project which has been cancelled by Turnbull et al).
You've carefully edited out my full comments here. Be brave and include the whole discussion.
I did no such thing � I quoted what I wanted to reply to, and automatically included the link to your post containing your "full comments". In other words, I acted in accordance with the forum rules.
As someone posted earlier, alcohol and the blue bird don't mix... the same is true of alcohol and Whirlpool.
I don't believe that I said that.
Javelyn, I'm a little worried I might have thought I was responding to your comment but actually responding to someone else. For that I apologise.
I'm not someone clearly out of touch with the industry
I'll bite here.
(and I'm not totally non-siding with your argument's) BUT
If your discussing NBN, one would surely be an expert in:
- Common access network stuff, including knowledge about the difference and cost of some PVC tube which runs down your street.
- Perhaps a bit of LTE stuff, or at least know how stuff gets from A-B in the radio world.
- Sky Muster. Hmm. Let's just say point the dish in the right direction (that's the earth station as well)
- Oh, let's not forget fibre, that skinny stuff with a few branches here and there
- And GBE economics, you surely excel in this department?
I know.
Okay. So I will not be able to have sensible conversation with you as I clearly have no credibility with you. That's fine. It happens. Your turn every opportunity I take to seek clarification into a "yes you're dumb ass". I can't really see how to proceed from there.
Yes.
Well, the media has changed. You have all the tools needed to put your name behind a piece (which seems important, germane and well though out on your own part) to publish. I think you've done amazing work to spot it. I don't know what is holding you back. I'm really happy to help in any way I can.
I don't claim to be a journalist.
You seem to have quite a natural talent, though.
Yes, absolutely. You choose your electricity retailer, you choose your options ("green", solar, etc.), you choose how much you use, etc.
According to you and unnamed sources � many independent reviews and audits disagree.
Okay, we're getting into murky territory here. I can give you a bunch of facts and then tell what they mean (Lies, damn lies and statistics). My unnamed sources were fibre guys in which the media never had any real interest until... the FTTP plan! I mostly trust the people on the ground. Not the execs being paid thousands for top level reports created by paper shuffling.
I did no such thing � I quoted what I wanted to reply to, and automatically included the link to your post containing your "full comments". In other words, I acted in accordance with the forum rules.
As someone posted earlier, alcohol and the blue bird don't mix... the same is true of alcohol and Whirlpool.
Okay, I hope that is true and does actually provide appropriate context. Stay well.
AC
Is the NBN a road or a GBE that can become profitable?
It's certainly not a GBE that can become profitable (unless it charges such high access prices it defeats the purpose of its existence). I think it might be a road :)
Meanwhile, back in the good old USA
https://tech.slashdot.org/st
" Average Broadband Speed in US Rises Above 50 Mbps For First Time "
If your discussing NBN, one would surely be an expert in:
Common access network stuff, including knowledge about the difference and cost of some PVC tube which runs down your street.
Lets not forgot lies and half truths... like "anyone other than fiber to everyone's front door simple won't work and we all need 1gbps bandwidth now!"
I think it might be a road
It's an existing road that is being resurfaced.
Average Broadband Speed in US Rises Above 50 Mbps For First Time
I wonder if they are including poor buggers like these?
Evidence?
It has been posted in this thread a few times already mate...it came from financial reports that Verizon published.
If I get time for a search, I'll try to help you look...
US dollars or AUS?
AUS dollar...I believe the US dollar amount was ~$670
Urban density?
Very wide ranging...from 2000/sq mi to 68/sq mi...the low end was the deployment in some regional areas of Virginia.
Changes in urban density?
I'm not sure what you're asking...
And please show me the crystal ball that proves it will make money from "GDP generation"
Every doubling of broadband speed increases GDP by 0.3% (in our case that is a little over $5 Billion/year).
The study was a 3 year study across 33 OECD countries (including us) done by Ericsson, Chalmers University, and the Arthur B Little Foundation.
Are you really comparing broadband to roads
Yes
Broadband can and must commercially support itself because it's discretionary spend on the part of the consumer
Yes and no...it is also fast becoming a necessary service for everyone. For example, things like government services, the Census, access to jobs, and access to the 4th estate (journalism) are all far more skewed to the internet now, and that direction is fast gaining momentum. At the end of the day, both efficient roads and efficient internet increase the ability of the entire population to produce and consume goods...that is what GDP is.
So what I'm picturing is a a dirt road and a paved six lane highway and someone driving to a toll booth and being asked "Madam, do you have a ticket to drive on this lovely paved road? Otherwise you have to take the dirt track which will likely destroy your suspension" or "over this bridge?"
No, they just have to drive VERY slow...
Is the NBN a road or a GBE that can become profitable?
It is both...however, of the 2, the road is far more important. I really don't care about the profit of the GBE, but I do care about the health of the infrastructure it is building.
Great. Then they can pay for it
So another financial barrier...
They can put in the infrastructure themselves and reap the competitive advantage
That "advantage" is already being done in all the other countries...so by adding that cost to farmers, you add in a huge DISadvantage to their competitiveness globally. Combine that with the wage differences, and Australia might as well stay home.
I'm saying that the economics of universal and equal broadband delivery in this country on a financially equitable basis is not very easy to achieve and that's it naive to expect that it can be... which has led to silly situations like NBN1 being delivered to people who don't really need it.
I can't think of anyone in this modern era who doesn't (or won't) need high speed broadband. Your argument would be like arguing against the deployment of a phone in every house when everyone had a perfectly fine telegraph to use in the local village.
That's a troll if I ever heard one!!
Either Corey or the IPA have clearly sent their conservative minions on a mission to persuade ppl MtM is a glorious project. :(
Are you really comparing broadband to roads, medicine and education? (and we use roads for entertainment??) Broadband can and must commercially support itself because it's discretionary spend on the part of the consumer.
I have stayed out of this so far, but this is just plain wrong. Access to broadband will become essential, even if you could argue it isn't currently for some.
It will be essential for government service delivery once it is reasonable to assume there is ubiquitous access to adequate broadband. It allows government services to be delivered more efficiently.
It is essential to businesses to remain competitive in an ever changing economy. It is essential for the businesses customer base to access their services.
It will be essential to modern education delivery.
It will play some part in freeing up valuable spectrum and/or seeing that spectrum being used more efficiently. Currently free to air television occupies value spectrum whether I am watching TV or not, if I am not watching linear programming I can't use that spectrum for other purposes.
Your view is also completely at odds with the public debate, the EU has declared access to broadband a basic human right and there are discussions about how we might do the same if you pay close attention.
Are you really comparing broadband to roads, medicine and education? (and we use roads for entertainment??)
We sure do use roads for entertainment, how do you think people get to the footy game? The movies? Restaurants? etc etc etc How do you think AV broadcast trucks get on site? The actors get to the set?
The problem with your thinking is it is locked in or limited to your experience.
Broadband is exactly like a road, it is an access network... nothing more and nothing less. What people use that access for is a different issue to whether it exists and in what form.
Either Corey or the IPA have clearly sent their conservative minions on a mission to persuade ppl MtM is a glorious project. :(
And they seem to be failing by the looks of it too.
They are like the fraudband Jehovah�s witnesses. :0>
No doubt. But sh*t or get off the pot. Is the NBN a road or a GBE that can become profitable?
That is a false dichotomy. It can be both.
Personally I'd like to see a minimum basic broadband service made available to all Australians with higher speed services paid by the end user.
The minimum service could be means tested or part of welfare etc package. But I'd like to see an Australia where we can assume every person that wanted access to the minimum service level actually had it.
(Partial) Cost recovery can come from the higher speed plans.
And they seem to be failing by the looks of it too.
They are like the fraudband Jehovah�s witnesses
Yeah their arguments are beyond lame and don't stand up to scrutiny.
Yeah their arguments are beyond lame and don't stand up to scrutiny.
There must be a position of selling fertilizer for them, it would be much more fitting for them.
Melt down the FTTN cabinets and make nice buckets out of them. :0>
https://tech.slashdot.org/s
" Average Broadband Speed in US Rises Above 50 Mbps For First Time "
The slide we ride in Australia as we drop again from the rest of the world is burning our arses.
:0<
The slide we ride in Australia
And to think we were >< this close to being world leaders...
And to think we were >< this close to being world leaders...
Don't get me started! And to think the former PM wanted to be known as the "infrastructure PM", I remember he once proclaimed.
I am looking to get fixed wireless instead of the NBN (and ADSL that I am currently on at a throughput of 3.42 megabit), not that I can currently get NBN nor am I on a forecast. It looks like I can get 25meg down/10meg up and 200gig limit for $70 on fixed wireles.
I will not live long enough to see NBN at my house.
@Charliedon'tsurf
I dunno if you ever read my comment on the previous thread but considering your still here im gonna requote and i want to hear your opinion.
There are alot of reasons why we do not like the current approach and im sure thats been explained by alot of us here including Mark. I especially do hate one point that was made. "The geography of Australia is not suited for FTTP"
I 100% Disagree with this. If anything FTTP is probably the BEST even if at the start it's not economically viable (do it in areas thats going to give the greatest return first if metro so be it like others have said). It's also about the elements, i mean christ Telstra themselves fix their water logging issues with plastic bags over copper!
They claimed the nodes would be fine and then they go and build them next to Rivers i mean how stupid is that? Even a little kid can tell you Water + Electronics = Bad. Not to mention the power drain and more maintenance cost in the long run.
Weather in Victoria is pretty damn wild, one day it can be sunny the next pissing down rain and im sure thats probably the same for other places in other states.
They bought 1800km of copper for what? For peoples homes? Nope. As long as you hit your targeted speeed once a day your internets fine? Again nope. There are plenty of reasons why we hate this particular path and the current government has done nothing to try and disprove this. Their testing for any of their techonlogies isn't even worth recognising. 100m fibre to the node test? When most people are going to be 400-500m on old copper you are most definitely not going to get the same result. Dropouts 5 times a day minimum acceptable? Again no. It's also not just for faster speeds its for much more stable internet. FTTN will deliver anything BUT.
The coalition did get one thing right. Labor screwed up the start of the rollout. This was a huge thing to deal with that they probably were not prepared for. Abestos pits and the like, barely any experience probably rolling out fibre in our terrain. But again the speed of the rollout was increasing as they knew what they were expecting. So when the change of Government happened in 2013, and the rollout was still speeding up. It grounded to a halt when after a year and a half later the coalitions policy and the deal was finally struck. And thats another thing they broke contracts and they won't care to admit it. Just look at poor Tasmania for one! All FTTP and now stuck on FTTN and even worse satellite!
HFC again is another issue. Docsis 3.1? More money to upgrade and itll be even more trouble to maintain. HFC tests should be a full suburb test all using it at the same time to simulate congestion and peak hours. Haven't seen any of those despite apparently 2 areas of NBN HFC going live (even if we don't have docsis 3.1 yet)
We also cannot afford to be behind the rest of the world. Especially when we are currently preaching "Innovation" and we are doing ANYTHING BUT! So not only are we getting a bad look from this current Government but we have become the laughing stock of the world.
People can call us fibre zelots but at least we can admit from the start we were right. Hell they even admitted one point FTTP was the end game so why go this long expensive way of doing it?
I honestly will not take anyone seriously when they assume wireless will be the future either. People preaching about 5G without understanding it also annoys the hell out of me. 5G itself is a mixture of fixed and wireless technologies. It need fibre to the tower for it to broadcast in the first place. Still needs a Fibre backhaul
On the fact that we are paying for the NBN then why don't we get a choice in what technology we want? I'd happily pay for FTTP... but not $3000 for a quote then having the possibility of saying "no we cant rollout FTTP to your home/area", or if its a yes then "yeah please pay us $10,000+!" On the whirlpool forum there is even a thread on a few people that have done it and have willingly paid so much. So if WE are paying for it, why don't us as an individual get a choice in which techololgy we want?
Evidence?
On a recent trip to the NSW South Coast the retired couple I was staying with said, and I quote: "when Verizon began FTTP deployment, their cost per premise was about $4600, now it is $800." They pointed to the house seven doors down and explained "that's what the lady I walk my dog along the beach with said, and her husband used to be a senior technician, project manager, chief financial officer and web developer for the Post Master General's department".
Do I need the /s?
So if WE are paying for it, why don't us as an individual get a choice in which techololgy we want?
Indeed, also what hurts is have to pay $300+ just to review your request on FOD.
And then finding out you cannot get it.
FOD what bollocks.
:0<
Here's a presentation on FiOS (FTTP) by the Columbia School of Business...
http://www8.gsb.c
In other Whirlpool threads, they are deliberately knocking off / handballing services to LTE and Sky Muster in metro areas. It won't be an NBN issue until SkyMuster/LTE gets congested.
Skymuster is already massively congested. The monthly download limits are ridiculously small, with massive penalties for isp's that go over them.
On the fact that we are paying for the NBN then why don't we get a choice in what technology we want? I'd happily pay for FTTP... but not $3000 for a quote then having the possibility of saying "no we cant rollout FTTP to your home/area", or if its a yes then "yeah please pay us $10,000+!" On the whirlpool forum there is even a thread on a few people that have done it and have willingly paid so much. So if WE are paying for it, why don't us as an individual get a choice in which techololgy we want?
$10,000? The last few quotes mentioned have been "multiple tens of thousands".
With the last response being, sorry, we cant find anyone to do it.
Upgrading FTTP is only to fill a political promose, the system is designed to prevent it from happening.
However, I repeat my question that needs to be asked.
There are three eventualities for the NBN:
1. It remains a CVC capacity constrained mess.
2. Prices go up by $50 per month.
3. NBN takes a massive financial hit.
What is the liberal policy on this? Which way are they going to head?
Instead of trying to defend the media's complicity behind the switch to MTM, the media should now be asking the questions as to what our future is going to be. Are we going to pay more? Is our interenet forever going to be shit? Is the government going to have to pull money out of its pocket.
(And note: up to now, the NBN is off the budget � it borrowed money under the governments cheap borrowing power with the intention of paying it back. That was on track to happen with FTTP. It will not happen under FTTN.)
Skymuster is already massively congested. ?????
Perhaps you'd better checkout These threads.
/forum-replies.cfm?t=2532430
/forum-repli
/for
checkout These threads.
I think you may have SkyMesh confused with SkyMuster... maybe?
I have stayed out of this so far, but this is just plain wrong. Access to broadband will become essential, even if you could argue it isn't currently for some.
it is wrong. It is the IPA mindset. Broadband is not discretionary spending. If it is then why did all Federal POLITICIANS GET fttp internet put into their electoral offices in 2013 by Telstra at taxpayers' expense? If they needed it at OUR expense then why the hell should broadband be discretionary for ME??????
It has ceased to be discretionary since insurance companies stopped allowing handwritten forms in the late 90's.
Do you live on this planet Charliedon'tserf?
Do I have to spell it out?
YOU CANNOT RUN A BUSINESS WITHOUT FAST INTERNET.
Please don't make a whingefest about me insulting your intelligence. Your crass responses have shown a 100% ignorance of the internet and people's needs.
Abestos pits and the like
Nope.
NBN and Telstra were well aware of the problem. Been asbestos registers in the Telstra network as long back as when they were invented. Also, radiation folders, confined space registers, chemical registers, the list goes on and on.
Some dumbnut in the media saw a good story, and pretty much set the NBN back a shitload of money and time.
Politicians were about three days behind the eight ball before the reality set in.
Families facing NBN asbestos nightmare
I put the blame purely and squarely on subcontractors and media.
NBN and Telstra were well aware of the problem
They well might have been, but they had contracted with NBN Co to have the pits and pipes "fit for purpose" on time...obviously they were not. This was a specific part of the contract that the Labor Govt put in place (and cost them a fair bit). It is also one of the huge bargaining chips that Turnbull went into the negotiations with...now Telstra are no longer responsible for fixing the problem, we are.
BTW, NBNCo were NOT aware of the problem...all they knew was that Telstra had promised delivery of pits and pipes that were good to go, and they had 2 years to make good on that promise.
And they seem to be failing by the looks of it too.
They are like the fraudband Jehovah�s witnesses. :
Im one of them,
NBNCo were NOT aware of the problem..
Seriously, you think the likes of Mike Quigley didn't know the risks. You don't go starting a national digging project, much of it on private property, without knowing risks.
Like I said above, I put the blame purely and squarely on media sensation and a few roughly sub-contractors.
It should have ended as quick as it started.
Seriously, you think the likes of Mike Quigley didn't know the risks
He did know the risks...and he contracted with Telstra to get them fixed. They just did not perform...
A large chunk of the $11 Billion was for just that...
BTW, if you google Quigley's last press conference just before the election, he talks about this specific thing. As I said, he had made the contract and assumed Telstra would keep their end of the bargain...and he had no way to check their work.
Great. Then they can pay for it. They can put in the infrastructure themselves and reap the competitive advantage. Why do I or you or anyone else have to risk the dollars for that?
Maybe because they risked their tax dollars for your connection ?
No, I'm saying that the economics of universal and equal broadband delivery in this country on a financially equitable basis is not very easy to achieve and that's it naive to expect that it can be... which has led to silly situations like NBN1 being delivered to people who don't really need it.
easy to achieve or not, 93% is a bloody good start. It seems very selfish to have this sort of attitude however, but the thinking that 'nbn got delivered to a house that had an old person in it and doesn't even want it' is frankly laughable. so that old person ... they going to be living in that house forever right ? that house is never going to change hands and when they die they will just seal up the door instead of burying the occupant ? is that how it works ?? because if there is a possibility that someone ELSE might move into that place at some point then yes rolling out fibre DOES make sense, that's why a government body does infrastructure and not a company, because a companies only goal is profit, and a governments goal should be to enable the people to profit
My unnamed sources were fibre guys in which the media never had any real interest until... the FTTP plan! I mostly trust the people on the ground. Not the execs being paid thousands for top level reports created by paper shuffling
that's exactly the opposite of what you said when I mentioned that the 2 crews I spoke to didn't have the first clue about the finances of FTTP and if the current plan of the time was likely to be profitable or not. You came back with that it was not the actual guys on the ground but the ex CEOs of ISPs that now ran fibre laying businesses ?
There are several facts that you seem to need reiterated
- They already spent the money � you can say 'I don't want it now' and get back the 56Bn, its a done deal get over it
- NBN v1 was on time and on budget and would have finished with 93% of people with a technology as future proof as possible, no requirement to re run cabling in the future, but if there had been due to unforseen circumstances, the conduits were already in place to make the job fairly painless, those 93% of people would generate enough income to make the NBN profitable and to push the rollout deeper as costs continue to fall.
- Changing the plan to the MTM did not happen sooner has led to a more expensive network that performs way under requirements for many of its users, there is no room to future growth without more infrastructure.
- EVERY SINGLE metric and figure that the coalition voiced on the NBN or MTM has been proved to be wildly inaccurate and often purposely misleading,
- mobile is not a viable alternative to a proper broadband network, it can supplement it well and a small number of people may be able to 'get away with it' but you can bet those people are not using the internet carefree, they are closely monitoring their usage to avoid blow out bills. So in reality these people also need a proper broadband network, its just their situation is getting in the way. 'e.g. short term rentals'. The premises could still get FTTP and then maybe the landlord could use the connectio0n as a selling point.
I really don't know what you are arguing about ? the thread is about the coalition MTM policy right ? Are you still defending the [policy as the best way forward out of the two options ?
And to think we were >< this close to being world leaders...
I think we are at the stage of hump day...
and he contracted with Telstra to get them fixed.
Agree, but an important part of contract management is to oversee things.
Because when things go wrong, they will disappear quicker than free beers at an 18th birthday party, and you won't get a refund, more likely a cleanup bill.
So I will not be able to have sensible conversation with you as I clearly have no credibility with you.
If you want to have credibility with me you can start by getting some of the glaring factual errors in the article that sparked your participation here (such as Stephen Conroy being the Communications Minister in 2005) corrected.
I can give you a bunch of facts and then tell what they mean (Lies, damn lies and statistics).
This thread thrives when facts are provided � if you have some, please post them instead of just asking us to believe you.
Okay, I hope that is true and does actually provide appropriate context.
If you don't realise that alcohol is affecting your behaviour, you should give up drinking or seek professional help.
If you don't realise that alcohol is affecting your behaviour, you should give up drinking or seek professional help.
There's no point Queeg. He just believes that BTN is the supreme Broadband: booze to the node.
Agree, but an important part of contract management is to oversee things
Which is nice, but is impossible to do with a job that large...unless you want to spend a few hundred million on a nanny force to check it all.
They are like the fraudband Jehovah�s witnesses. :0>
Well that's a frightening (but accurate) analogy.
Because if there is one thing harder to sell than the MTM it must be being a JW.
Because no one goes to heaven but 144,000 Jehovah�s Witnesses (and all those positions are already allocated).
No one gets FTTP (apart from the politicians and those in the lucky suburbs under the Labor NBN). For the rest of you, it's copper and be grateful.
I put the blame purely and squarely on subcontractors and media.
I vote media, bloody Murdoch!
Here's a presentation on FiOS (FTTP) by the Columbia School of Business...
Looking through the slides...
1. Slide 11 Cost got down to (projected) $USD 700 per premise connected by 2010
2. Maintenance reduced 80% from copper by 2010
3. Slide 3...bandwidth growth rate increase x10 every 6 years. This puts the world estimate on 10Gbps by 2026.
4. Slide 10...2/3 of FTTP TV came from HFC. HFC in most of the US can exist side by side with FTTP, but it is fast being decommissioned due to lack of support.
f it is then why did all Federal POLITICIANS GET fttp internet put into their electoral offices in 2013 by Telstra
Hang on, Politicians are on the Internet? No that can't be right, something must be wrong here /s
Also what do they use it for? Do they have Constant Video chats in 4K with other Politicians and political people around the country? Are they uploading heavy documents with over 100-300 or more pages?
While i'm at it, How many politicians know that their office is connected to Fibre optic and not some other magical connection? I also swear most of them couldn't tell the difference between FTTN and FTTP if put on the spot.
Also what do they use it for? Do they have Constant Video chats in 4K with other Politicians and political people around the country? Are they uploading heavy documents with over 100-300 or more pages?
No you fool, they just Netflix and chill because everyone knows its only for entertainment and that 25Mbps is enough for Netflix and chill
Netflix and chill
Well i guess the first episode of 'Burning NBN' is doing quite well then /s
In case you haven't heard of it. It's a new show on Netflix that's only in 4K (So you'll need your stable net connection with 12 megabits or more on standby to watch it) and is produced by some wannabe production company and it's about Politicians from the Blue (LIB) government wanting to destroy the NBN because it's expensive and putting the country into massive debt. The election is close by and they brainwash people (Citizens) just before the election saying that they can do it for chepa and sooner and less than what the Red government (Labor) could ever do it for. They use the magic word "Cheaper" and somehow it works because you know people would take the cheaper option over the expensive anyway. Blue government wins the election and proceeds to screw up the NBN and turn it into a political gig.
oh noez, I just spoiled the first episode but i'll let you enjoy it /s
Hang on again... That episode I talked about above does sound a lot like something that happened in real life with our own NBN except for a few smaller and minor details. Now that I talk about it.. I would like to see a TV / Drama or action show about the NBN and it's events but it might get depressing? because we were so close to achieving something but only to have it screwed and scrunched into a ball by evil morons.
While i'm at it, How many politicians know that their office is connected to Fibre optic and not some other magical connection? I also swear most of them couldn't tell the difference between FTTN and FTTP if put on the spot.
And that's the best part. For politicians, FTTN doesnt cut the mustard � so they all get Fibre direct to their electoral offices.
It can go flat broke? It *IS* flat broke. It does not turn a profit.
Are you talking about a certain masthead or NBNCo? :)
there is no NBNCo, its nbntm
Although they still use NBNCo branded stuff sometimes. obviously 10 million doesn't go THAT far when rebranding
Agree, but an important part of contract management is to oversee things.
