They are fixing the rest and getting people off of satellite
Do you really think a couple of thousand people will make a difference? But ironically it will cost a lot of dollars to give people getting sat to give them FTTP. Their budget will be blown if they did.
Why make up these excuses when they are so lame?
Do you really think a couple of thousand people will make a difference?
A couple of thousand? More like a couple of hundred thousand...that is what Labor designed the Sat system for...it was the LNP that doubled it.
Immediately one suspects that where you don't have overlap and that the Optus HFC exists only then it would be safe to assume that these area's will go FTTH given that Optus has stated they were going to decommission the HFC in 2018 anyway!
Which is exactly the situation I am in now with Optus HFC 100/2, minimal peak hour congestion after an HFC upgrade earlier this year, the nearest Telstra HFC approx. 4km as the crow flies, and the NBN HFC build scheduled to commence sometime in the next 6 months, and RFS sometime in the next 6-12 months according to the last NBN Co schedule that found its way into the public arena.
errr. what? got any links for this claim?
Google it. Most FTTP growth is concentrated in Asia, VDSL and HFC in Europe and NA.
That's about the best that can be done right now mate.
Do you understand how big a project the NBN is? to put it simply, imagine driving a car. What you seem to want is for them to slam the breaks on while going 100km/h down the highway, jump into a different car, then take off in the other direction.
Guess what would happen If you did that? a bloody great wreck is what.
Why is it the best that can be done? Gubbermint could simply pay contractors to finish the existing works, and then figure out how much it will cost to upgrade the copper path to fiber, and then sign a bunch of new contracts to see the work done. Given much of the fiber is already laid, and the work force is nearing its peak, surely it would be far more costly to have to come back later and start all over again, so why not strike while the irons hot? It's because deep down, in your heart of hearts, you know FTTN and HFC are fine for current needs and the additional expense of overlaying with fiber is not worth it in the current economic and budget environment.
Why make up these excuses when they are so lame?
Only you can answer why you support the party that is making your connection (and the whole network, and the economy) worse.
FTTN and John Howard.
Make what you think of it.
Telstra made a welcome contribution to our salaries at Fairfax yesterday with $250,000 worth of full-page ads in the major daily newspapers. Ker-ching . . . thanks for that, Sol.
But like many advertising campaigns, the fact of the ads says more than what is in them.
Things must be going badly for Telstra. Yesterday's full-pagers were specifically aimed at the Prime Minister, John Howard, to get him to overrule those absolute bounders at the ACCC on fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) broadband.
Apparently Communications Minister Helen Coonan sort of, kind of, agreed to Telstra's demands two weeks ago, but Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel reminded her that there is a process of consultation to go through.
Last night, at a black-tie dinner in Hobart, Samuel held up his own advertisement in reply to Telstra's (although he is too stingy to contribute to Fairfax Media's coffers by actually buying space in the papers). It was simply a copy of Telstra's ad with the words "At What Price?" across it in blue.
What a ludicrous, farcical business Australia's progress towards true high-speed broadband has become.
Samuel knows exactly what price Telstra is proposing because he knocked it back, but he can't say what it is because he is bound by confidentiality agreements. Our political representative, Senator Coonan, also knows, but she won't say. Telstra obviously knows, but it won't say until it has bullied someone into agreeing to the price, in private.
Telstra's Phil Burgess mumbled a few weeks ago that it was in the mid-80s that is, around $85 per month per service, wholesale access. He then changed his mind and said the entry price is more like $60.
The competing G9 proposal started at $21 to $24, but that turns out to be the absolute entry level as well, and now they are saying the average is less than half Telstra's price, that is, around $40. Or is it $45?
It is suggested that Telstra's entry level $60 price will only apply to relatively slow speeds. The price of true high-speed broadband using FTTN will actually be around $85 a month wholesale. That means the retail price will be around $100 a month.
Gubbermint could simply pay contractors to finish the existing works
That is what they ARE doing...
Sorry, that is what Labor is promising to do...big difference. ;)
you know FTTN and HFC are fine for current needs
Actually, what I know is that this is absolutely untrue...
Google it.
Thank you for admitting that it was not true.
Gubbermint could simply pay contractors to finish the existing works, and then figure out how much it will cost to upgrade the copper path to fiber, and then sign a bunch of new contracts to see the work done.
You really need to real the policy you're talking about � if you do, you'll see that's exactly what's proposed.
FTTN and HFC are fine for current needs
Why do people like you keep claiming this against all evidence?
Why do people like you keep claiming this against all evidence?
To bollock up any kind of logic.
:0>
Malcolm Turnbull's Second Rate NBN:
https://www.facebook.com
it was the LNP that doubled it.
Why do you make up lies like that?
Everyone knows that even Mike Quigley said 3% of premises.
You lose all credibility when you just make stuff up.
Even when NBN Co were missing their targets by millions
Which targets were missed by millions � or were you simply exaggerating?
and costs were skyrocketing
Which were these? Are you talking about the Strategic Review? Some other financial report from NBNCo which shows costs 'skyrocketing'?
Allocating to IA now after almost a decade is a bit johnny come lately.
Asking IA to report on how to get to FttP from FttP would be a bit silly wouldn't it?
Do you really think a couple of thousand people will make a difference?
1% is 110,000 (based on 11 million premises).
The original plan was to connect 200,000 � the LNP DOUBLED the number to 400,000.
Google it. Most FTTP growth is concentrated in Asia, VDSL and HFC in Europe and NA.
Right, so fantasy then.
could simply pay contractors to finish the existing works, and then figure out how much it will cost to upgrade the copper path to fiber, and then sign a bunch of new contracts to see the work done.
...so you did read the ALP NBN policy, but want it to be the LNP policy.
FTTN and HFC are fine for
Deep down, in my heart of hearts, I know FTTN and HFC are not suitable for anything except disposing of.
the additional expense of overlaying with fiber
You mean the $56b the LNP govt is spending? or the ~$1b the ALP wants to spend to fix what they can?
in your heart of hearts, you know FTTN and HFC are fine for current needs and the additional expense of overlaying with fiber is not worth it in the current economic and budget environment.
The big question for you is, do you actually believe we should be spending billions and many years on something that only fills current needs?
If you do then, then you are pretty much saying we we should only build roads that is just enough capacity for the amount of cars today.. which is absolutely absurd.
In announcing a policy to ditch Malcolm Turnbull's favoured method of broadband delivery entirely, Labor has made a political decision that will play well with large portions of the electorate, who have never been sold on the idea that his decision to pursue fibre to the node (FTTN) was technically or financially prudent.
this is a bold move that hits the government (and particularly the Prime Minister) in a notable weak spot.
However those that have been connected to FTTN already, or who have missed out on the NBN so far in relevant areas, will be back on the path to FTTP under Labor.
Labor's new plan would however put it in direct contradiction with the man currently charged with running the show, former Vodafone Australia boss Bill Morrow.
selling its message will be a big challenge for opposition spokesman for communications Jason Clare, as FTTN Vs FTTP cannot be summed up in a TV news-friendly soundbite.
Well Mr Smith, how about your masthead's owners (Fairfax) help sell the message a wee bit more thoroughly and repeatedly, than from the last Federal election to today.
Still no editorial or opinion in this article about whether the labor policy is more in the national interest than the Federal Coalitions.
Labors FTTH was previously fully costed a point made here refuting the lies provided to you by turnbull entirely!
You just made me spill my tea.
The ALP FttH was not fully costed at all! They had no direct plan for multi dwelling apartment complexes at all.
They had no direct plan for connecting multi tenanted business parks and locations.
To say that the ALP was fully costed then is as much laughable as their $57 billion cap is now!
Fixed that for you.
Hahaha! Thank you.
Google it. Most FTTP growth is concentrated in Asia, VDSL and HFC in Europe and NA.
I guess your not using google correctly then.
http://www.fiercetelecom.com
Why do you make up lies like that?
The Sat system was originally designed to accommodate around 200,000 premises...the LNP expanded that to 400,000.
An apology would be nice...
You're welcome.
It is suggested that Telstra's entry level $60 price will only apply to relatively slow speeds. The price of true high-speed broadband using FTTN will actually be around $85 a month wholesale. That means the retail price will be around $100 a month.
Thanks for that 2007 article Shane.
Today, it costs at least $150 per month wholesale to get 1 Gbps on the NBN.
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
The original plan was to connect 200,000
More lies?
It was 3%. Always was 3% and still is 3%.
It must be a hard sell when you have to tell lies to make up your argument.
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
The ability to deliver
leading to
Economy of scale
The ability to deliver
leading to
Economy of scale
That's just as vague as Labor's policy.
More lies?
https://delimiter.com.au/201
In fact Turnbull commented on Labor's plan...
In 2012, when he was Shadow Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull said: �There is enough capacity on private satellites already in orbit or scheduled for launch for the NBN to deliver broadband to the 200,000 or so premises in remote Australia without building its own.�
Now go read page 9...
http://www.nbnco.com.au/
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
I see you've moved on from asking for Labor's policy details.
Since this point appears to be of importance to you, what are the Coalition's plans for gigabit services?
The ability to deliver
Based on how the NBN started, then this is the "theory" behind the ability to deliver vs the actual ability to deliver...?
Again, having a paper on what they want to achieve to win an election is one thing. Actually committing to and successfully putting a paper plan into action is another.
Today, it costs at least $150 per month wholesale to get 1 Gbps on the NBN
At our head office we pay $1500 a month retail for 100/100 fibre. Given the option to pay a fraction of this at the same speed or a similar price for gigabit, I would probably get something in the middle.
Thirdly, which party doubled the number of users that are to be on satellite?
Well to be honest this may actually turn out to be a bad underestimation of the demand on the part of NBNCo in initially.
The number of users covered hasn't changed significantly (AIUI), however, the expected number of users taking up a service has increased dramatically. I seem to recall that the second satellite was primarily there as a backup for the first. If this is the case the problem may not be as bad as feared because the second can be used for additional capacity rather than simply backup (until / unless one fails)
It remains to be seen exactly how the satellite situation plays out. The ISS oversupply issues led to the implementation of the new limits being set for satellite users. It may be that the initial demand profiling is actually correct and this would mean increased limits on the satellite service.
I see you've moved on from asking for Labor's policy details.
I'm happy that they released their policy today. Congratulations to Labor for stepping up to the plate.
Since this point appears to be of importance to you, what are the Coalition's plans for gigabit services?
It can't reduce much because the NBN Co has to make a return. I would prefer that the NBN be reduced in scope or that it be subsidised by the taxpayer to make broadband more affordable in the long term, but no party wants to do that.
Overall Labor has released a pragmatic, fiscally responsible and sensible plan that should be supported.
Those left with substandard broadband in the short term can only blame Turnbull and the Coalition.
I agree, at least it's a start and includes a means to get back on track long term.
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
I agree...and that (in my mind) will be a priority over the next year or 2.
That said, their deployment plan is excellent and is probably the only way to get out of the horrific position that Turnbull has put us in...
We certainly need affordable gigabit internet by 2020...
At our head office we pay $1500 a month retail for 100/100 fibre.
No one is going to pay that much and yet Labor's plan relies on people voluntarily paying more over the long term.
Today, it costs at least $150 per month wholesale to get 1 Gbps on the NBN.
LOL, so 6Mbps and 1000Mbps are equivalent in your mind?
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
The Coalition still hasn't detailed any plan fullstop.
To that end he announced prior to the last election that FTTH would be delivered further and deeper into both the Satellite and Wireless footprints and that this would be done at no additional cost to budget ensuring that the Satellite service was provided to those who live beyond the economic reach of FTTH
That is hard to believe since they could not even deliver FTTH to metro areas on time, delivering FTTH to remote areas was not believable.
Labor is not even spruiking rolling FTTH to remote areas in this election.
At our head office we pay $1500 a month retail for 100/100 fibre. Given the option to pay a fraction of this at the same speed or a similar price for gigabit, I would probably get something in the midd
Business connections whom need agreements in place are different to residential users.
Your business likely has a special Businsss type connection where certain SLA' s are to be delivered.
If someone really wants a guaranteed 100MBps at any time of the day under nbn then they would need to fork out $1,750 a month.
No one is going to pay that much and yet Labor's plan relies on people voluntarily paying more over the long term.
Paying more of course...hell, inflation alone will take its toll in that. But there is also the expectation that over time, more people will use broadband. This is certainly proving true as even the elderly are increasing internet usage at a huge rate.
It must be a hard sell when you have to tell lies to make up your argument.
I'm glad you finally acknowledge that's what you're doing.
More ppl are probably watching TV and on news sites on the internet to catch up with info on the Orlando shooting. Whilst they're watching they'll see the Labor NBN policy news.
No, think of it this way. Bill Shorten is on QandA tonight and knows it's the question the audience has been asking.
Genetic Modified Zealot writes...
Business connections whom need agreements in place are different to residential users
But those agreements (while still important to some) are much less important with a network that doesn't break all the time and has a far more predictable throughput rate.
oday, it costs at least $150 per month wholesale to get 1 Gbps on the NBN.
Incorrect, it costs A$ 17.50 x 1000 = A$ 17,500 wholesale to get 1Gbs on the NBN.
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
No party has an answer to that, as the revenue of NBN Co is heavily based on CVC revenue. CVC as we all know is a financial instrument and not a technical instrument. In fact it totally doesn't make any sense for innovative purposes to restrict bandwidth on media that is by nature "unlimited" in bandwidth. That why it is not done anywhere overseas in FTTP roll outs.
But sadly the politicians and NBN Co have not progressed to that higher level of thinking.
Actually committing to and successfully putting a paper plan into action is another.
The ALP were doing that until September 2013. By contrast, the Coalition have failed to fulfil any of the promises of their 2013 broadband policy.
The Coalition still hasn't detailed any plan fullstop.
No-one has any plans and that's the scary part.
No one is going to pay that much
LOL, you quote someone saying they pay that much then claim that no one is going to pay that much?
fibre-to-the-basement,
Ok, so previously MDUs were in the FTTP footprint under previous policy. Now they are not. Makes sense, though upgrade path for body corp to remediate work to upgrade to FTTP themselves I would hope be in the longer term plans.
LOL, you quote someone saying they pay that much then claim that no one is going to pay that much?
Yes, because people don't have a spare $1500 lying around under their bed.
you quote someone saying they pay that much then claim that no one is going to pay that much?
Ah Irony, thy name is KingForce? :)
https://delimiter.com.au/201
what are the Coalition's plans for gigabit services?
Spend the winter months in another country in the Northern Hemisphere that has GB speeds?
No-one has any plans and that's the scary part.
Wow, that rivals your backflip about fraudulent RFS the other day, less than half an hour from acknowledging the existence of the ALP policy to pretending it doesn't exist.
Yes, because people don't have a spare $1500 lying around under their bed.
Yet Raoul claims people should pay $10,000 for FOD if they want better than the MTM disaster can provide...
But sadly the politicians and NBN Co have not progressed to that higher level of thinking.
Ever since new age economics calls for not only user pays but super quick repayment of debt we have this ridiculous situation that goods and services are priced out of our reach. They say infrastructure debt is wrong � and that's what's causing the financial crisis everywhere (the German austerity model).
Japan has the right idea (as floated at the G7) � Governments should be spending more on infrastructure to stimulate the economy, increase consumer confidence and get consumers spending. Not much point in spending on high speed internet when we can't afford genuine high speed � just a service inferior to what we already have in lots of ways!
If built has already started then you're stuck with FTTN
But what if the build has not started if your area and there is absolutely no NBN physical activity in your area? In my area (Whyalla) back in September 2013 when the Coalition came to power, NBNCo was to start the planning process of FTTP for Whyalla in March of 2014. But the Liberals had no problem cancelling Whyalla along with half the country of the FTTP build.
Could this not also apply now to areas that are earmarked to get FTTN now/near future but with no physical activity in your area, no build contracts would have been signed off yet. My understanding under Labor's old FTTP all the planning/pre-build activity had to be completed first, then the actual build contracts are issued/signed off last. That's how Turnbull was able to cancel all those planned/up coming FTTP builds. Could Labor not do the same here if they win office???
How does one find out if their house is in the 39% that will get fibre to the premise?
No-one has any plans and that's the scary part.
What's next in your conga line of logic?
No plans, no money, no value.
No point.
Apart from a writedown of the NBN ASAP, what do you think the Government of the day should do with NBN Co and the NBN/MTM from here (Kingforce)?
The ALP were doing that until September 2013
No they weren't.
They were failing dismally. The plan on paper was wonderful. The execution of the plan was appalling.
The end result was Malcolm reinventing the policy poorly when the LNP came to power.
If the plan had started well, the execution of the plan went well, the LNP would have had no alternative but to continue.
But because the plan went balls up very quickly, it gave rise to an alternative.
No-one has any plans and that's the scary part.
They got plans plenty, but nobody is capable of stepping up to the plate and see the complete picture.
Now I understand from political perspective, winning the voters, the total picture is rather overwhelming and not really a way to get the vote. But as parties you should have a clear Telecommunication policy. That is not coming forward. That is scary, I agree and not good for Australia.
The sad thing is that NBN Co is unable to deliver commercial world results until the Telecommunication policies and regulations are revamped completely.
How does one find out if their house is in the 39% that will get fibre to the premise?
It will be too early to tell for sure. If you aren't on the 3 year rollout plan you should be ok though.
Merimbula is due to start in H1 2017, with delays I hope no plans have been signed off on, assuming people vote the right way of course.
That's just as vague as Labor's policy.
Nothing vague about deploying access technologies that can actually deliver the speeds which you're referring to.
fraudulent RFS the other day,
Today, on the Coalition's NBN, there are about 40,000 are on a service class zero or an equivalent. That about 2.6% of the fixed line footprint.
Over 95% on fixed line can order straight away from the Coalition's NBN.
In September 2013 one third of fibre premises could not order a service from Labor's NBN.
The execution of the plan was appalling.
How so � apart from being nobbled by the LNP ,the plan you are referring to has delivered all the FTTP connections which exist today, has seen the launch of the satellite and fixed wireless services and last, but not least, saw the building of the transit network, POI, FAN, etc...
Now compare that to the LNP who have manged to connect a few tens of thousands to their copper based mess.
But what if the build has not started if your area and there is absolutely no NBN physical activity in your area?
If they have purchased hardware (nodes, fibre cable specific to FTTN � all of which have to be ordered well in advance) they you are locked in.... and FTTN for you.
If they have signed contracts with firms to install FTTN � even if they haven't started � that would cost big money to get out of those contracts � FTTN for you as well.
No one is going to pay that much
And yet businesses do today � you can't deny facts...
It will be too early to tell for sure. If you aren't on the 3 year rollout plan you should be ok though
Actually, anything that won't go RFS in the next 2 years should be okay (it takes about 18 months or just over to go from issuing design instructions to being RFS).
And they could make FTTN workable in the meantime by specifying 10GigE for the back haul for existing builds.
How does one find out if their house is in the 39% that will get fibre to the premise?
I assume, generally speaking, you don't already have FTTN and are not in an area where that is starting soon and you're not in a HFC area.
Over 95% on fixed line can order straight away from the Coalition's NBN.
So why are they choosing not to � cue deadening silence....
Over 95% on fixed line can order straight away from the Coalition's NBN.
Check out results from real people in Cannington and Doubleview (two of the first "production" areas for FTTN) � the number who can't get connected although sites tell them they can is huge.
Just like politicians claim you are fully employed if you work 20 hours a week.... they also fiddle the NBN stats to their own end (the LNP seem better at twisting stats than Labor � but both can be good when convenient).
By contrast, the Coalition have failed to fulfil any of the promises of their 2013 broadband policy.
Not according to Turnbull on the radio just now. He was spewing lies about how bad this new ALP plan is and how good his MTM is and they have met or exceeded all their goals.
Turnbull conveniently failed to mention that he changed the goal posts so the goals could be met, otherwise his MTM train wreck would be seen as the dismal failure that it is...
Ever since new age economics
Odd isn't?
Politicians all talk innovation, yet they are unable to formulate a complete policy over one (or many portfolio's) which actually contributes to being innovative. The talking about it, but it is only limited to talking about it as a definition. Yet to see the contributing factors that lead to innovation, they are unable to define.
No they weren't.
Yes they were.
They were failing dismally.
Not according to any credible analysis.
The execution of the plan was appalling.
According to...?
If the plan had started well, the execution of the plan went well, the LNP would have had no alternative but to continue.
The LNP plan was based on lies, both about their policy and about the NBN � the reality of the rollout had nothing to do with it.
Why do you make up lies like that?
Whose lieing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
Mike Quigley said the satellite design was "not easy", because the required coverage is about "five per cent of the world's land mass" containing "at least 200,000 premises" spread across "over 7,000 kilometres" of area between Cocos Islands and Norfolk Island
You owe that user an apology!
They were failing dismally.
They really weren't...nor were they succeeding heroically. They were exactly where they should have been, in the startup phase of a massive decade long project to rebuild the nations communications.
Today, on the Coalition's NBN, there are about 40,000 are on a service class zero or an equivalent.
Isn't it amazing that not bothering to rollout FTTP will stop people being put in a status where they're not yet able to order a FTTP service?
Over 95% on fixed line can order straight away from the Coalition's NBN.
Please cite your sources.
In September 2013 one third of fibre premises could not order a service from Labor's NBN.
Any other old myths you want to bring out?
But because the plan went balls up very quickly, it gave rise to an alternative.
To follow your line of thinking, what was the alternative?
Wrecking the NBN? The MTM-policy? Or was it simply about serving vested interests?
Please cite your sources.
In the weekly report on NBN Co's website. Been there for ages.
Different from when Labor was in charge. They only reported official stats every three months.
Different from when Labor was in charge. They only reported official stats every three months.
What do you think about the fact the LNP are now reporting once a year?
In the weekly report on NBN Co's website.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious � I'm after credible sources.
Different from Labor which only reported official stats every three months.
I'm sure you're aware that nbn� don't want to report anything at all, including rollout maps and lists.
Wrecking the NBN?
Yes. Exactly that. The policy was failing in the cost estimate. And we all know costs are more of a political football than anything else.
Because the ALP math was wildly wrong in their assessments, the next govt had an easy political alternative. That alternative was "we will spend less cash".
I'm after credible sources.
Those figures match with what Morrow said at estimates. NBN Co would be lying to parliament if those figures were wrong.
on fixed line can order straight away from the Coalition's NBN.
LOL � tell that to the people waiting to be serviced from this node � https://delimiter.com.au/2016
and all the opthers like it where the node is not even powered up yet.
They were exactly where they should have been, in the startup phase of a massive decade long project to rebuild the nations communications.
Three months behind schedule on average. If NBN Co at that time said they would enable in January, we planned on April. Mostly we were spot on and were able to do a pre and post marketing campaign within 30 days over each other when an area was activated.
Those figures match with what Morrow said at estimates.
Again, I'm after credible sources.
NBN Co would be lying to parliament if those figures were wrong.
Wow, what a shock that would be.
lying to parliament if those figures were wrong
Something we all agree on � NBN not telling the truth and the whole truth to parliament.
That alternative was "we will spend less cash".
Which went out the window for something that is diabolically worse.
Over 95% on fixed line can order straight away from the Coalition's NBN.
In September 2013 one third of fibre premises could not order a service from Labor's NBN.
I consider that there are pros and cons to both approach. While Coalition wants everyone in RFS to connect, I'd argue it slows down the overall national rollout and reduces revenue opportunities. Labor approach got coverage out nationally faster to early adopters and higher revenue in particular, arguably cheaper, but didn't adequately address the hard 20% in the 18 months. If we didn't have the Telstra constraint again, I'd tend to argue the Labor/NZ approach is superior for a national rollout.
The policy was failing in the cost estimate.
According to...?
Because the ALP math was wildly wrong in their assessments, the next govt had an easy political alternative. That alternative was "we will spend less cash".
If that was their alternative, why did they choose to lie instead?
the next govt had an easy political alternative. That alternative was "we will spend less cash"
And failed at that to � 29.5 Billion was the total they took to the 2013 election. Seems that it is okay for the LNP to just make shit up and at the same time Labor must be held to the highest level of accountability and scrutiny. Or to put it another way, one party lies and the other tells the truth?
Yes. Exactly that.
Do I get you right, that you blame Labor for the fact that the Liberals wrecked the NBN?
This would be new low if that is actually what you mean.
From the Harper Review: good government policy is to benefit all Australians.
Please explain to me, why is wrecking the NBN, good government policy?
Or do we agree that it is actually not policy at all but simply serving vested interests towards certain parties?
The ones that are giving us 35GB download limits with no increase in actual coverage, still 3% of premises.
Yes Labor well and truly fooled everyone on that when they said "next generation" internet.
Why would you trust them again.
When the alternative is LNP � There is sufficient Sat bandwidth existing. No need for anothe sat. 12Mbps is all anyone needs. � MT
Labor came up with the NBN Sat service. Extended the fixed line FTTP footprint to 93%
LNP did not publish the increased Sat utilisation, but added many towns and said the total was unchanged. Still using Eleventy's calculator
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
At least on the Labors plan, gigabit is technically possible. 4 gigabit is technically possible on Labors FTTP plan.
Libs plan it is impossible, without doing another rollout, costing how many more billions? And still won't be the fibre we inevitably need in the future.
And failed at that to � 29.5 Billion was the total they took to the 2013 election. Seems that it is okay for the LNP to just make shit up and at the same time Labor must be held to the highest level of accountability and scrutiny. Or to put it another way, one party lies and the other tells the truth?
No. Both parties lie. One is detrimental to the countries interests, the other is mediocre and union-driven...
I see Fifield has attempted to play the "deceit" card, and not allowed his "critique" of Labor's plan to be called into question... by cutting off the journalists. Hopefully this policy will give a good swing against the "Noambition" party.
What do you think about the fact the LNP are now reporting once a year?
It's worse than that � they don't want to publish the reports at all, instead they only want to provide them to RSPs (who are controlled by gag orders).
At our head office we pay $1500 a month retail for 100/100 fibre.
No one is going to pay that much and yet Labor's plan relies on people voluntarily paying more over the long term.
We have clients paying more than that for under 10Mbps, I guarantee they would love to pay less for more, as would everyone.
At our head office we pay $1500 a month retail for 100/100 fibre
The irony of this should not be lost on us all � remember the cost of broadband every time the LNP says that they are the party for small business.
It's worse than that � they don't want to publish the reports at all, instead they only want to provide them to RSPs (who are controlled by gag orders).
NBNco has gone mafia style.
No one is going to pay that much and yet Labor's plan relies on people voluntarily paying more over the long term.
Actually it relies on people paying more for higher speeds and larger data quotas. As network speeds increase AVC prices fall and as network data usage increases CVC prices fall.
Actually it relies on people paying more for higher speeds and larger data quotas. As network speeds increase AVC prices fall and as network data usage increases CVC prices fall.
Yep � I don't think KIngForce understood this when I said economy of scale either...
The Sat system was originally designed to accommodate around 200,000 premises...the LNP expanded that to 400,000.
We've had this one before but let's do it again ...
Fifield says ...
nbn's high-capacity satellites will ultimately cover more than 400,000 homes ...
http://www.minister.com
The NBNCo corporate plan 2010 on page 77 says ...
Serve the remaining 7% of premises (1 million) by next generation wireless and satellite technologies, including developing a Satellite First Release solution.
... simple arithmetic will tell you that's ~428,000 covered by satellite.
You're welcome.
Extended the fixed line FTTP footprint to 93%
I just saw that stated on the news, but Labor now says that is not possible to do 93% and can only do 39%.
Why is that?
Did they have their digits messed up?
How does one find out if their house is in the 39% that will get fibre to the premise?
If construction is not planned to start prior to FY2017 you will likely get FttP if Labor are elected. There are no guarantees though.
I just saw that stated on the news,
They state a lot ... the news.
On twitter it was mentioned that a reporter of Sydney 702 stated today that FTTH will shift electricity costs onto home owners. You got some bright lights working in our media industry.
On twitter it was mentioned that a reporter of Sydney 702 stated today that FTTH will shift electricity costs onto home owners
I'm waiting for the bright spark to claim that Fibre is hollow and therefore will cause our homes to flood...
If they have purchased hardware (nodes, fibre cable specific to FTTN � all of which have to be ordered well in advance) they you are locked in.... and FTTN for you.
If they have signed contracts with firms to install FTTN � even if they haven't started � that would cost big money to get out of those contracts � FTTN for you as well.
But wouldn't that also have applied to FTTP under Labor in September 2013?? Hardware/fibre cables etc all specific to FTTP and ordered well in advance for builds to start/plan within 12 months of the Liberals taking office in September 2013. Yet they (Turnbull) killed off everything FTTP related except areas that had actually physically started.
I remember here on Whirlpool back in September 2013 and just after the election just about everyone here was saying that FTTP builds planned in the next 12 months would be safe, and even 3 year planned builds had a fair chance of being safe. Yet Turnbull canned all FTTP builds that weren't "chained down" or had physically started.
On twitter it was mentioned that a reporter of Sydney 702 stated today that FTTH will shift electricity costs onto home owners. You got some bright lights working in our media industry.
LOL oh dear.
You have to wonder what VDSL modems run on?
Kerosene or paraffin, Vodka or magic.
:0>
LOL oh dear.
You have to wonder what VDSL modems run on?
Kerosene or paraffin, Vodka or magic.
Unfortunately for the aging population that only uses their phone, this appears to be true. Under FTTP � they see an NTD which needs to be plugged into their own power. Currently, their phone is generally powered by the network. They don't understand what FTTN means...
If construction is not planned to start prior to FY2017 you will likely get FttP if Labor are elected. There are no guarantees though.
I'm in an area where construction won't start until then but have Telstra HFC. I gather that this Labor mention of FttP will likely be for areas without HFC. I'd sort of read some conflicting stuff paraphrasing as "if you were going to get HFC that won't change". Is that everyone's understanding as well?
... simple arithmetic will tell you that's ~428,000 covered by satellite.
I thought that satellite was originally intended for around 3% of premises.
Since around 9 million premises were intended to be covered, that would be about 270,000 premises.
Labor still hasn't detailed any plan to make gigabit speeds affordable.
Have the Libs? Why is the onus only on Labor?
Have the Libs? Why is the onus only on Labor?
The best way to make gigabit available is to make fibre available.
They were failing dismally. The plan on paper was wonderful. The execution of the plan was appalling.
Have you asked yourself why this happened? Lets ignore the asbestos delay (it would have been managed � at Telstras cost).
Consider the political climate at the time. This was definitely a factor in the deployment delays that are down to the prime contractors.
It has been said that the rollout rate proposed under the original plan were not achievable.
Consider this � on the 16/07/15 the rolling quarterly (13 week) weekly average for brownfield FttP peaked at 12267. This was ~45% of the required run rate forecast to be reach by the 2012 CP in FY2015. In a rollout where the focus had shifted almost entirely to FttN and HFC.
Edit: It could have been done but never got the chance.
I just saw that stated on the news, but Labor now says that is not possible to do 93% and can only do 39%.
Are you new here?
Is your question serious?
The LNP signed contracts for the HFC networks and fttn has already been built/there are contracts signed for this as well.
Instead of the original 93%, it's now (about):
20% FTTN
34% HFC
39% FTTP
7% fixed wireless/satellites
damn chose a good day to be really busy..
refresh and 10 pages to read sigh
Since around 9 million premises were intended to be covered, that would be about 270,000 premises.
I quoted from the 2010 corporate plan. I'll do it again, from Exhibit 1-7 on page 33 under "coverage" ...
13 million premises covered by FY2021, 93% by the Fibre Network (12 million), 7% by the Wireless Network or the Satellite Network.
The NBNCo says 13 million premises. I don't know where you get 9 million from. I'll take the NBNCo's number over yours.
Are you new here?
Is your question serious?
Go easy on the poster, ABC news reporter completely ballsed up his summary of the 39% by describing it as though Federal Labor was only going to cover 39% of the whole of Australia with NBN Services, when he should have tied in the 39% with the increased from up to 20% FTTP % of the MTM mix.
At our head office we pay $1500 a month retail for 100/100 fibre
Please keep in mind, I only brought this up to put into context that business will pay a premium where it is required for the operation of the business and because I think the revenue potential here is not discussed much in the public forums. By no means is this a comparison to NBN consumer services, this has a 99.99% uptime SLA and 1:1 contention. Three years ago, when this service was unavailable, we paid the same for 10/10. In three years time it should be 1000/1000. That won't happen with the MTM.
I believe in equity, I'm ok wih waiting while those under serviced get fibre, just get us all there eventually or a valid alternative.
Why is that?
Basically, Labor's original plan (of 93% FTTP � from back when they were in govt) is no longer possible due to the MTM rollout progress, so what they're doing is increasing the FTTP footprint � as it stands it's going to about about 19%, they want to increase it to 39%.
Meaning more people will have delicious fiber and proper bowel movements.
simple arithmetic will tell you that's ~428,000 covered by satellite
The issue is the expected take-up. Under the original Corporate Plan FW and sat are lumped together and takeup was expected to be very low (around 13% in FY2015 to ~24% in FY2021)
FW takeup is currently ~29%, and expected demand for the LTSS is expected to be much higher than initially forecast.
The issue is the expected take-up.
The figure for take up in the 2010 corporate plan was 200,000 (page 71). I think this is the number people are wrongly using as the number of premises covered.
The 2015 corporate plan (section 5.3) has a satellite take up figure for 2018 of 135,000. I don't know if there's a later figure.
I'm in an area where construction won't start until then but have Telstra HFC.
You are almost certainly going to get HFC judging by the policy release.
In fact Turnbull commented on Labor's plan...
Good for him.
Are you trying to say Labor were only going to cover 1.5% with satellite now. And the other 1.5% were going to get nothing from the NBN.
You see you can find even NBN co documents saying the satellites were 3% coverage. which is just around 400 000 premises. http://www.nbnco.com.au/conte
You seem to be saying the coalition were much more honest over the NBN. So why would anyone believe any Labor policy.
The figure for take up in the 2010 corporate plan was 200,000 (page 71)
The 200000 figure is more about the maximum capacity being planned for, rather than expected takeup.
The NSAS will deliver at least 12Mbps peak download speed, and an ABHT of 300Kbps, for up to 200,000 users. To meet this requirement, NBN Co will need to launch two 80Gbps Ka-Band (60Gbps forward path and 20Gbps return path) satellites, supported by a network of 10 � 15 transmitting and receiving stations known as Gateways.
The 2012 CP shows an estimated 232000 premises connected to FW and Sat by FY2021. There are already ~112000 FW active connections.
It was seriously underestimated.
You see you can find even NBN co documents saying the satellites were 3% coverage. which is just around 400 000 premises.
Surely you realise that 3% is not a precise figure, and that the actual figure can vary by 120,000 premises while still being considered 3% of premises, right?
You seem to be saying the coalition were much more honest over the NBN.
LOL, they honestly lied all the time and still do.
Election looms closer.. Labors NBN policy has been released...
Liberals release their trolls into the world.
It was seriously underestimated.
Quite possibly. But the Coalition figure for satellite coverage is 400,000, the same as it was under Labor. Unless we are now expecting 100% take up the claim that "The Sat system was originally designed to accommodate around 200,000 premises...the LNP expanded that to 400,000." is simply incorrect.
Not really...they do not need any "retooling".
Yes they do. They'll need to get rid of some of the tools, like the NBN Board, Morrow, and other nbn� stooges, etc. Or is that untooling?
Liberals release their trolls into the world.
They don't have a fully costed policy either!
No-one has any plans and that's the scary part.
No-one in the coalition has any plans and that's the scary part.
Actually the coalition is the scary part.
Looks like some of the boys are going to miss out on all that extra wholesome goodness fibre NBN workers are going to experience under any change of Government after the upcoming Federal Election.
Labor sources said the party has little faith in many of the "lackeys" Mr Turnbull brought into the organisation.
Mr Clare in the past blasted the appointment of NBN chairman Ziggy Switkowski, board member Justin Milne and senior executive JB Rousselot as "jobs for the boys".
Actually the coalition is the scary part.
They turned back the fibre.
Now it's Federal Labor's TIME to turn back the nodes and copper.
Mr Clare in the past blasted the appointment of NBN chairman Ziggy Switkowski, board member Justin Milne and senior executive JB Rousselot as "jobs for the boys".
Not to mention they directly profited from having nbnco buy back the copper network and signed contracts for the ongoing maintenance of said copper network while holding a significant amount of telstra shares.
Election looms closer.. Labors NBN policy has been released...
Liberals release their trolls into the world.
Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
The coalition will poo poo Labor's policy without releasing their own.
I guess we're waiting for it to download. LOL
The coalition will ..... Labor's policy without releasing their own.
I'm surprised that the Federal Coalition are taking any new policies to the the election.
Far less effort to just tell everyone how you've met or are on the way to meeting all your goals and targets.
Then discretely disperse a few porkies and pork barrels to marginal seats.
Like the fixed line little bad piggy that got catapulted over to the West Coast of Tasmania last week, and today's Townsville non-digital sporting content distribution system upgrade where those unable to stream their footy in 4/8K or virtual reality in/to the premise will no longer have to try and rely on a digital sporting experience, and will be forced off their bums to a shared sporting service centre (new stadium).
Election looms closer.. Labors NBN policy has been released...
Liberals release their trolls into the world.
In was inevitable. As soon as the policy was released, bam, whirlpool flooded. The usual suspects and then some.
How so?
To start with, it was totally uncosted.
They (the ALP) put a picked-from-the-air figure of $43 billion to build.
You could easily be talking about Turnbull there, some of his own party used similar language.
I agree. One simply off set the other.
The NBN has been more about chest beating than seriously providing a fully fibre based network solution to most parts of the country.
To start with, it was totally uncosted.
They (the ALP) put a picked-from-the-air figure of $43 billion to build.
Please substantiate that claim.
To start with, it was totally uncosted.
Nonsense.
They (the ALP) put a picked-from-the-air figure of $43 billion to build.
And four years later it was $45.6bn. Capex was pretty constant. Total funding increased due to roll out delays.
Compare that to the staggering blowout in Turnbull's costs.
hey (the ALP) put a picked-from-the-air figure of $43 billion to build.
That's rubbish. No one can "pluck a figure out of the air" and come up with a figure of $43 billion.
And, ALL projects start off with something sketched on a piece of paper. It makes for great politics, but shows a complete ignorance of the development process!
Election looms closer.. Labors NBN policy has been released...
Liberals release their trolls into the world.
The lengths they go to so they can protect their fraud. But then again their quality of trolling matches the quality of our internet.
Bleeding crap.
:0>
HOW DIFFICULT IS IT FOR NBN CO TO SWITCH TECHNOLOGIES?
Rod Tucker from the University of Melbourne believes it would be little trouble for NBN Co to switch back to a fibre-to-the-premises model.
�There is still the design and technical expertise within the company for carrying out fibre-to-the-premises installations,� he said. �There are plenty of those people around still � I don�t think it would be that much of a disruption.�
Mr Tucker also pointed to Labor�s commitment to honour all existing contracts as a way to ensure a smooth transition.
�For instance, where I�m living, I know the design stages are under way for my particular town. There�s been no work done yet but I guess under this plan obviously there�s a contract in place and that will continue with fibre to the node.�
Ok so for area's/towns still under "Build Prep" its pretty much locked in for FTTN regardless unless they for example find the copper network is in such a bad state and the only option sensible is FTTP instead
its pretty much locked in for FTTN regardless unless they for example find the copper network is in such a bad state and the only option sensible is FTTP instead
I predict that they'll be more than 39% FTTP as more and more FTTN areas are found to have too many issues with the copper.
They (the ALP) put a picked-from-the-air figure of $43 billion to build.
As opposed to the Coalition's $29.5 Billion figure that Turnbull waved about the House of Representatives?
*Facepalm*
And four years later it was $45.6bn. Capex was pretty constant. Total funding increased due to roll out delays.
Not entirely, you remember that the FTTP coverage increased from 90% to 93% and they also moved to build drops instead of demand drops.
Demand drops was expected to increase capex (and consequently peak funding) but also increase revenues and therefore a prudent measure.
This is why using the peak funding figure is a bull$hit measure, and I have said this for a while. It is no way to compare the two policies.
We have seen why in the recent budget, the MTM peak funding allegedly is lower but due to the use of obsolete access technologies and the need for upgrades it will struggle to raise the private debt.
The majority FTTP policy may have had a higher peak funding, but it had nearly the same government equity contribution but had a much greater capacity to raise private debt.
Does it really matter if the peak funding is higher if the same policy was better able to raise the additional debt?
I predict that they'll be more than 39% FTTP as more and more FTTN areas are found to have too many issues with the copper.
if the SoE requires NBN Co to take into account the TCO then this is almost certain.
So it seems that Labor will keep HFC with the view to upgrade it in the future, while building FTTP just about everywhere else. My question is of the ~20% FTTN how much of that is currently under construction?
I think the original Labor policy could have been improved using FttB with an upgrade path to FTTP, to speed up the rollout and get a lot more return sooner on the NBN.
Then again politics and those with no knowledge of how the techonology works got in the way suggesting wireless in 2010 and then FTTN in 2013. I often wonder if a conscience vote on the FTTP NBN was offered how many coalition members actually supported it. I think quite a few would have but Abbotts desire to make it a political issue got in the way. Certainly polls showed it was popular with coalition voters and independents and other parties all supported it.
Not entirely, you remember that the FTTP coverage increased from 90% to 93% and they also moved to build drops instead of demand drops.
The increase in FTTP coverage happened in the implementation study when the funding estimate was $42.8bn. Exhibit 16-6 in the 2013 corporate plan showed no change in capex from 2012, still $37.4bn.
This is why using the peak funding figure is a bull$hit measure, and I have said this for a while. It is no way to compare the two policies.
Total funding is what it costs to build. Capex is just part of the story.
Does it really matter if the peak funding is higher if the same policy was better able to raise the additional debt?
What matters is the NBNCo's ability to pay for the peak funding amount. Higher revenue and lower opex pays for more peak funding. That's why the MTM was never the most cost-effective solution.
What a surprise. An NBN free ABC TV 7:30 report tonight.
Yes, that is true, but he forgets to tell his fellow Australians is, that the largest amount of active services is actually on FTTP, fixed-wireless and Satellite which are all technologies in the technology mix of Labor's NBNv1.
Are you sure it's true? Didn't Quigley say they had 150,000 connected at his last Senate hearing?
But the Coalition figure for satellite coverage is 400,000, the same as it was under Labor.
Yes it is I agree completely (not withstanding the Tassie west coast reversal).
The problem is the difference between premises 'passed' (the ~400k) and premises that can actually have an active service (the ~200K maximum given the design specs quoted previously).
Of course those initial design specs are served by a single Sat (assuming equal distribution across the spot beams) with the 2nd Sat in reserve in case of failure (and to takeup some of the excess load on heavily congested beams).
The real issue for Sat users is whether the ABHT (Average Busy Hour Throughput) of 300Kbps is adequate. The ACCC NBN Wholesale Report suggests this is ~1/3 of the level currently being provided over the fixed line network due to the CVC restrictions, which is about 1Mbps per user. (although I am not sure how the CVC transitional arrangements factor in this, that is the 150 Mbps per CSA)
Unless we are now expecting 100% take up the claim that The Sat system was originally designed to accommodate around 200,000 premises...the LNP expanded that to 400,000. is simply incorrect.
Yes
Continues here: /forum-replies.cfm?t=2539420
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét