Since the NBN is funded from bonds, repaid from network revenue (ie, not from consolidated revenue/"taxpayer"), could you explain where the "slug" is?
NBN Rollout Scrapped
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
Since the NBN is funded from bonds, repaid from network revenue (ie, not from consolidated revenue/"taxpayer"), could you explain where the "slug" is?
Not yet has it been paid by network revenue.
The slug is as followed;;; comments of a network engineer.
"....Even Telstra would struggle to build something of this scale. Yet we are made to believe that the same people who can't build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to do it???
Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off!! Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60 bullion and the network is no more than half complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces!!"
A statement by Gillard " we will connect 93% of the houses with optical fibre across Australia." Well I reckon its going to be a pretty big 7% that are not connected in this manner.
joea p.s. I would be pretty confident in saying that Conroy is not capable of controlling this experiment. I am not game to say a "business".
Maybe they will bring in Mr. Fix it( Combet) to lend a hand.
- Joined
- 17 February 2010
- Posts
- 629
- Reactions
- 0
Ah, yes. The good old "anonymous Telstra engineer email from 2010". Allow me to fix that for you:
Comments of Abraham Lincoln:
"The biggest problem I see with the internet, is that you never know if the quotes are accurate"
"The biggest problem I see with the internet, is that you never know if the quotes are accurate"
Your statements are from the same BS email where that "engineer" claimed that optical fibre only lasts 25 years in conduit (and much less in more stressful environments)! Now, if the guy can't even get basic information about OF lifetime right, can you tell me again why we should believe anything else contained in an anonymous email from who knows where, containing demonstrably false information?
I should also add, that OF is the standard for pretty much all networks around the World. FTTP, HFC and FTTN (which all use OF) is being rolled out by govt and private in pretty much every developed nation in the World. Even the Coalition's policy is FTTP in greenfield estates, and FTTN in brownfield areas. So if fibre is so useless, that "Telstra engineer" had better tell his boss. Not to mention every other Telco in the World.
FYI:
From Corning (One of the NBN fibre suppliers):
Q: How long do optical fibers and cable last in practice?
A: Optical fiber cable has been in commercial use for almost 30 years. There has been no endemic replacement or decommissioning of cables installed in the early years of the industry. In fact, transmission equipment on cables installed in the 1980’s by network operators around the world is routinely replaced with newer gear running data rates of 10 Gb/s or more using SONET/SDH and Ethernet technologies – line rates and protocols not dreamed of when the cables were manufactured. It is common for customers to report to Corning that trial cables installed in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s are still in use.
A: Optical fiber cable has been in commercial use for almost 30 years. There has been no endemic replacement or decommissioning of cables installed in the early years of the industry. In fact, transmission equipment on cables installed in the 1980’s by network operators around the world is routinely replaced with newer gear running data rates of 10 Gb/s or more using SONET/SDH and Ethernet technologies – line rates and protocols not dreamed of when the cables were manufactured. It is common for customers to report to Corning that trial cables installed in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s are still in use.
ie: Far from degrading, optical fibre cables are getting faster as time goes on. The 13-year-old Southern Cross cable to the US is 10x faster now than when it was laid, and there are another few big speed upgrades planned for the future. What started as 240Gbps in 1999 will soon be 4.8Tbps, with ~12Tbps available once the required technology goes commercial.
NBNMyths.
You know if there was a cost benefit analysis implemented, and both sides of politics
were involved in a consensus on NBN, then there would be 20 million Australians behind the upgrade of communications for the future.
At this point in time I AM SURE the voter got "screwed".
over and out.
joea
You know if there was a cost benefit analysis implemented, and both sides of politics
were involved in a consensus on NBN, then there would be 20 million Australians behind the upgrade of communications for the future.
At this point in time I AM SURE the voter got "screwed".
over and out.
joea
Despite the impression you may get from the vocal minority of naysayers, the NBN has extremely strong public support. There hasn't been a single survey conducted that has shown less than majority support.
As for a CBA, can you tell me how one would be accurate?
eg: If you did a CBA for the phone network in the 1950s, how could it have envisaged the internet? Or even fax machines and security systems? Fire alarms? Phone banking? ATMs? EFTPOS?
None of these things were invented, so how could their value/benefits be assessed? A CBA for phones in the 1950s could only have valued the making of telephone calls. Do you think such a CBA would have recommended the network be built, at a per-capita cost that was higher than the NBN is today? All so people could make phone calls?
How about electricity? When the rollout of electricity grid began, there would have been no refrigeration. No air conditioning. No TV, radio or computers. A CBA could only have valued the use that actually existed: Lights.
A CBA for the NBN would have to assume that everything that such a network could be used for is already in existence, and therefore make an assessment of the best technology (eg: FTTN/FTTP) on those known demands. Surely, nobody is so backward to think that every possible use for broadband has already been invented?
Lucky for us the world wasn't populated by selfish whingers when our forefathers were investing in the infrastructure we now take for granted.
Go to a nite club
You got me there.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...t-analysis-sought-for-nbn-20111208-1olml.html
Well these people think it should be done.
There is a fair chance that none of the people that are being bypassed by NBN WILL NOW GIVE THAT SUPPORT.
Oh. That' rights Conroy neglected to tell the public that they cannot splice for less than 1000 subscribers.
Must have got rubbed off the white board.
joea
Oh, well if they think it, then make it so. Heaven forbid the Govt not listen to every unqualified lobby group, and instead base their decisions on the advice of industry experts. You haven't answered my question though. How would you assess the benefits of uses not yet envisaged? Or do you think there will be no new uses for broadband?
The NBN doesn't "bypass" anyone. 93% get fibre, 4% get wireless and 3% get satellite. That's no secret, and never has been. The fibre coverage was actually increased from an original target of 90% to 93% on the recommendation of KPMG-McKinsey. I always think it's funny that the same people who complain that the NBN isn't needed and that it already costs too much, are the ones who complain that we aren't spending another $100-odd Billion covering the most remote 7% of the population with fibre.
If you'd like to see the maps and town coverage lists, you can find them on NBN Co's website. A bit more modern that a whiteboard, I know. But I'm sure you can manage.
And if you think it's been some big secret until recently that not everyone gets fibre, I'd point you to the original NBN press release from Conroy in April 2009, which is crystal clear:
This new National Broadband Network will:
• Connect 90 percent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with broadband services with speeds up to 100 megabits per second
• Connect all other premises in Australia with next generation wireless and satellite technologies that will deliver broadband speeds of 12 megabits per second
• Connect 90 percent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with broadband services with speeds up to 100 megabits per second
• Connect all other premises in Australia with next generation wireless and satellite technologies that will deliver broadband speeds of 12 megabits per second
Since then of course, the fibre coverage has been increased to 93%, and the maximum speed has been increased to 1000Mbps (1Gbps).
Any more myths I can debunk for you?
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,822
- Reactions
- 6,802
NBN myths, the contracts have been signed and the workforce should be going at it full bore after these holidays. Do you need how much % of Australia will be done this year?
Bill M
Self Funded Retiree
- Joined
- 4 January 2008
- Posts
- 2,132
- Reactions
- 740
NBNMyths, I have a question that I ask myself time and time again and I hope you can answer it.
Around Australia there are suburbs and towns where broadband is generally not available to everyone. By that I mean the exchanges are full (no ports available) and they must use an unreliable wireless service. Some of these suburbs and towns have thousands of residents all complaining about the same issue.
My question is, why is the NBN rollout taking so long? And knowing where the problems really lie (as above) why aren't they getting those places online first? Wouldn't it make sense to get those communities online before areas that already have decent broadband services?
I doubt they'll be "full bore" this year. 2012 is just the start of the volume rollout, and I suspect it will be ramping up for a while yet. The contractors will need to start hiring, training and buying equipment for the install before it's running flat out. The Corp Plan says the construction will peak in the years 2013-2018.
They will be commencing construction to 500,000 brownfield premises in 2012, plus whatever is required for greenfield estates. At a guess, maybe another 100,000 there.
The reason it will take so long it simply a matter of workload. Making 13-odd million connections is a big job. The start of volume rollout has been delayed by the time it took to get the Telstra deal sorted, because until that was done they couldn't access Telstra's pits, pipes, exchanges etc. There was also a delay and added complexity after the ACCC changed the PoI layout. NBN Co wanted 14 points (basically 2 in every capital city), but the ACCC forced them to have 121. That meant a more complex transit network had to be designed and built, and more negotiations with Telstra for exchange space to house the PoIs. But all that is finally sorted, and volume rollout starts this year.
I agree that (in theory) it would be great if the areas that need it most, get it first. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of network design and construction, but I would imagine that the plan must be done in the most efficient manner which would mean starting at a PoI and building out from there. Each module of the NBN (called a FAN) is about 3,000 services, so I do know that they try to do a whole FAN at a time. If you look at the first and second release sites, they have generally started at a PoI and moved outwards in each case.
Unfortunately, many of the pockets with poor services are spread far-and-wide. There are probably thousands of places across the country. I have a cousin in Gosford who is on satellite internet, even though they're only 2mins from the CBD. No ADSL in their street as they're on a pair-gain system. But their street is only 30 homes, while the rest of the area is OK.
My guess is that it's not economical to do hundreds of tiny areas all over the place, then have to keep coming back to the same relative areas to finish it later. Just an unfortunate fact of life, I think.
(BTW, a PoI is a Point of Interconnect. It's where the NBN leaves off, and your ISP/RSP takes over.)
Bill M
Self Funded Retiree
- Joined
- 4 January 2008
- Posts
- 2,132
- Reactions
- 740
Sounds just like my suburb but with many more homes without. Thank you very much for the detailed response. Can this massive project be derailed or closed down if the wreckers in any other political party get in? I would hate to see everything that has been agreed upon and done thus far to be shut down? Thanks again for your response.
Sorry, this one's a bit longwinded.....
I don't know if it can be stopped or not. I suspect that if the ALP get in in 2013, then it will be well beyond the point of no return by the subsequent election.
But, if the Coalition get in in 2013 (which is a big chance), then it will be interesting.
While physically the NBN could be stopped then, it might not be worth it.....
Barriers to scrapping the NBN in 2013:
Penalties:
By 2013, options for the current 2yr construction contracts would be signed. That would mean construction signed until 2015 unless they are happy to cancel it and pay the penalty fees, which would be substantial I'd think.
Delays and costs:
It took two years to plan and legislate the NBN, and negotiate a deal with Telstra. It would take at least that long to start it all again from scratch, and imagine the cost of the work wasted, and the work required to redesign from scratch.
Viability:
By 2013, we'll have the NBN fibre in a few metro areas, and a heap of small cities and rural towns. Selling off such a network would come at a massive loss because many of the areas first rolled out are not going to be profitable. The network needs to be complete with the metro-rural cross subsidy running to make the required return.
Legislation:
The NBN is supported by several pieces of legislation. The coalition won't have power in the Senate, and both the ALP, indies and greens support the NBN. That will make repealing the legislation difficult.
Politics:
The NBN Co are going to announce a 3yr rough schedule next month. That will be updated every 12 months, so by the time of the election there will be a schedule out until 2016. Can you imagine being a candidate trying to tell voters that you're planning to cancel the NBN they're on the list to get shortly, especially since the speed and pricing will have gone past the FUD stage by then.
Then there is the disparity problem. The coalition's alternative is basically FTTN, with a min. speed of 12Mbps in 2yrs, and 24Mbps in 4yrs. Can you imagine explaining to voters that Armidale, Darwin, Tasmania etc... -Probably close to 2 million premises by the end of 2013- will have access to 1Gbps broadband, while Sydney/Melbourne CBDs and most suburbs will be stuck at ~24Mbps, with pricing undoubtedly more expensive than the rural towns are paying for the NBN?
Then there is the disparity problem. The coalition's alternative is basically FTTN, with a min. speed of 12Mbps in 2yrs, and 24Mbps in 4yrs. Can you imagine explaining to voters that Armidale, Darwin, Tasmania etc... -Probably close to 2 million premises by the end of 2013- will have access to 1Gbps broadband, while Sydney/Melbourne CBDs and most suburbs will be stuck at ~24Mbps, with pricing undoubtedly more expensive than the rural towns are paying for the NBN?
That all adds up to me hoping it will be too hard to cancel. However, even if it is cancelled, I think the Coalition's plan has been constantly improving over time. In 2007, they called the 12Mbps FTTN NBN a massive waste. By 2010, they had a 12Mbps FTTN policy of their own. Lately, Turnbull has been talking 25, 50 and 80Mbps FTTN, although no official change to the policy. I suspect that we'll be getting most of the capability either way now. My biggest concern is that under the coalition, we'll be paying much more to access it, given their push for the private sector to do it at commercial return rates. All that means is we'll get lower capability, or higher monthly prices.
No private company could match the NBN's capability at pricing that low.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,698
- Reactions
- 10,311
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,647
- Reactions
- 24,545
My guess, for what it is worth, is that fibre to the node would be the worst outcome. Which would make your internet speed heaps better than adsl anyway.
Now for my pet hate(long suffering Telstra owner) read NBNmyths viabilty qoute. It is dependant on the metro -rural cross subsidy. That is metro paying $24 so that the $100 rural connection can be subsidised.
This is what Telstra couldn't get. Singapore(Optus) Europe(Vodaphone, Virgin) only had to pay Telstra $7 for City blood sucking and guess what Telstra had to charge them $100 if they wanted country customers. Funnily they weren't that interested in country customers.
Jeez it makes me sick to see how the government can s#@ft a company they sold and ripped off the customer(shareholder). Anyone else would have been in court for fraud.Or at the least there would be a class action as to why cross subsidy is o.k now for the N.B.N and wasn't o.k for the company they sold off.
If this was due to the floating of the company while it was vertically intergrated, then that was deception and the prospectus was flawed and the shareholders should have been reimbursed. Not systematically destroyed by legislation, that strips the value the legislator has already been payed for.
The only thing this government has done right is put Conroy in charge of the $#!t heap exactly where he belongs I.M.O.
However aside from the above rant. Thanks N.B.Nmyths for concise accurate information without prejudice. It has been a real asset to the thread.
P.S I still think it will be a blowout of mamoth proportions.
Bill M
Self Funded Retiree
- Joined
- 4 January 2008
- Posts
- 2,132
- Reactions
- 740
Agree, thanks again NBNMyths, much appreciated.
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
Gee whiz they state on their website that 85000 Qld. premises will be noded over a 12 month period. At that rate of connection it will take them a very, very long time to do all the cities and towns listed. Must be a nice earner for the contractors.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,647
- Reactions
- 24,545
Well that's a lot better than what was going to happen before. The Telstra shareholders that lost half their money(at least) were expected to pay for it.
While all the poxy oversea companies were allowed to cherry pick.
At least that part will be corrected a shame the government in its infinite wisdom didn't decide to do the right thing by the shareholders they ripped off.
Both sides of government are equally at fault in it, so don't give me the crap about who floated what. They inherit the income, if they don't want to rectify the problem in a honourable way, they also inherit the wrath.
Also the behavior of Conroy shows the depth of contempt they have for the electorate they presumably represent. My opinion only (also only a small share holder, christ knows what major shareholders think, I shudder to think)LOL. They must be spewing.
Second rant for the night.