Very true. Unfortunately this is an area where, in my experience Government (and GBEs?) fall down in their responsibility. This theory only works if you fund and resource this aspect of contract management. Again in my experience they do not allocate sufficient funding and resources to do this. Penny pinching .... which only costs more in the long run.
that sums up the mess jav, under funded and over budget
I would like to see a TV / Drama or action show about the NBN ...
Already been done: Utopia
This theory only works if you fund and resource this aspect of contract management.
In my experience man-marking and heavy oversight in multi-billion Govt projects is not productive or efficient.
It simply can't be done without sucking the oxygen out of the team and reducing the culture to one of arse covering and agreeing with the 'client' (owner) irrespective of if the owner's idea is 'best for project'.
IMHO the original form of contract should have been Alliance.
The NBN had all the hallmarks which support a Project Alliance structure � Clear outcome and SoE, Fast start, unknown risks, long term, changing technology, multiple participants, fixed expectations around target cost etc.
However, good alliances only work where the owner is mature and competent.
Quigley could have done it, but with the ultimate owner being the elected Govt of the day and no separation or insulation from political interference both Labor and the LNP would struggle not to get involved and screw it up.
This project was killed by political interference from weak leaders encouraged by media self interest.
Already been done: Utopia
They even had a storyline about rejecting an innocuous FOI request as "commercial in confidence"...
In my experience man-marking
Don't know what that is but I'm considering herring this as maybe something kinky ;)
and heavy oversight in multi-billion Govt projects is not productive or efficient.
'Overseeing' (as suggested by Geo101) doesn't have to be heavy handed to be effective in contract management though.
It will be essential for government service delivery once it is reasonable to assume there is ubiquitous access to adequate broadband.
It's already heading that way even though there isn't ubiquitous access.
You can't do anything at centrelink anymore, they are just a "collection centre" to drop of hard copies of stuff instead of posting it.
My mum had to see to some stuff about her pension so took her down and told the concierge what we were there for and she said you'll have to do that online as we're only a collection centre. She asked her if she could phone and do it and she said yes she can call about it but they'll just direct her to do it on the website.
When I had to change my study details I knew I couldn't do it in person anymore so tried to do it online but I couldn't as it wouldn't allow me to change anything so I called to change it.
First thing they asked me was there a reason I havn't changed it on the website? So told them and they went ahead and did it over the phone, however I was on hold for over 2 hours, after I got through I got cut off mid talk, called again and after 15 mins got the first operator and told her what happened but couldn't put me directly back to who I was with had to put me back in the queue so took about another 1.5 hours and I had to hand up and get dinner.
Next day almost 2 hours and I got cut off while in the queue, eventually when I finally got it all sorted I had spent over 8 hours in the phone queue over 3 days just to spend 3 minutes telling them the details of my study to update.
It's not a new story, it's always taken hours of being on hold to get anything done with Centrelink, but if i'm also connected to an unreliable network which drops out at my end, then just how much longer might it take me to get things done?
One specialist my mum goes to still isn't on the auto medicare thing so she had to take in the receipt to medicare all the time but then the time before last she was told they can't process them manually anymore, if it isn't getting done automatically then she'd have to lodge it manually over the internet. So I had to get her an account so she could do it online but then it turned out you can't actually lodge them on the website, you have to use their mobile app to lodge it. So got the iPad out and got the app and got it done, now have to do that every time she goes to him because it's the only way you can do it now.
Now they want everyone to do the Census online and you have to ring and ask for a paper one to do it manually, the next one they probably wont even allow that and will only accept online. In a few years anything at all done with the government will have to be done online (seeing a lot of it already is) with the exception probably being to get a photo taken for license, at which point broadband will completely be an essential service since you literally won't be able to do anything official whether online or on phone without it.
We're past communication access (reliable and ubiquitous) only being a discretionary, convenience, luxury service. Just because you can use it for entertainment by watching movies or playing games doesn't change that.
You don't go starting a national digging project, much of it on private property, without knowing risks.
Kind of like you don't go buying a national copper network without even asking what condition it is in o.O
They even had a storyline about rejecting an innocuous FOI request as "commercial in confidence"...
There was a similar scene in The Hollowmen (made by the same folk as Utopia), where they were pushing trolley-loads of documents through the otherwise empty Cabinet Room so that they got Cabinet confidentiality.
Kind of like you don't go buying a national copper network without even asking what condition it is in o.O
Would be so funny if it wasn't true.
Would be so funny if it wasn't true.
And then saying they rightfully shouldn't tell you what condition it is in anyway until after you've bought it :|
you can imagine the bargaining
"fit for service"
"as is"
"no, fit for service"
"AS IS"
"Fit for service"
"AAAAAASSSSSS IIIIIISSSSSS"
"But we really need it, we said we could do this faster"
"............ as is"
"done"
And then saying they rightfully shouldn't tell you what condition it is in anyway until after you've bought it :|
Used car salesmen of the world, can I hear Hallelujah....
btw I was waiting for a server to restart and thought, you know, I will do a few speedtests on my mobile just to see how viable it would be as an alternative to broadband, assuming quotas could be increased that is.
I had never done a speedtest on my mobile before because I don't tend to use it for browsing to web usage ( I know I am probably in the minority here, and that my usage wont reflect everyones, but I gfigured that most other people would proasbbly use theirs more than me for their facebooking and tweeting and pokemoning or whatever it is that uses up all your data.
anyway my impression of mobile broadband had been generally that its ok when you hasve to, but if you can get a connection elsewhere then do it.
seems like I was right this is the result of some speeds test over a day, you may note that there were a few in the morning when I was trying to figure out if something was wrong that I was getting the result I did
http://users.on.net/~deadlyc
actually seems pretty normal to me, except maybe the 0 download speed that one time at the end there :p although that could be happening to me without my knowledge.
So this is the network that is supposed to make FTTP redundant ?
I am not sure if this is considered normal speeds for everyone everywhere and I would assume not, but I am in a fairly major city I am on a Telstra business plan and this is fairly normal in my experiences. When I go out west it only gets worse.
you can imagine the bargaining
"fit for service"
"as is"
"no, fit for service"
"AS IS"
"Fit for service"
"AAAAAASSSSSS IIIIIISSSSSS"
"But we really need it, we said we could do this faster"
"............ as is"
"done"
Much more sad than this, Quigley already negotiated and got a top deal in using telstra ducts and conduits where its fit for purpose. Or Telstra is on the hook for making it fit for purpose.
Malcolm comes and tosses all that away and then renegotiates a contract to buy its obsolete copper under any condition.
So the first contract to obtain access will have Telstra having added costs to ensure its fit for purpose.
Malcolm comes and pays the second time without questioning its fit for purpose and all the sudden you find yourself on the hook for making it work.
Great economic managers? lol some of the decisions defy belief. Paying 3 times to do the same job.
Once: Pay for access to conduits
Second: Pay Telstra for each customer that is transferred
Third: Pay Telstra to buy their old shit and be on the hook to fix it all up.
Labors plan stopped at 1 and 2 which was reasonable because you had to use their conducts to roll out the fibre network and take away their customers.
Number 3, the dumbest decision any Comms minister now PM has made for this nation.
and I am concerned that I might be on both FTTP and FTTN
RSPs tell me I am not live yet but soon and will be on FTTN, finder tells me I am on FTTN.
Only thing is that I have one of those FTTP filled with fibre boxes stuck to my house :p
hehe surely not but they seems fairly adamant I am on FTTN, if for some bizarre reason they have done both to me I will be probably 600 � 700 meters from the nearest node I have seen
now that is a real ballsy nbn policy, give the end user both FTTN AND FTTP and see which they pick :p..
Used car salesmen of the world, can I hear Hallelujah....
I just can't believe he actually thought that let alone said it.
If that was his view for something they were spending billions of dollars on, imagine what his view on everything else would be.... hate to think what some of the decisions he has made have been.
actually seems pretty normal to me
Just used that speedtest app, and yours does look a little lower.
On optus 4g here in Perth. Mine is averaging 9-10mbit Down and 2.4MBit up
Ran it again at got this result > http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/2113218912
Okay, but I'm always a little wary when the research comes from those selling network kit. I'd be more comfortable with more independent bodies (and yes they do like universities).
Yes and no...it is also fast becoming a necessary service for everyone. For example, things like government services, the Census, access to jobs, and access to the 4th estate (journalism) are all far more skewed to the internet now, and that direction is fast gaining momentum
That is true. But as others have said, did we need to risk billions to have Gbps in a short time frame? How many of those applications need such incredibly high speeds? And can the RSPs even turn a profit serving up enough with the CVC pricing model (If they do serve it up, will the avg consumer be able to afford it and hence make the NBN profitable?) This is what truly troubles me.
NPV is where it's at. Is it cheaper to do it once and right (when bond rates are at a low) and stimulate the economy (most of the gear for FTTP was made in Aus), or spend many many times and disrupt many times and send money overseas? (All the Alcatel nodes are made in China)?
Gotta take into account the entire lifecycle, not just the CAPEX.
OPEX is where its at.
But as others have said, did we need to risk billions to have Gbps in a short time frame?
The alternative is to risk tens of billions to have up-to-25Mbps in the same time frame.
We sure do use roads for entertainment, how do you think people get to the footy game? The movies? Restaurants? etc etc etc How do you think AV broadcast trucks get on site? The actors get to the set?
The problem with your thinking is it is locked in or limited to your experience.
I totally agree that broadband is essential and will become more essential. I only question the environment in which we made our decisions on funding it and whether people really understand what it will deliver given unknowns like CVC pricing and so on. And how many of the goals you point out could we achieve with a gradual and organic rollout *eventually* getting to fibre or fibre-like speeds without risking taxpayer dollars?
My limited experience? Well, I see a lot of people use public transport infrastructure to get to the footy/movies/races/restaurants. In fact, parking can be so terrible that for many venues (+ plus DUI laws) this is the *only* way.
I'm considering herring this as maybe something kinky ;)
Not as much fun as it sounds, but in a technical project you basically employ or task another (technically qualified) resource to review the decisions of contracted professionals.
In theory it sounds fine and gives the veneer of governance.
In reality the more complex the technology, the more precious the resources, the greater the chance of conflict and arse covering.
As Whirlpool shows, if people know something about a subject and have spent x years doing it, they rarely take another less-qualified person questioning everything they do.
In Alliancing the best person for each element of the project is decided on a best for project basis. They may come from the Owner, the Alliance partners or an externally selected consultant. All participants define and agree the selection criteria and more effort is put into the selection process.
Once that person is in place, all parties are invested in supporting and assisting the resource.
'Overseeing' (as suggested by Geo101) doesn't have to be heavy handed to be effective in contract management though.
No it doesn't. But it doesn't take much to piss people off.
What "Value" does overseeing add to the job? (need a definition of overseeing)
Employ the right people, define their roles, ensure appropriate metrics are in place and probity is monitoring commercial relationships.
And how many of the goals you point out could we achieve with a gradual and organic rollout *eventually* getting to fibre or fibre-like speeds without risking taxpayer dollars?
What signs of progress toward this goal did you see before the NBN was created?
Well, I see a lot of people use public transport infrastructure to get to the footy/movies/races/restaurants.
Using those off-road buses no doubt.
there is no NBNCo, its nbntm
Although they still use NBNCo branded stuff sometimes. obviously 10 million doesn't go THAT far when rebranding
Yeah, that's one branding issue I have trouble with. Agree.
Are you talking about a certain masthead or NBNCo? :)
Okay, that was actually funny but, if it makes any difference, I'm a freelancer.
Okay, but I'm always a little wary when the research comes from those selling network kit.
The research was done by Chalmers University...Ericsson kicked in some money, and the Arthur B Little Foundation kicked in some money. It is now used as a reference paper by everyone from the WTO to ITU...
did we need to risk billions to have Gbps in a short time frame?
Keeping in mind that the economy is now global and that high speed broadband is a big part of that economy, yes...
we forecast about 600 million subscribers may be on networks that offer a Gigabit tariff as of 2020, representing the majority of connected homes in the world
What signs of progress toward this goal did you see before the NBN was created?
The interest in ADSL2+ and shortening copper lengths.
Using those off-road buses no doubt.
All, I'm trying to say is that it is possible to do something other than drive a car to reach your entertainment destination.
Keeping in mind that the economy is now global and that high speed broadband is a big part of that economy, yes..
Okay, but can you say hand on heart that FTTP would even have been able to serve those speeds given the backhaul/CVC economics in such a way that most people could afford it?
Okay, but can you say hand on heart that FTTP would even have been able to serve those speeds given the backhaul/CVC economics in such a way that most people could afford it?
CVC is certainly an issue that needs fixing...but it can be done with a pen and paper in a matter of minutes, whereas the infrastructure takes decades to fix.
The interest in ADSL2+ and shortening copper lengths.
What shortening copper loops? Do you mean Telstra deploying street cabinets so that they didn't have to deploy copper all the way back to the exchange (to save money, just as they saved money by not having enough ADSL ports in these cabinets)?
As for the interest in ADSL2+, it was small providers like iiNet, Internode and Adam that spearheaded that, because Telstra weren't interested (claiming there was "no demand" for higher speeds � sound familiar?). I had 16/1Mbps ADSL2+ in June 2005 at a time when the fastest ADSL speed offered by Telstra was 1.5/0.25Mbps... this was also months before your article claimed telco network equipment vendors were courting carriers with the then relatively new copper ADSL2+ broadband technology... the telco network equipment vendors you refer to were obviously slow off the mark.
All, I'm trying to say is that it is possible to do something other than drive a car to reach your entertainment destination.
You claimed or implied that roads aren't used for entertainment purposes � nobody mentioned cars at all � which is patently absurd.
Okay, but can you say hand on heart that FTTP would even have been able to serve those speeds given the backhaul/CVC economics in such a way that most people could afford it?
You need to understand that the financial model can be changed at a whim � the last mile medium definitely cannot.
Edit: as Viditor said above :-)
Edit: as Viditor said above :-)
Arrrrrrrr...finally beat you to the punch. I think I will now buy a Lotto ticket...
You claimed or implied that roads aren't used for entertainment purposes � nobody mentioned cars at all � which is patently absurd.
Oh look, I might have. I'm pretty frazzled. I actually thought I was responding to someone that was suggesting that a car was the only way to get where want to go. I apologise if I misunderstood.
You need to understand that the financial model can be changed at a whim � the last mile medium definitely cannot.
Edit: as Viditor said above :-)
Okay, well we can only see how this plays out. Then maybe we can all sit down peacefully over a beer and examine where the chips fell. It's been fun but I suspect I need some time out now.
Stay well.
Okay, well we can only see how this plays out
Sadly, we shall have to...it does not bode well for us.
It's been fun but I suspect I need some time out now
Understood...as one of the greatest journos of all time used to say, "Goodbye and Good Luck"...
Edit: make that "Good Night and Good Luck"...time for my nap...
All, I'm trying to say is that it is possible to do something other than drive a car to reach your entertainment destination.
No you can walk, you can ride a bike,, you can drive, you can catch a train.
However in each of those situations, I would prefer to have better infrastructure.
when I walk I like things like wide paths ( whether in a city or a track in a national park ), feeling safe, having decent lighting etc.
When I ride a bike I like marked cycle paths
When I drive I prefer wider roads with faster speed limits
on a train I would prefer more lines, more frequency, faster speeds.
sometimes I like to walk or ride, or drive for the pleasure of it alone.
There are always different ways to do things, but we only have so long on this earth, so personally I prefer to do as little waiting as possible ;)
That is true. But as others have said, did we need to risk billions to have Gbps in a short time frame? How many of those applications need such incredibly high speeds? And can the RSPs even turn a profit serving up enough with the CVC pricing model (If they do serve it up, will the avg consumer be able to afford it and hence make the NBN profitable?) This is what truly troubles me.
So you are back to the 'we don't need it' argument. Unfortunately it shows that you simply don't get it. MTM is barely enough for now. Its not enough for the next 25 years that we are stuck with it. Even the Analysis Mason reports show that. For HFC, the required bandwidth outweighs what HFC can provide by 2018. Many areas will still be in the coexistence period, so they'll be providing half of that.
As for the cost, it was going to pay for itself. Simple as that. Id much rather trust Quiggly and his recent talk than your musings. As for paying for itself: MTM wont. We are spending more money. MTM isn't cheaper. It isn't faster. Its costing more to install. It costs more to operate.
We simply cant afford MTM. Charges are going to have to go up significantly or NBN is going to have to take a massive financial hit.
And lastly, NZ can do it cheaper than we can fix up the old copper. Let just copy what they do.
And how many of the goals you point out could we achieve with a gradual and organic rollout *eventually* getting to fibre or fibre-like speeds without risking taxpayer dollars?
This is the ironic part. MTM is a bigger risk to taxpayer dollars.
A. MTM cant pay for itself, where FTTP was on track to do so.
b. NBN is nearly out of money, and the government has stated that it will need to get the rest commercially � which means much higher financing costs � pushing up costs again.
c. MTM will build a network and company worth possibly half of what it cost to build. (however, the cost overruns are still happening, so that's still possibly understated!) FTTP would have built a saleable asset and business.
And the *eventually* getting to Fibre or fibre like speeds is another furphy. We are no closer to fibre at all. If we want fibre, we have to do another complete rebuild. Something we should have done in the first place!
And lastly, NZ can do it cheaper than we can fix up the old copper. Let just copy what they do.
Until our current poltiicans get booted out or stop kowtowing to those pulling their strings and actually do what is freaking right it won't happen.
Okay, but can you say hand on heart that FTTP would even have been able to serve those speeds given the backhaul/CVC economics in such a way that most people could afford it?
Yes, because the network would pay for itself. FTTP gets a much higher ARPU, and allows a lot of extra money making services. (Ok, it takes highly profitable income from those fibre companies you were talking too � however, that's their loss.)
CVC would be an issue. CVC will continue to be an issue because the maintenance and operation costs are going to be catastrophic. Theres info out there that FTTP maintenance is 80% less than FTTN.
You save significantly on power, you save significantly on maintenance. You save significantly on the $1.5 billion in software to control it. You save of staff to operate all of the complexity. You also generate a much higher ARPU.
MTM is NOT cheaper.
you can imagine the bargaining
I'd say it started off something like this..
Telstra: "Do you want to buy it, or lease it?"
did we need to risk billions to have Gbp
How real is the risk for a sovereign nation with our size economy? The use of the term billions by the government and MSM with respect to the NBN is pure FUD.
This is not the same as the obvious pissing billions up against the wall which is what the base definition of MTM is.
This is probably the more appropriate thread to post my response in.
Haha, read a bit more into it.
If the TAS government hadn't come to the party with FREE access to their existing fibre, they would still be getting service delivered by SkyMuster101.
The federal politicians from both parties didn't budge an inch financially wise.
Under Labor the area's in TAS that were going to be shoved onto Skymuster were originally going to get Labors FTTP and not SAT. I think people would of just been fine with that. Also take a look at Tasmania and see how many Liberal MP's are still running there in the town offices. It's mostly labor now because people got fed up with the crap that Liberals pulled on the people around there. All for the liberals dam sake.
Basically what Fairfield said at the time is that if Queenstown TAS wanted FTTP then they can pay for it. PAY FOR IT. Wasn't it going to be rolled out free under Labor by default? Why should a town that was originally going to get FTTP without paying a cent now get told they have to pay if they want it? It's ridiculous. NBN MK2 as you have been calling it is all in shambles and pieces. I liked NBN MK1 a lot more than MK2 because at least MK1 was a lot more honest than MK2.
And guess what? The whole Technology chance has been unsuccessful at the time the article was written and still is. Go take a look again in the "Has anyone upgraded to the FTTH" thread and come back and tell me how many people in Australia have successfully changed to to FTTP instead of another technology.
:Hint the number comes after "2"
At least labor was promising to give the town it's FTTP back if it won the election. Still there's sheep out there falling for the lies and cons the Liberals pull daily.
Go take a look again in the "Has anyone upgraded to the FTTH" thread and come back and tell me how many people in Australia have successfully changed to to FTTP instead of another technology.
No offence to Whirpoolians, but I'd much rather see the official stats.
Whirlpool is more likely to count those who haven't or don't want FoD to make it seem impossibly incredible to achieve. The realities of the NBN is that the vast majority just want the internet as cheap as can be. If something else comes in cheaper meanwhile, you going to have to legislate it to keep it at bay.
That's pretty much the crunch of it.
The position of the media against NBN
+the exclusive Sky News was given during the AFP RAID.
Although they should of arrived after or mid-raid to make it look plausible.
but I'd much rather see the official stats.
Good luck, but that's something that has been locked behind closed doors and is kept hidden from the Public. NBN MK2 is also about hiding useful and important information from the public. MK1 you pretty much just had to know what you were looking for and if it was reasonable then you could pretty much get it without having to jump through infinite hoops.
Also if official stats were available then wouldn't the papers and internet sites be saying a lot more than 3 people have FOD?
There is probably stats or useful information somewhere, if there's more people on FOD but that's kept hidden and Mal and Mitchel are saying that's something you don't need to know about.
What a sad thing NBN 2.0 / MK2 is.
No offence to Whirpoolians, but I'd much rather see the official stats.
Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications
Answers to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice
Additional Estimates Hearings February 2016
Communications Portfolio
nbn
1
Question No: 144
nbn
Hansard Ref: Written, 22/02/2016
Topic: Individual premises switch program
Senator Urquhart, Anne asked:
Referring to NBN Co�s Individual Premises Switch program.
(a) How many applications has NBN Co received?
(b) How many quotes has NBN provided?
c) How many quotes have proceeded to construction and completion?
(d) How much revenue has NBN Co earned from Individual Premises Switch quotes?
(e) How much revenue has NBN Co earned from Individual Premises Switches which have
proceeded to construction?
Answer:
(a) 496.
(b) 5.
c) 3.
(d) $7,200 (excluding GST) from application fees and $1,500 (excluding GST) from design and
quote fees.
(e) $38,724.
Edit: link here http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media
the exclusive Sky News was given during the AFP RAID
Conspiracy theory?
The rest of them were probably camped outside Mal or Bill's place awaiting predictable election announcements.
Answer:
(a) 496.
(b) 5.
c) 3.
So 60% of those who got final quotes went ahead? That's surprisingly high IMO.
So 60% of those who got final quotes went ahead? That's surprisingly high IMO.
We may as well say then that 99% of those who applied never got a quote. That's surprisingly extremely high IMO. I guess the estimates that 99% of applicants were given was just so expensive there was no justification in them spending the money on an actual quote.
FTTP installation average upfront user charges under Malcolm's MTM: $12,908.00
FTTP installation average upfront user charges under Labor: $0.00
Need I say more.
["Threats to send public servants to prison to "boost their moral]
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
http://www.dslreports.com/sh
Uh little bit off topic, but does this ring a bell to anyone with telecoms in Australia?
The company's efforts to change state and local law to ensure it's never held accountable for broadband upgrades never delivered also has a fifteen year paper trail.
Verizon's doing one hell of a job taking taxpayer money, then leaving countless markets on rotting, last-generation broadband infrastructure.
rings a bell! :)
I'm confused with your summary?
As much as I'm not popular in this thread, I do acknowledge the posters that have spent tireless hours debating their point, they don't deserve you "dropping in" or "trolling".
I actually just pushed you by one on the dislike/ambivalent/like/really like scale Geo.
I actually just pushed you by one on the dislike/ambivalent/like/really like scale Geo.
But you didn't say if it was to the right or left right off the scale :P
But you didn't say if it was to the right or left right off the scale :P
There is only one way from the bottom. :) Anyway he's aura should be on the way to a brighter level on my part. Genuinely meant by the way.
The higher/income speed choosers are subsidised (by the lower income access seekers) ? That's your argument right?
How about this...the goal is to remove the barrier-to-entry in the global economy for all users. In other words, higher speeds would be a device to help lower income folks increase their income. Things like homemakers selling widgets or ideas on the internet to a global market (first example I thought of) has long been a successful part of the US economy (one of the few), and is a fast growing part of the Chinese economy...this is greatly enabled and enhanced by low cost high speed internet communications because it reduces the barrier of paying for a remote server and allows folks to do it themselves.
There are many other areas of course...home internet radio stations, setting up local servers for neighbourhood watch programs, setting up a Bed and Breakfast and allowing all your guests internet access. All of these things are constructive and can help battlers better their financial situation through faster internet. And of course that is a few of the millions of things that none of us has thought of yet.
If you look at China, they are going absolutely bonkers setting up entrepreneurial websites from home...and remember that it isn't always who does it best, its often who does it first that gets the brass ring.
So yes, the internet is a huge equaliser and needs to be as fast as the rest of the world as well as subsidised to allow ALL of our citizens to grown and prosper and each to have a Fair Go.
No offence to Whirpoolians, but I'd much rather see the official stats
They were given to the Senate a few months ago...questions on notice.
Whirlpool is more likely to count those who haven't or don't want FoD to make it seem impossibly incredible to achieve
The report from NBN Co said that while the program has been in place since March 2015, only 3 people have gone through with it. The average cost to those 3 was ~$13,000 each for the install.
The realities of the NBN is that the vast majority just want the internet as cheap as can be
Do you have a source for that, or is that just how it feels to you?
Edit: damn...beaten by a bad monkey!
So 60% of those who got final quotes went ahead? That's surprisingly high IMO
Some things to remember...
The costs vary widely. The fibre has to go to the nearest fibre multiplex (usually the exchange), it is not connected to the node at all. Most folks are reporting estimates in the $20-$50k range, though some (who happen to live near the fibre source itself) are getting quotes in the $5-15k range...I imagine those are your takers.
There are also 2 different quotes, and neither is free. So the 5 folks with solid quotes are the ones who paid the second quote fee...
I don't think so, the minimum 12/1 AVC wholesale price was set to ensure phone only equivalent services were available at no additional cost.
According to this ...
https://www.telstrawhole
... WLR is $20.69 excluding GST. That's a working wholesale phone service for less than the cheapest NBN AVC.
Also, as Leopard pointed out here ... whrl.pl/ReGFHI ... an NBN based voice only plan from iiNet is $19.95 per month, with local and national calls free.
There must be something going on that we can't see.
I would like to see some detailed analysis of the situation as it is now, but unfortunately I don't know of any.
Same here. Hopefully some will turn up.
My guess is that this has been asked before, but I can't find it anywhere :-(
Is Fibre on Demand also "available" (for whatever definition of available NBN has this week) for cable?
HI Majorfoley,
I'm not even sure I could disagree with on a lot of your thoughts. I can disagree with the part about ubiquitous fibre because that's getting into the area of ROI and there are lot of properties/communities with very, very, very long access roads small communities that could never provide a return that would cover that asset cost. That's okay. It really is. However, the NBN was sold to the Australian public as a GBE that would return a profit and hence it doesn't have to be recorded on the federal books as an expense. That feels disingenuous to me. Because if it's not profitable it's coming out of all our pockets. I actually think it would have been wiser to just call a spade a spade � a nation building exercise. And worthy. But that's not what has been taken to the elections. That idea hasn't been tested by democratic process. I'd love fibre everywhere but I'm not a dictator. I don't have the right to decide what other people think.
I thank you for your feedback
Stay well.
Thanks for your reply. I still don't 100% agree with everything you said on it. With the very long long roads comment well how does that make FTTN better than FTTP? Ask yourself this question. What technology is affected by distance and which one isnt?
The guranteed speeds from higher plans (and i know alot of people who would pay for this) would help pay for some of the plans on the lower teirs for those who wouldn't want to go much higher. Everyone wins in that scenario.
About the paying as a Tax payer comment... We weren't really paying for it in the way you think. We paid through it with our connection to the NBN sure but that literally just becomes our internet bill. A little bit more expensive but guaranteed speeds, less trouble in our chaotic weather country and resilience and upgradable for the next 5-6 decades! (Although i have no doubt someone will eventually find something better during that time or later)
The way the NBN was originally given is that yes we take a huge chunk of money, upgrade our infrastructure, the internet prices are a little more steep but as more and more come on to it and more money is being made they can slowly go back down, especially lower tier plans. It was the Liberals that said it should be run like a business and this was the biggest mistake ever. It was never meant to be small cost for profit. It was meant to be a big payment to upgrade our infrastructure that would eventually pay for itself and bring a profit later when alot more people were connected. Not give us the cheaper deal forcing us to spend more on the long run therefore making it a loss from the get go and having a longer duration before the cost is paid.
If i recall correctly both governments wanted the NBN to eventually be sold off, but its the current Liberals who want to be rid of it at a massive 27bn loss. A 56bn upgrade that didn't really work now did it?
If many of us had our way and FOD was guaranteed to 100% work no matter how much we paid, i'd say a fair chunk of us would have done it already, including myself.
Only if FTTP is not available.
It never will be though, only to a very small % of the population and in that sense, the debate is now done and dusted.
Here's my prediction:
Once rolled out, in say 2021, the NBN will be your FTTP/FTTN/Fixed Wireless/Next Gen Sat competing against (at least in the metro areas) LTE and alternative fixed wireless providers. That last category especially, will be >100mbps in 2021, on it's way to 1gbps.
Mobile phone carriers will already have some 5G (up to 1gbps) out there in the market on it's way to a full national (95% pop +) coverage roll out.
With all that competition, the NBN will either not be sold, or will be sold for a fire sale price, to an industry not willing to stump up the extra $'s because of all the other competition.
Did Fifield just do a line of white powder or something?
http://www.itwire.com/open-s
ITwire write � "wtf?"
wholesale data speeds
And if the node is too congested or the line too corroded for the user to actually see that, well your wholesale provider has that speed, so too bad.
All the comments about reporting and upgrading congested links have been removed from the more recent nbn co documents.
What the?
This is meant to be one of the core foundations of nbnco managing their infrastructure � once utilisation reached a specific value they would upgrade the bandwidth to prevent congestion � only the CVC managed by the RSP would potentially impact the user.
This is significant reduction in service provision.
"In a statement, a spokeswoman for Federal Communications Minister Senator Mitch Fifield said all Australians will have access to at least 25 megabits per second wholesale data speeds by 2020."
So the LNP promise for 25Mbps to all Aussies 2016 has been pushed back by 4 years?
Even Labor only pushed the NBN completion date by 3 years � 2 years in legislation from 2018 to 2020, then Quigly with his estimate of 2021.
That is 4 years late,
Im also a little confused. Is the game industry part of the entertainment industry ie like Netflix. Or are they separate businesses like game studios are.
I suspect Fifield sees Games and thinks entertainment not making off. Plus I hear New Zealand is nice anytime of the year.....
It never will be though, only to a very small % of the population and in that sense, the debate is now done and dusted.
It will eventually...there is no other option as FTTN and HFC have a very limited lifespan.
"In a statement, a spokeswoman for Federal Communications Minister Senator Mitch Fifield said all Australians will have access to at least 25 megabits per second wholesale data speeds by 2020."
Oh really? What about upload? You know, the important part for Businesses? The part where you have to upload gigabytes of data to a cloud for other studios, employees to be able to work on or clients to see? Why suddenly ignore that part?
Oh really? What about upload? You know, the important part for Businesses?
NBN Wholesale pricelist has symmetrical services...
As a business you can buy these, I guess not all RSPs will sell them though.
Here you go. 1 minute of googling and I got this little gem...
Why is that a "little gem"?
Chief Procrastinator writes...
The fact that you do not have an understanding of this, and building networks, and changing network designs midstream, indicates that your commentary is worth naught.
Sorry Chief, but it doesn't indicate its worth naught... it proves beyond all doubt that its worth naught.
He shows the same level of mental gymnastics that our beloved SJWs/3rd Wave Feminists show. IF it doesn't fit his narrow BELIEF of what it "should" be, then his cognitive dissonance just won't let him accept it as so.
Sorry but i'm just sick to death of such BASIC concepts being debated over, and over and over when the first time was more then enough for anyone with two brain cells and an actual open mind to learning.
Chief Procrastinator writes...
You have been corrected on several fundamental inaccuracies in your writings. You have failed to concede these inaccuracies.
You, IMHO, have FAILED.
here here! Thank you Chief for some common sense words. I'm so sick of political correctness and pussy footing around. There comes a time when you can't avoid it, to eat a chicken sanga you have to, at some point, cut the head off the chicken.
Did Fifield just do a line of white powder or something?
ITwire write � "wtf?"
the curious bit is that Mitch's press release had the words "unclassified" on the top of it.
Are they now trying to claim all info in Commonwealth property and maybe try create a back story that the "leaked" documents were Commonweath property and thus the AFP raid was justified under the Commonwealth Crimes Act?
Or
"Looks guys this stuff was classified and because of that you know it's like really super accurate and legit and says everything I say it says right otherwise it wouldn't be classified. Anyway we just couldn't let the Australian people go on without knowing just how much they can't trust Labor so in your interest we've declassified it to show you."
Cos you know if something is classified then it's either really good or really bad and must be true right....
the curious bit is that Mitch's press release had the words "unclassified"
No secrets in that.
All communications via email in certain areas of the Govt have a security classification, such as unclassified, unofficial, etc
This "press release" originated as an email to FiFi's press secretary.
He just did a pretty crap job when copy/pasting.
Well considering Australia's Netflix speed is taking a dive currently...
Slower is better Mitch?
Slower is better Mitch?
Well it "proves" we only need 3.5Mbps, because, you know like the only thing the internet is used for is to stream Netflix and only HD and only a single stream, so the LNP will be providing us with over 7x more speed than we actually need so like how great is the MTM!
It will eventually...there is no other option as FTTN and HFC have a very limited lifespan.
I'm VERY confident LNP can make them last at least another 30 years.
(that's not an exaggeration either, I'm serious!)
What about upload? You know, the important part for Businesses?
Fifield thinks that businesses are run from, you know, CBDs and such and know sensible person would run a business from their home.
If he were to come out and actually say that, recent history would prove him wrong of course as some of the world's most successful businesses were started in homes with quality internet connections but I'm sure for the sake convenience of political expedience minor inconveniences of truth will be pushed aside.
That's politics. (and stupidity when delivering such major national infrastructure but it's also politics)
Ahh I guess we won't be needing planes either.. We can get from one side of the world to the other by wood boats.
Why is that a "little gem"?
It's Coonan lambasting the provision of fixed line broadband, stating that wireless would be sufficient (in a rural/semi rural setting, and FTTN is currently being rolled out in semi-rural areas).
Given the longevity of comms infrastructure she clearly wasn't looking very deeply into her crystal ball to divine the future bandwidth needs.
OK so no one will want it , so they will sell it ... to ??
Huawei perhaps LOL
I love that these questions are being asked somewhere. Since both major parties have an agenda of NBN privatisation at some point, what is the attractiveness of the networks that are being built?
We know Telstra's behaviour: sweat as much profit out of existing plant as possible and defer upgrades indefinitely in the absence of potent competition. Is this what we can expect?
Queeg, if the things I say in a fit of pique satisfy you that 14 of years of reporting on telecomms are completely worthless then it is doubtful that anything I say could do much for me to win your respect or even the quietest voice here.
As I said a week ago, If you want to have credibility with me you can start by getting some of the glaring factual errors in the article that sparked your participation here (such as Stephen Conroy being the Communications Minister in 2005) corrected.
That's why it's so hard when people paint me as technology biased.
It is your words here and in your article that paint you that way.
The Coalition made a lot of changes to put the ALP in their election platform position. Why is it so beyond the realms of belief that they could reverse them?
We live in the real world, where once money has been spent it can't be unspent, once something has been built it can't be unbuilt, once something has been destroyed it can't be easily restored. To reverse the changes the ALP would need a time machine.
Contention sounds horrible. please educate me.
As a professional journalist you should be capable of doing your own research.
My only point was that it was silly to paint it as a GBE with an expected ROI.
It is nothing short of hilarious that you believe your own opinion and that of unnamed sources when not even Malcolm Turnbull's forensic accountants (sent in at taxpayer's expense of course � had to save his own money to buy the Liberal party last election) could find anything wrong with the financial documents showing that the cost per premises was within the expected range and falling while takeup was above forecast.
If someone (perhaps one of your unnamed sources) told you that posting random links here would boost your credibility they've given you another bum steer.
Is this the best we can do? Spend a vast amount of money on HFC and VDSL2 and then sell it to Telstra who will then dominate the market for another 20 years?
The 64 billion dollar question. I rub my hands together at how it will play out.
lol it wont be for anything like 64Bn.
my bet goes that it will be sold to Telstra, for less than it cost to buy the copper off of Telstra.
If you were creating something like this from scratch, with the intention from the start to sell it, you would make it as profitable as possible too, everyone would.
I think that was Labor's first mistake.
Absolutely, but then you'd have a huge interest bill to repay, and you'd have higher taxes, and the two combined (cost saving of cheaper NBN + higher tax cost) would be more than you would have paid for this more expensive NBN in the first place.
All the government needs to get its 7% return on its investment is about $2bn per year. I refuse to believe Labor could not have identified at least that amount of benefits of the NBN outside of the NBNCo. The government doesn't need to see a cent from the NBNco.
In all cities and some major regional areas, at least you have competition from fixed wireless companies, but they can service everyone because of trees and other obstacles. 4G/5G is another real competitor as quotas increase and prices drop.
Yep. All the more reason for the NBNCo to drop their access prices.
OK so no one will want it , so they will sell it ... to ???
I didn't say no-one will want it. Just no-one will want to own it's problems. But significantly, no-one more than the current owners.
I really don't get why you have an issue with it making a profit?
They have to charge very high access prices in order to make a profit. If they didn't have to make a profit it would be a lot cheaper to use the NBN.
If they didn't have to make a profit it would be a lot cheaper to use the NBN.
As a GBE, they don't need to make a profit. They just need to pay off the debt (at an amazingly low interest rate) over the lifetime of their asset. Any extra cash after that is just cherry, and could be used to upgrade the network in the future.
I didn't say no-one will want it. Just no-one will want to own it's problems.
They wont be able to sell the mess as a whole. Being in an city that is getting half FTTP and half FTTN, its very apparent what a mess FTTN is. The majority of people being connected to FTTP are connected without an issue and the connection is done within an hour normally. The speeds on FTTP are fast and reliable. The main complaint seems to be more around techs not turning up when they are supposed to.
There has been no end of complaints from people trying to get FTTN connections though. There is issues with connections at the node, there is issues with copper, there is issues with people being without phone and internet for weeks because they have been cut over only to find FTTN doesn't work for them, and they cant go back to ADSL. There is issues with people finally getting connected and only getting single digit connection speeds, or unreliable connections. There are issues with people well over 1000 mtrs from a node being connected to FTTN and unsurprisingly getting crap service, even though those sort of length connections weren't supposed to happen.
The Libs have created an absolute mess that will cost taxpayers a fortune to fix. People on FTTN are rightly pissed. I haven't spoken to many that are happy with their connection.
Who is going to buy that FTTN mess, and take on the associated substantial liability of having to fix it?
Who is going to buy that FTTN mess, and take on the associated substantial liability of having to fix it?
Someone called Pixie Dust I think.
:0>
Someone called Pixie Dust I think.
One safe bet would be that Turnbull wont be spending any of his millions buying it to create Ozemail 2.0 . He already has those funds tied up in FTTP investments in other parts of the world.
Cisco sell network kit. The official figures show 51% of NBN customers buy 25/5 plans.
Seriously, the whole thesis of my piece gets more force the more rabid you guys get.
because you are looking at TODAY, not the future. thats the whole point of the 2020 needs and usages discussion. tier purchases never stay static; otherwise id still be on a 256kb plan from 2003. if your thesis has no eye on future uses and needs then there is a big problem, with the underpinnings of it being less and less relevant as things proceed. again, convince me of the lifetime abilities of the FTTN network and that its TCO makes it worthwhile to do. everything ive seen � and im trying to relay this to you � says the opposite, but im willing to be convinced.
there is no rabidity here. but you have to be able to place an argument that works for more than one static point in time � today. otherwise the 'force of argument' is going the other way, weaker; not stronger. where does the network go to in 4 years, and does that indicate it is worth doing or not? in ten years?
I agree but why was this not the same risk model for FTTP? For that I have never seen a sensible answer.
If you look at the actual numbers coming from nbn � as opposed to the PR nonsense � it is clear that they are spending about the same amount of time and money on the MTM as they would have on a predominantly fiber build. But a fiber build would be vastly superior in terms of reliability, long term costs and performance.
I'm late to the party, but your original article is really poor. If your goal of "education", then blaming Conroy for Telstras failure to invest in network upgrades in 2005 is a pretty serious error.
It is very misleading to claim that "simple calculations" by anonymous sources show that Labors version of the nbn would have lost money, without mentioning that
� Official nbn costings done under both Labor and the Coalition had a predominantly fiber build giving a positive return on investment.
� There is every reason to expect that the MTM will lose at least as much money as the Labor plan, and very likely more.
Criticising the whole nbn concept by focusing on the fact that many people will likely never have a need for gigabit services is also highly misleading. It was always anticipated that many people would opt for lower speed services on the nbn. If you aim to educate people, then you might have mentioned some of the real reasons for the nbn such as
- Telstras decade long record of spending the absolute bare minimum on network upgrades,
- The highly anti-competitive structure of the industry due to Telstras near monopoly power
- The failure of previous governments to separate Telstra wholesale and retail arms
- The poor reliability of the copper network.
The implication that money spent on the nbn is money not spent on health or education is flat out wrong. There is every reason to expect that improving the reliability and speed of telecommunications infrastructure will result in savings for the health budget. The health budget absolutely dwarfs the nbn spend. Furthermore virtually all the new investment in fixed line networks around the rest of the world � private and public � is going into fiber networks.
The fact is that fiber networks are cheaper to build, maintain, and operate than copper networks, and provide a vastly superior service both in terms of reliability and data rates. Furthermore the copper network is in a continual state of being replaced. To claim that we should never spend money upgrading to a fiber network is simply perverse.
Many well informed people criticised Labor for setting up the nbn in the first place. It had and continues to have many issues, e.g.
- blocking/discouraging private sector investment which may in some cases have provided better services sooner.
- Poor performance in terms of the time it took to get started.
- Poor technical decisions such as the POI setup.
- Imposing high costs through high CVC charges.
But your article failed to mention any of these issues. Your article also fails to mention the issues with numerous issues with the MTM, which has managed to incorporate all the downsides of Labors policy while eliminating almost all the benefits.
But your article failed to mention any of these issues. Your article also fails to mention the issues with numerous issues with the MTM, which has managed to incorporate all the downsides of Labors policy while eliminating almost all the benefits.
It sounds like the article was created to misinform readers � yet again � as to the poor decisions made by the LNP in regards to their direction for the NBN.
I believe we are yet to see it updated?
Cisco sell network kit. The official figures show 51% of NBN customers buy 25/5 plans.
Seriously, the whole thesis of my piece gets more force the more rabid you guys get.
what IS your thesis ? iI thought you had no preference on technology ? but your thesis gets stronger from this little quote about 51%
there could be a lot of reasons that 51% of people take up 25/5 plans ... how about these options
1) people choose 25/5 plans because they are well informed about the nbn and ewhat it can offer and know that 25/5 is more than adequate for their usage.
2) people have no confidence in the nbn and are opting for the cheaper plans that are similar price to their current ADSL spend.
3) https://delimiter.com.au/2016
seriously https://www.telstra.com.au/broadband/nbn/nbn-plans#
show me where I can select anything BUT 25/5
I don't know but seems to me, that advertisers target products and audiences, and those products tend to get sold more whether they are better or worse. Its not as such an indicator of what people want more as what they can get.
lol it wont be for anything like 64Bn.
I knew that. It's the old expression raised to a similar amount to what it's costing us :)
Why is it so beyond the realms of belief that they could reverse them? This is, after all, a nation building exercise.
Because to the Liberals its not a nation building exercise. It's a nation destroying exercise.
The Coalition made a lot of changes to put the ALP in their election platform position. Why is it so beyond the realms of belief that they could reverse them? This is, after all, a nation building exercise.
to be fair that's pretty much what labor DID do.
they removed fttn from the roll out options and replaced it with FTTP, its just they don't have a toime machine to go back in time to before all those contracts were signed and all that hardware was purchased so that we could actually eliminate the fttn.
but they DID plan to reverse the policy of fttn and replace it with their original policy of fttp.
so other than time travel which in fact IS beyond the realms of possibility in this respect, that's exactly what labor planned to do
The order goes -
Telstra sell broken network to tax payers
Tax payers semi-fix broken network
Telstra buys semi-fix broken network for half the cost
Australia looks for another same 20 years as the previous ones
I think the government (either flavour) should change the way the NBN is sold to the general public so it doesn't need to make a return to cover the investment but the government's return comes from the very existence of the NBN
Excellent point!
That would require the government (either flavour) to spell out the benefits of the NBN that are external to the NBNCo
Agreed...
The economics of the NBN is as important as the technology.
I also agree...but it is important to remember that the economics can be changed over night...all it takes is the political will.
The technology is there for at least a decade and hangs around our necks like an albatross.
It also makes the economics that much harder to adjust when you know you have to change it all again in a few years.
If we'd stuck with the original plan, it would have been an investment and stayed off the books, now it's not even worth half it's build cost.
While I agree completely, I think CMOT's approach is correct...we have to think forward and not back. We should leave the blame game to the politicians (who usually get it wrong anyway). How do we fix the problem? Who do we petition to make it happen once we figure that out?
. But when I do it my credibility goes down.
You are assuming you had some to start with, your articles to date have been pretty ordinary and frequently contain glaring errors that even basic research would have prevented.
Oh like Malone, Slattery, Hackett and various CEOs of the majors etc etc? Yeah, I guess that makes me a total nonce
A lot of these guys are pretty far removed from the coal face, I spent several years delivering business grade data services and data centre services to customers and the daily frustration from many rarely makes its way up the totem pole.
So many businesses still have to resort to plonking down $20k plus for p2p microwave links because fibre isn't an option for them and many more are making do with bonded dsl services because even p2p microwave isn't viable (no line of sight to pop's etc).
Let's stop pretending and call it what it is: "a national building exercise". And let's have it on the books. There's nothing wrong with that.
The economic benefits and transformational abilities of a national fibre network have been studied in detail, you just need to bother to research it. IBM and IBIS came up with the following report (not government sponsored, IBM paid for it):
Headline: national fibre network would be worth 1 trillion to Australian economy by 2050 and have significant influence on restructuring industries across the board.
I've been frustrated with posters like Kingee and GMT but WhatsnameDontSerf is just mangling the discussion in this thread. Some of the stuff he is sprouting is just conspiracy theory rubbish.
IBM and IBIS came up with the following report
Thanks for that link...I hadn't read that.
I was especially struck by (though not surprised by) the following passage...
The report predicts that 46 per cent of Australia�s current industry revenue will substantially benefit from the new utility: 23 per cent of the nation�s revenue, will not function without this new utility, and a further 23 per cent of industry revenue will use it to drive step-changes in their business. 15 industry classes are likely to demise if they do not reinvent themselves to embrace the digital future; and some may simply be unable to do so
How do we fix the problem?
I think the biggest problem at the moment is we don't know how big a financial mess the NBNCo is in. I don't know if they have completed enough of the roll out to start taking on commercial debt. If they haven't then the government is going to have to chip in more equity and I don't know if they'll do that. There's a chance they could wind up the NBNCo and flog the assets. Then we have a whole new problem.
I think we have to give it a few months to see what happens.
Who do we petition to make it happen once we figure that out?
Once we know what sort of oversight committee we're going to have then we'll know which Labor members will be participating. Then we can write to them and to Scott Ludlam to raise issues.
I don't think we'll change the need for the NBNCo to make a commercial/utility profit ready for privatisation, though. The Greens will be onside, but privatisation is Coalition and Labor policy. I seriously doubt we can change that. You could write to Michelle Rowland if you want to give it a go.
If they haven't then the government is going to have to chip in more equity and I don't know if they'll do that. There's a chance they could wind up the NBNCo and flog the assets
Putting a $19 Billion black hole in the budget and completely disrupting all telecoms (and the business that relies on it) in the country...not to mention the contracts that they would still be on the hook for. Turnbull may talk a tough game, but that would eliminate his ability to govern as it would be timed to match the expected recession...I don't think he can let it be wound up, he just can't afford it.
I don't think we'll change the need for the NBNCo to make a commercial/utility profit ready for privatisation, though. The Greens will be onside, but privatisation is Coalition and Labor policy.
It depends on the degree of groundswell that can be generated. Neither the LNP nor the ALP exist in a vacuum, they will respond to "loud noises" when required...
There's a chance they could wind up the NBNCo and flog the assets. Then we have a whole new problem.
it will be interesting to see how they try and meet the legislative "hoops" to be able to sell it.
isn't the first "hoop" the the Minister has to deem it complete?
Who would be the Minister to put their name to a ruling to claim that the "nbn" is complete when it is not half built or even built to a level to meet the SOE?
I would argue that this could not be claimed as a moment of incompetence but rather a total breech of the legislation requirement.
just for refresher here are the hoops under the legislation
Requirements for the sale of nbn
nbn can�t be sold until:
the Minister for Communications declares that the nbn is built and fully operational
the Productivity Commission has an inquiry into regulatory, budgetary, consumer and competition matters relating to the nbn
a Parliamentary Joint Committee considers the findings of that report
the Minister for Finance makes a disallowable declaration that conditions are suitable to sell nbn
Parliament doesn�t disallow that declaration.
Putting a $19 Billion black hole in the budget and completely disrupting all telecoms (and the business that relies on it) in the country.
I don't think the NBNCo with the MTM is going to be worth what it cost to build anyway. The government is going to have to write of most if not all their equity at some point.
I think the disruption can be managed but if it happens it will set us back 10 years.
I don't think he can let it be wound up, he just can't afford it.
You could be right. I am a bit of a pessimist when it comes to the NBN. Turnbull is in a very deep hole that he dug for himself and I don't know what his party will let him do to get out of it. Tricky!
It depends on the degree of groundswell that can be generated.
True.
it will be interesting to see how they try and meet the legislative "hoops" to be able to sell it.
I think you're thinking of the legislative hoops to privatise the NBNCo. I don't think those hoops apply to winding it up and flogging the assets. This is just me being pessimistic, though. I'll wait and see what happens.
I don't think those hoops apply to winding it up and flogging the assets.
Is there any legislation that allows them to do that? Interesting hypothetical...
Who would be the Minister to put their name to a ruling to claim that the "nbn" is complete when it is not half built or even built to a level to meet the SOE?
As we've seen, the SOE can be changed. If they really wanted to complete a cut-price NBN they could always lower the SOE to 12/1 and incorporate ADSL into the MTM mix.
I don't know if they have completed enough of the roll out to start taking on commercial debt. If they haven't then the government is going to have to chip in more equity and I don't know if they'll do that. There's a chance they could wind up the NBNCo and flog the assets. Then we have a whole new problem.
Given the history of the liberal party to sell off everything that they can, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
My concern is that Telstra is the only company that has enough capital to buy it. I can't see them doing this with the regulations around NBN currently.
I see a swag of "exemptions" for the NBN when it's up for sale.
As we've seen, the SOE can be changed. If they really wanted to complete a cut-price NBN they could always lower the SOE to 12/1 and incorporate ADSL into the MTM mix.
except that nbn� do not have any adsl DSLAMs and has no connection to any them.
They couldn't therefore sell wholesale access.
Guess they could claim 12/1 is "adequately served" and thus does not have to be "over built" by "the nbn� network.
But most people on ADSL are not even synching at 12/1 they are getting less.
Guess they could lower "adequately served" down to 1.5/0.500 then they could stand on a carrier waves flags and declare "job done"
My concern is that Telstra is the only company that has enough capital to buy it.
in fact on the copper and HFC, any purchaser of those assets may have to negotiate directly with Telstra, even though they don't own the asset.
Wonder if the Canadian Teacher Pension Fund would buy nbn�, seems they are about the only organisation that the Australian Government will permit "critical infrastructure" assets to be sold to
How do we fix the problem?
First, whirlpool has to prove, to the Australian voter, that the MTM is not going to make the expected return .
Who do we petition to make it happen once we figure that out?
Need an effective apolitical lobby group that focuses on broadband infrastructure.
It's not going to make money as a GBE but that's what we're told.
How do you reconcile this claim of yours with the findings of Malcolm Turnbull's forensic accountants?
Of course I don't actually expect an answer to the question, just as I didn't get an answer to why you're obsessed with a six year out of date reddit thread.
Is there any legislation that allows them to do that? Interesting hypothetical...
There's this in the legislation that sets out the conditions for privatisation ...
Division 4�Divestiture of assets by NBN corporations
33 Directions about disposal of assets
(1) The Communications Minister and the Finance Minister may, by written notice given to an NBN corporation:
(a) direct the NBN corporation:
(i) to dispose of one or more specified assets of the NBN corporation (otherwise than by transferring the asset to another NBN corporation); and
(ii) to do so within the period specified in the notice; and
(b) give such other directions to the NBN corporation as the Communications Minister and the Finance Minister consider necessary for the purposes of securing the disposal.
https://www.legis
As far as I can tell from that it's up to the shareholder ministers. I can't see any other conditions.
The case has actually been made, it's not perfect,
The case has been fabricated. What we have is a the equivalent of a parent saying "because". The thing is, we are adults, not children. Go through the CBA and remove all the figures Ergas tweaked and replace them with figures that have been supplied elsewhere. Add in some upgrade costs, there is no real case for the MTM, it's more expensive than rolling out FTTH now.
The thought of anything less that a full fibre rollout is war-like territory.
BS Geo, most are quite happy with FTTdp as a sensible alternative. There are reasons FTTN is a bad choice, reasons that get ignored.
Want to discuss the costs of future upgrades to FTTN? When they will be needed, how much they will cost? Because none of that has been taken into account with the MTM modelling.
No, please stop the red herrings.
I'm not herring anything.
I've always said that if FTTN becomes more expensive than other techs, dump it.
Watch the NBN annual report for more financial details.
If FTTH isn't economical, delay it as well.
The problem is the one-eyed view of the FTTH/anti-LNP people. They are actually out of touch.
TPG FTTB will make consumers happy, and TPG profitable for many years yet.
NBN MK2 is more reluctant, note they haven't committed to MDU mass rollout yet. Wonder why?
They've either missed the boat, or just waiting patiently for the final solution?
BS Geo, most are quite happy with FTTdp as a sensible alternative.
The ideas were always there, but FTTdp is expensive to deploy, especially as an interim network..
It's was never going to be a solution in Australia, unless NBN adopted it mass scale for MDU's, it's never going to see the light in suburbia now, unless the road map is incorrect.
That's just economics of scale (sic) unfortunately.
I'm not herring anything.
The red herrings being deliberately selective replying to and deliberately misunderstanding of points I am posting.
Watch the NBN annual report for more financial details.
There is SFA information in the report and it's been heavily massaged to fit their narrative. I know someone who worked for NBN whose job was to help write it. They quit because the job changed from trying to accurately report data to having endless revisions of how to present selected data to give the correct impression. Seems to fit the greatly reduced amount of data presented in the sporadic reports.
The problem is the one-eyed view of the FTTH/anti-LNP people.
So, you assume anyone who can see problems with the MTM are inherently anti-LNP. Going to call them commies or lefties too to further disregard their opinions?
TPG FTTB will make consumers happy, and TPG profitable for many years yet.
Once again, last I saw TPG were not rolling out infrastructure for an Australia wide infrastructure upgrade.
NBN MK2 is more reluctant, note they haven't committed to MDU mass rollout yet. Wonder why?
How could anyone know? It's not like you could actually ask and expect a reply.
So, you assume anyone who can see problems with the MTM are inherently anti-LNP.
Nope, I'm not that one sighted.
The ideas were always there, but FTTdp is expensive to deploy, especially as an interim network..
According to what Morrow said, about $400 a premises. Do we have any figures on the long term savings it would enable? If the bandwidth growth report is partisan fiction, which I'd argue it is, what are the short term savings?
It's was never going to be a solution in Australia
I take it I am to just accept that assertion because you made it? BTW, can we get off the MDUs and onto the Green fields? MDUs are close either way, it's the Green fields that are the problem (MDU are another of your red herrings)
How could anyone know?
One thing I like about Whirlpool, is that the facts are there.
I think 12 or so months ago, many questions were asked about this!
NBN is still not rolling out to MDU's, and it appears to be case that the most staunch posters seem to be not realising this.
It could be a conspiracy theory of course. I'm more of the practical aproach that NBN is simply getting the figures up in the heartlands, and the MDU/CBD/commercial area is so out of scope, it really isn't worth the political mouth to comment.
I'd love to see NBN MK2 hit the MDU and business/corporate market, but at the moment, they are simply catching up with suburbia connections.
A thing since day dot they haven't got right yet.
FTTdp is expensive to deploy, especially as an interim network..
According to Morrow ( Senate hearing) it'd only cost extra 2B to use FttDP instead of FttN. Since copper maintenance could be up to 1B pa and Node power costst around 100 million pa, it'd take only a few years for FttDP to become more cost effective as required by SOE. Instead, for purely political reasons, Turnbull insists on not just inferior but less cost-effective and with no clear upgrade path 'solution'. Bastards...
NBN is still not rolling out to MDU's, and it appears to be case that the most staunch posters seem to be not realising this.
Stuffed if know, and why dwell on it until there is more information. The medium MDUs seem a problem. FTTN they may be covered by the node, but what about the HFC areas? You can't run HFC to all 3-8 unit flats and townhouses, not aerially anyway.
Anyway, MDUs are a completely different topic to support for FTTH over FTTN for the Green fields roll out.
Why? It really is an investment.
Okay, but should it have been sold that it would make money in a shorter term if it actually won't? And there is credible doubt about that.
As a wholesale infrastructure, it should...again, that will not interfere with long term (30 years) profits. It is only over the short term (10 years) that there is any hiccup
Again, I think that there are genuine concerns that those developments could lead to a larger portion of the market deciding that they don't need the incredibly high speeds that NBN may offer. It's another risk.
It doesn't really...do you remember when ADSL was first released? How long do you think it took for folks to convert from dialup to ADSL? Many years is the answer...but when they did, it happened very quickly and dial-up plans died.
That's true. But you're talking about a period when there was a slow step-shift from Kbps to Mbps. The economic dimension of the networks shifted from one to the other in line with demand and changing TCP/IP apps. It seems to me that the dimensional shift from lower Mbps to potentially Gbps and the cost involved without consideration of the application needs was poorly considered. The potential result of that is that we will divert a lot of money into an unnecessary last mile that no RSP can even afford to serve and for no valuable application we can see in the short term. Over time that may change. But we're not dimensioning (I made that verb up) the economic network build to the real world need. It is possible to do that over time and spare the public a huge bill for it. It is also possible for us to simply accept that this a nation building exercise and we need it. And put it in the books. I really, genuinely hope that you can accept I'm as being quite sincere here and not some LNP stooge. Happy to talk further. Sincerely, AC
Instead, for purely political reasons, Turnbull insists on not just inferior but less cost-effective and with no clear upgrade path 'solution'.
Actually, NBN can pick up FTDdp anytime they like.
They've chosen not to apparently. I'm not surprised, but I thought it might have got a head in in the MDU market.
It is possible to do that over time and spare the public a huge bill for it.
They cannot avoid the bill for it. Eventually fibre will be run, no one is arguing that it won't. Everyone is in agreement that it will. If they run it now people using the NBN will pay for it with wholesale charges, if that is not enough some will be covered by the taxpayer because they won't be able to pay back all roll out costs. If it is financed via customer revenue, the customer still pays for it in the wholesale charges. The difference with the MTM is they also pay for the interim solution. And interim solution like FTTdp isn't too bad, the fibre passes the house, upgrades on an ad hoc basis are cheap. FTTN is simply sunk cost, it has no upgrade path.
They've chosen not to apparently.
"Chosen" is an interesting way of describing how the decision was made.
REST OF THE INTERNET via a FIBRE connection. Fibre to the NODE just won't cut it. You will need fibre to just about every building. So all this talk about how 5G will provide faster speeds and less contention � they DEPEND on the building of a FIBRE network that reaches more BUILDINGS not nodes.
Fantastic post. No sarcasm.
SEAMLESSLY switch between high-speed low-penetration beams to the more pervasive but lower-speed longer-wavelengths that are already used by 4G.
But that isn't entirely helpful. The idea of 5G is great but it can't penetrate buildings because it relies on higher freq specs that can't do that:
So, I guess my question for every building owner out there is 'how do you assess the business risk model for installing fibre for 5G?"
"Chosen" is an interesting way of describing how the decision was made.
The decision would of come from high up.
If the money isn't there, no good starting the planning process.
The MTM has enough options to fulfill the NBN.
FTTdp isn't one of them. It's no big deal.
Your back?
Dude, do you want me back? I've already offered. You want me gone? I'm not going to argue with a WP vet like yourself.
Beam forming related the air fiber technology within the 24 Ghz, the mobile solution for 5g will likely see a wimax/lte service stream with backhaul linking with air fiber.. as link back to exchange given the financial costs in spectrum licensing of the actual service
Given disaster on the telstra floating on the stock exchange, I believe as a wholesale only vendor, NBN co should remain under the governments books it is a very bad idea to go selling infrastructure when you don't have a retail arm split..
technical limitations of fttn makes it pointless option to install as is the latter fttdp.. these services will be created similar to the current FoD type payment scheme...
Dude, do you want me back? I've already offered. You want me gone?
But you were asked to come here weren't you? Who asked BTW?
I would bet that they will quote you the old "Commercial in Confidence" line for any request on cost...
With an average cost of $13,000 for Fibre on Demand, you can tell immediately that they are currently not able to connect any further fibre from the node itself...
Okay. But a context would be helpful.
I'm sorry for any embarrassment that may cause
I don't get embarrassed...I get even! <insert evil laugh>
Okay, I do think we are on the same page there
Then write a new damn article! ;) LOL
Happy for any input here! Seriously.
Make my questions bullet proof.
OK, well I guess best to list the claims they have made and where they fail.
1) FTTN can be upgraded to G.Fast.
a) Replacing cards in the node. Only useful for houses with about 150m of the node, beyond that VDSL2 is faster, so card solution only works for 5-10% of premises.
b) FTTdp is a FTTN upgrade. Requires fibre to be run past every house, there isn't enough fibre run to the node to support it, so extra fibre will be needed back to the POI, especially since while rolling out there needs to be a coexistence period. Nothing from FTTN is reused.
I can't think of all the bogus claims made over the years. It's like wack a mole, knock down one, another will pop up. Maybe that is the main failure of the press, they don't know the technology and don't know when they are being bull shitted to. The few that do and have called them out on it like Budde and Gregory, are subject to attacks from Turnbull's tame "analysts"
Okay. But a context would be helpful.
This is about the FoD program that has been in place for well over a year now.
In the Senates "Questions on Notice" (hopefully one of the kind posters will post the copy AGAIN...:), they confirmed that of all the 1st applications taken, only 5 went to the second application. Of those, only 3 went through with the project at an average cost of implementation of ~$13,000 each to get from FTTN to FTTP.
When you receive the quotes (each quote costs $300+), you must first sign a non-disclosure agreement.
The new fibre connection goes from the home, all the way back to the closest multiport or fibre origin (usually the exchange), hence the pricing. It bypasses the node altogether.
We have seen quotes of as much as $50,000, which is a cost that is in line with the node bypass indicated.
Then write a new damn article! ;) LOL
I'm sorry Viditor :) I believe in the original one. I know how much distress it causes you but the original was designed merely to question the biz model for A. I hope that doesn't offend you.
I know how much distress it causes you
Not distress mate, disappointment would be closer...
the original was designed merely to question the biz model
OK, but it also ignores the larger economic picture...so how can it be accurate?
In other words, it is dealing with the NBN like it was selling widgets, when in fact it is a National Infrastructure...
Edit: BTW, I said a "new" article, not a rewrite...if you agree with many of these points as you've said, then pays yo money and takes yo chances. Write about it...
Viditor writes...
Make my questions bullet proof
Okay
I think you just failed the Turing test.
Okay
When the NBN 2015/16 report comes out, read it carefully, it'll be no doubt be 150 pages+.
Then comment. I'll be all ears!!
Edit: BTW, I said a "new" article, not a rewrite...if you agree with many of these points as you've said, then pays yo money and takes yo chances. Write about it...
Thanks Viditor, I'm horrified by the sense of conflict that this may create between us bit I cannot retreat from the thesis I originally presented. You can ignore the larger economic picture but it will not vanish. This was not an off-the-cuff piece. This was thought out and based on literally a decade of observation.
I wish you the best you magnificent minion!
AC
I believe in the original one
Quotes are good, even if just an article?
Any relation to this tangent?
Thanks Viditor, I'm horrified by the sense of conflict that this may create between us bit I cannot retreat from the thesis I originally presented. You can ignore the larger economic picture but it will not vanish. This was not an off-the-cuff piece. This was thought out and based on literally a decade of observation.
I wish you the best you magnificent minion!
AC
Sorry guys,
No, I'm not diverting from the original thesis. No disrespect intended to anyone I just can't back away from something that I have developed over more than a decade. I hope that's understandable.
Stay well
AC
Any relation to this tangent?
What do you think the increase in mobile broadband is attributable to? Yes, it is reducing, but is a really a fixed line competitor?
I know I have my own ideas, but they are based on my own personal experience. It'd be nice to have data showing where these extra connections and data use come from.
From my personal experience. My mobile connections have increased from 0 to 4 mobile data accounts over the last 7 years. None are used except on rare occasions they are simply because they and mobile enabled devices or backup in case my fixed line fails.
The people I know using mobile broadband for home use are in new estates or areas where RIMs are filled where fixed line wasn't available.
Those I know whose mobile broadband data usage has skyrocketed is because they give their ipad to their kids to keep them amused when they are out.
What term is that though?
No. We just should have been more honest about its role.
well it was obvious that some on the board were trying to suck up to Mal, trying to keep their paypackets and gold stars (did them a lot of good, didn't it)
It starts to look like Quigley's resignation had more to do with the NBNCo board than a future Coalition government and I suspect this might be the reason. The cracks were starting to show in the NBNCo from the time McKenna was appointed as chair. You can see it in the change in format and style of the 2013 corporate plan. It's got management consultant written all over it.
Pity. I would have liked to have seen a confrontation between Turnbull and Quigley. I know Quigley would have been sacked but he would have caused Turnbull no end of pain.
BTW, at the time of renewing his salary, it was still unclear as to who the election winner would be
The 2PP polling in April 2013 was 55-45 in favour of the Coalition. Hardly unclear imo.
The 2PP polling in April 2013 was 55-45 in favour of the Coalition
But the leader had yet to be chosen...and that was a HUGE question mark. There's a reason very few politicians actually take the polls as gospel. It wasn't until August that it was clear that the choice of Rudd wasn't going to save the Labor party...
Wait for the annual report. The figures will be telling.
Geo you're sop is to keep telling us Whirlpoolians to wait for this and that to come out and it will make it all clear for everyone. Obfuscation. Really it's pretty clear already where the failures are with the LNP's disastrous MTM. In fact it was not only predictable .... it was predicted.
Edit: tpyo, tyypo, typo
Can't blame him. He was persecuted by the libs to the extreme.
The Libs wouldn't even let Mike Quigley drink coffee in peace; the NBN Co coffee machines were the Daleks and Conroy was Davros.
/s
there's no grey areas, there's facts and then there are lies and propaganda!
No, its facts vs. opinions. And there probably are areas where a clear 'truth' doesn't exist or isn't known.
We must ALL stop using such emotive language.
Just because one side uses terms likes 'Fibre Zealots' doesn't mean we need to climb down to their level.
They are on the wrong side of this argument and as technical momentum grows in favour of FTTP they will get increasingly desperate in the defence of the indefensible.
I have been trying to hold ground on the basis of what I believe.
And here we finally come to the truth of YOUR problem and the problem of many who argue (and fail) the clear, logical, factual poofs littered throughout the many pages of this very thread alone.
You can believe anything you want to but that doesn't make it so. You need to put aside your beliefs and start looking at the reality, The actual reality. The facts. Because until you do this you will be just another flat-earther.
its facts vs. opinions
I'd say in this regard its even worse... its facts vs. beliefs. yay for magic and rainbows!
Your choice...but honestly I have not seen anything in your responses or reasoning to justify this. Hence my disappointment...
His problem is he has formed a belief system based on propaganda and isn't willing to reexamine his position. This is what happens when folks aren't willing to look at the facts with an open mind.
No, its facts vs. opinions.
It's very convenient for people to say "I believe" because that does not imply that they are absolutely sure. Remember, a belief is something that does not require proof. When you say you believe your child does not do the wrong thing, you do not then follow them to make sure.
"In my opinion" is what they should say, however this implies that the person has adequately considered all aspects of the argument and based on that, they have come to that opinion.
Politics is all about beliefs for this very reason, and their followers are believers.
Newspapers and online news services now are more opinion publishers than news publishers, and they should not be calling their pieces "opinion pieces", but "beliefs", only that does not sell their offerings. Call them "opinion pieces", and the average member of the public thinks that it's a conclusion arrived at after careful consideration.
His problem is he has formed a belief system based on propaganda and isn't willing to reexamine his position. This is what happens when folks aren't willing to look at the facts with an open mind.
I must sadly agree...
Remember, a belief is something that does not require proof.
That's the liberal church of ideology for you..
Newspapers and online news services now are more opinion publishers than news publishers, and they should not be calling their pieces "opinion pieces", but "beliefs", only that does not sell their offerings. Call them "opinion pieces", and the average member of the public thinks that it a conclusion arrived at after careful consideration.
If you get a chance, watch the end of John Oliver's Last week Tonight S3E20 (episode 79).
An absolutely brilliant piece about modern journalism that talks about this very thing...funny as hell!
The code has been adapted to suit the NBN -
https://github.com/james-atkinson/speedcomplainer
If anyone is interested :)
The code has been adapted to suit the NBN -
https://github.com/james-atkinson/speedcomplainer
If anyone is interested :)
Unfortunately if I was to use that on my non-nbn� non-upgraded adsl1 connection it'd probably hog the little bandwidth I currently 'enjoy'!
his resignation timed exactly with when that stopped being an unknown quantity. I would have done the same...
Given the level of attack, much under parliamentary privilege, to which he'd been subjected for years, perhaps it's a wonder it wasn't sooner. The concept of attacking people, who due to their position can't reply in kind, is one of the ugliest aspects of our public life.
A decent, honourable person like Mike Quigley would feel they'd got Buckley's when faced with that.
Analysed what those companies did
Mark Gregory and Paul Budde are internationally recognised & respected analysts and commentators. They have a great track record in the comms industry, including recognition of their vital independence.
Their telling analyses of the multiple shortcomings of the MTM fiasco come as a breath of fresh air after much of the crony-based prestidigitation we have seen in spades from other sources.
Just because one side uses terms likes 'Fibre Zealots'
That's only because it seems clear that no remotely rational person could mount an effective technical defense of the appalling MTM miasma as a 'replacement' for the NBN.
prestidigitation
Wow texmex. Who challenged you to use that word in a sentence. Your local Mensa Chapter?
Wow texmex. Who challenged you to use that word in a sentence. Your local Mensa Chapter?
It was magical...;)
It was magical... ;)
Thank you � perhaps nearly as literally fantastic as the stream of propaganda public relations guff emanating from A Well Known Network Company and their political sponsors. :-P
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét