NBN Rollout Scrapped

[Calliope]

I would LOVE them to say "We think Labor are managing this project badly. We will take over and build it more efficiently.

But that isn't what they are doing. Of course it's faster and cheaper to build a tent instead of a house. Doesn't mean it's sensible.

In line with Labor's scorched earth policy, NBN Co, are spending like drunken sailors. The Coalition will be saddled with the dead weight of the billions that NBN has committed to irreversible contracts that are going nowhere. Turnbull said;

“Tony and I are inheriting the NBN Co. But we're not about just moaning and groaning about the bad decisions made preceding it. What we are going to do is get this job done.

“And we will bring very fast broadband to all Australians sooner, cheaper and more affordably.

“We would not have gone about it this way, and there will be billions of dollars that Labor has wasted that we cannot recover. But we will save many billions of dollars.”

(My bolds)

But that isn't what they are doing. Of course it's faster and cheaper to build a tent instead of a house. Doesn't mean it's sensible.

You, of course will be outside the tent. When Conroy, Quigley, Kaiser and company get the bullet after September, your job as NBN Co's cheerleader will also go.

 

[drsmith]

Malcolm Turnbull interview with the ABC's Jon Faine.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/04/10/3733650.htm?site=melbourne&program=melbourne_mornings

Tony Windsor's take,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...ndsor-thinks-he-knows-more-than-turnbull.html

 

[Julia]

Could some informed person please tell me how practical it is for the copper network to continue to supply the connection from the node to the home?
Some opinions seem to indicate the copper is pretty much stuffed and will need replacing before too long anyway.
Is this correct?

If the copper is fine well into the future, then the cost and time savings of the Coalition's plan seem preferable, but not if they're going to have to backtrack and replace the copper in the foreseeable future.

 

[NBNMyths]

Actually to stick with the roads analogy the coalitions plan is the equivalent of building the bridge with 4 lanes but having a gravel road leading up to the bridge (a gravel road with no maintenance). Like I say build it once and build it right or don't build it at all.

I'm curious to those of you who have rigorously opposed the NBN from the outset, how do you feel about the coalitions policy? Do you support the coalitions policy or is this simply a matter that you believe broadband infrastructure should be left to the free market to decide, in which case naturally you'd support the cheaper option between the two parties?

Speaking of bridge analogies:

 

[drsmith]

Speaking of bridge analogies:

Except that to suggest that one has to purchase the fibre service from the node to the home to get any landline based service is just plain wrong.

The Coalition's plan is upgradable to fibre between the node and the home, so perhaps the most valid analogy is having the land set aside to duplicate the bridge in the future.

 

[drsmith]

If the copper is fine well into the future, then the cost and time savings of the Coalition's plan seem preferable, but not if they're going to have to backtrack and replace the copper in the foreseeable future.

Malcolm Turnbull did address this at least in part. It doesn't detail the proportion of sub-standard copper in the network as a whole, but it does address the Coalition's approach to managing it.

LEIGH SALES: Are they still then responsible for maintaining the copper?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is a matter that would be the responsibility of the NBN Co and may well contract Telstra to maintain that copper. And what you do, just to go through the mechanics here, if you've got an area, this area in front of us is a portion of a suburb, you will form a judgment about the quality of the copper in that area. There may be some that you will remediate, that you will upgrade with copper. There may be an area that perhaps is very wet ground that floods a lot, you've had a lot of maintenance problems. And so you might say alright, we'll run fibre through there. So what you do is you make sensible, cost effective decisions about the upgrading the network and so that you can do it in a speedy and you've got to remember, under our plan, I mean Labor's got an ad out there saying connecting to Labor's NBN will be free. Can you imagine a bigger falsehood than that? It will be $94 billion to the taxpayer and as we've demonstrated in our policy documents today, it's considerably, on average, at least $300 a year more for people to actually connect to it.

If we assume a worst case scenario that all the copper is in poor repair, then the Coalition would effectively be building Labor's NBN at the obviously greater cost. This is obviously not the case, but it does help to illustrate their approach of minimising cost by using existing infrastructure for the remainder of its useful life wherever possible. In a policy context, it's now really the only substantive difference between the Coalition's and Labor's NBN.

 

[NBNMyths]

Malcolm Turnbull did address this at least in part. It doesn't detail the proportion of sub-standard copper in the network as a whole, but it does address the Coalition's approach to managing it.



If we assume a worst case scenario that all the copper is in poor repair, then the Coalition would effectively be building Labor's NBN at the obviously greater cost. This is obviously not the case, but it does help to illustrate their approach of minimising cost by using existing infrastructure for the remainder of its useful life wherever possible. In a policy context, it's now really the only substantive difference between the Coalition's and Labor's NBN.

Tech/speed/need criticisms aside, there is one other gaping hole in the policy which is worth addressing. They claim that they will deliver minimum 25Mbps to every Australian by 2016.

To deliver a minimum 25Mbps means they need to rollout VDSL2 to the entire NBN fibre footprint, because ADSL2+ cannot do that speed. So they are claiming they can:

1) Conduct a cost-benefit analysis (6 months?);
2) Renegotiate the Telstra deal (which took 2 years to be agreed upon);
3) Design a network to deliver 25Mbps to everyone (would require accurate maps of current network, which often don't exist);
4) Tender and let equipment contracts;
5) Negotiate with power utilities and councils
6) Tender and let construction contracts; and
7) ...finally, construct several 10's-of-thousands of FTTN node cabinets, power them, run fibre to them, and deploy VDSL2 equipment into them and make about 10 million fibre-copper connections.

...all in less than 3 years.

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[drsmith]

Tech/speed/need criticisms aside, there is one other gaping hole in the policy which is worth addressing. They claim that they will deliver minimum 25Mbps to every Australian by 2016.

It's a worthy set of questions in itself, but from where Labor stands with the rollout of the current NBN, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[MrBurns]

1) Conduct a cost-benefit analysis (6 months?);
2) Renegotiate the Telstra deal (which took 2 years to be agreed upon);
3) Design a network to deliver 25Mbps to everyone (would require accurate maps of current network, which often don't exist);
4) Tender and let equipment contracts;
5) Negotiate with power utilities and councils
6) Tender and let construction contracts; and
7) ...finally, construct several 10's-of-thousands of FTTN node cabinets, power them, run fibre to them, and deploy VDSL2 equipment into them and make about 10 million fibre-copper connections.

...all in less than 3 years.

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Minor details no problem at all, I agree there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Labor could achieve that.

 

[Calliope]

Minor details no problem at all, I agree there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Labor could achieve that.

It's simply a matter of who has more credibility on broadband - Conroy or Turnbull. I would love to see them debate the issue.

 

[Ves]

Can one of the Liberal party experts here please explain to us all the devil-in-the-detail surrounding Turnball's claim that Labour's NBN will cost $94 billion. I'm sure it's a real zinger and a lesson in utter credibility.

 

[drsmith]

It's simply a matter of who has more credibility on broadband - Conroy or Turnbull. I would love to see them debate the issue.

IIRC, QandA were going to have a series of policy specific episodes. One with Conroy or Turnbull would be interesting. No other panellists though. They would just be a distraction.

 

[sptrawler]

The government hasn't been able to borrow at such low rates of interest in generations. I say build a decent network that will still be scalable (is that the right IT term?) in 20, 30, 40, 50 years' time. No point building another Spit Bridge, or M5 East. And I'd much rather my money was spent doing something that benefits the country than being squandered on property tax breaks, propping up the super balances of millionaires or being handed out to middle class families so they can afford their annual trip to Bali.

I would go along with you, if there weren't any other pressing infrastructure issues, if the government was running surpluses and if the government wasn't screaming poor.
They can't have it all ways, you can't say it's a great time to max out the credit card because rates are low.
Then in the next breath turn around and say tax reciepts are droping, we've got to increase taxing and find savings. To me it's illogical,
IMO the coalition idea appears a workable compromise.
I can understand the tech wiz users are not happy, they want the best.
From an economic standpoint, businesses, industry and heavy data users get it, the household gets what can supply adequate speeds at a reasonable price.
I must admit, I'm not a heavy or even moderate internet user, so it really doesn't bother me.

 

[Calliope]

Can one of the Liberal party experts here please explain to us all the devil-in-the-detail surrounding Turnball's claim that Labour's NBN will cost $94 billion. I'm sure it's a real zinger and a lesson in utter credibility.

Exactly - and Conroy's credibility is shot to ribbons until he can provide an answer to this claim. I am sure he doesn't have the intelligence. His denials are all bluster, because he can't refute it with hard evidence. At the rate NBN costs and over-runs are blowing out, $94 million might be a conservative figure.

But why should they care. As usual the Coalition will have to clean up the mess.

 

[Ves]

$94 million might be a conservative figure.

Turnball's own press papers indicate that it is a worst case figure based on a number of scenarios, all happening at once. He, of course, never mentioned that, nor was he questioned on it. The media don't give a **** where the figure comes from because it's easier to just quote it and assume it's reality. The public gobbles it up because it's an understandable number. Who cares, really.

And that's exactly what is wrong with modern politics. No one looks behind the quoted figures.

 

[MrBurns]

Turnball's own press papers indicate that it is a worst case figure based on a number of scenarios, all happening at once. .

Oh... I needed a good laugh if you haven't noticed the Labor party are certified specialists in achieving the worst case scenario on everything they touch, this would be an easy one for them.

 

[Ves]

Oh... I needed a good laugh if you haven't noticed the Labor party are certified specialists in achieving the worst case scenario on everything they touch, this would be an easy one for them.

The worst case scenarios aren't dependent on the Labor party. Thanks for proving you haven't read it.

 

[MrBurns]

The worst case scenarios aren't dependent on the Labor party. Thanks for proving you haven't read it.

The big picture is that Labor will stuff it up without any other factors contributing.

There will be cost blowouts but not an uncontrollable disaster unless Labor are running it.

 

[drsmith]

The Coalition's background paper on the NBN,

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Background.pdf

Their comparison between FFTN and FFTP is on pages 14 and 15.

The assumptions outlining the Coalition's higher costings are also outlined in the latter part of the report.

 

[MrBurns]

The Coalition's background paper on the NBN,

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Background.pdf

Their comparison between FFTN and FFTP is on pages 14 and 15.

The assumptions outlining the Coalition's higher costings are also outlined in the latter part of the report.

Thanks drsmith, quite clear the cost savings are worthwhile but the fact that it will be up and running sooner is a big plus.