NBN Rollout Scrapped

[Some Dude]

Can anyone more informed than I on this issue comment on this point?

The question is: what about the copper the coalition's plan will rely on to bring broadband into the majority of homes? On our reading of the policy, its contribution to operational expenditure seems to be ignored completely.

We make that assertion on the basis of the fact that in the 2011-2012 financial year, Telstra's direct operational expenditure (opex) on fixed broadband was around $AU1.3 billion. But the PSTN – which runs the copper – was a separate line item, consuming another $1.93 billion in opex, for a total of $3.23 billion a year

 

[drsmith]

Can anyone more informed than I on this issue comment

The Coalition's plan in their background paper had opex/year at $90 per premises for FTTN vs $60/year for FTTP.

There was no additional detail in the report beyond that that I recall.

 

[Calliope]

The Gillard/Conroy/NBNMyths version of NBN is history.

 

[NBNMyths]

The Gillard/Conroy/NBNMyths version of NBN is history.

View attachment 51773

Not history, just future. Except for those lucky enough to be in areas already under construction of course.

I fully expect the coalition to win in September. All it means is that in 10 years time when the luddites are all senile and the next generation is voting, we'll look back at Tony and Mal's prophetic "25Megs is enough" with comedic incredulity, and spend another $40bn fixing up the mistake.

Such is life.

 

[sptrawler]

Not history, just future. Except for those lucky enough to be in areas already under construction of course.

I fully expect the coalition to win in September. All it means is that in 10 years time when the luddites are all senile and the next generation is voting, we'll look back at Tony and Mal's prophetic "25Megs is enough" with comedic incredulity, and spend another $40bn fixing up the mistake.

Such is life.

Maybe they will be the ones who have lost the industry they worked in. Then at least they can online game to kill time, while they wait for the 'clean technology' industries to start up and provide employment.

As you say, such is life.

 

[Calliope]

Such is life.

Such is sour grapes.

 

[Some Dude]

I fully expect the coalition to win in September. All it means is that in 10 years time when the luddites are all senile and the next generation is voting, we'll look back at Tony and Mal's prophetic "25Megs is enough" with comedic incredulity, and spend another $40bn fixing up the mistake.

I remember a hardware salesmen who was working with me at the time (1996) that a 10GB drive was all you would ever need and no one could possibly come up with a reason for why you would need more in a typical home computer.

I remember when Telstra implemented 3GB caps to their plans in 2001 and reading comments that anyone who needed more than 3GB was either downloading things they shouldn't be or at best over using a limited resource.

I'm sure we can dig out more anecdotes.

 

[Calliope]

I'm sure we can dig out more anecdotes.

Why not, it's more interesting.

On 28 January 1896, Walter Arnold of East Peckham, Kent became the first person in Great Britain to be successfully charged with speeding. Travelling at approximately 8 mph, he had exceeded the 2 mph speed limit for towns. Fined 1 shilling (5p) plus costs, Arnold had been caught by a policeman who had given chase on a bicycle so began one of the most lucrative ways of making money by Local Authorities and the Exchequer

 

[bellenuit]

I remember a hardware salesmen who was working with me at the time (1996) that a 10GB drive was all you would ever need and no one could possibly come up with a reason for why you would need more in a typical home computer.

I remember when Telstra implemented 3GB caps to their plans in 2001 and reading comments that anyone who needed more than 3GB was either downloading things they shouldn't be or at best over using a limited resource.

I'm sure we can dig out more anecdotes.

If you are talking 1996, I think you must be referring to a 10MB drive, not a 10GB. I think the IBM PC Junior, I think it was called, had an external 10M drive that cost well over $1K.

However, the coalition's plan doesn't limit you to 25MB/sec and they haven't said that is all one would ever need. This is a straw man argument. Their plan will give equivalent speeds to Labor's NBN for greenfield sites, educational institutes and hospitals (though I don't know if the latter two must pay extra to get FTTP installed). Industries and individuals who also want top speeds can get it if they are willing to pay extra for it.

What they have said is that they can deliver 25MB/sec to most homes a lot sooner and cheaper that the NBN can deliver their product. 25MB/Sec is sufficient to meet foreseeable needs of most households. When that is no longer the case and households need more, households will of course be able to upgrade to FTTP or whatever technology is most suited at that time (and who knows, it may well not be fibre).

It is an entirely sensible approach.

 

[boofhead]

If you are talking 1996, I think you must be referring to a 10MB drive, not a 10GB. I think the IBM PC Junior, I think it was called, had an external 10M drive that cost well over $1K.

1996, not 1986. I'm sure you'll be able to find ads for computer being sold in about that time frame (1996) coming with 2-4 GB HDDs. I know the Pentium 1 with MMX purchased in 1998 came with 3.2 GB Maxtor HDD.

 

[Calliope]

1996, not 1986. I'm sure you'll be able to find ads for computer being sold in about that time frame (1996) coming with 2-4 GB HDDs. I know the Pentium 1 with MMX purchased in 1998 came with 3.2 GB Maxtor HDD.

My first computer, a Windows 3.1 with Intel 486 DX-33, MS-DOS 6, which I purchased in 1990 had a hard drive of 857 megabytes.

 

[NBNMyths]

If you are talking 1996, I think you must be referring to a 10MB drive, not a 10GB. I think the IBM PC Junior, I think it was called, had an external 10M drive that cost well over $1K.

...

What they have said is that they can deliver 25MB/sec to most homes a lot sooner and cheaper that the NBN can deliver their product. 25MB/Sec is sufficient to meet foreseeable needs of most households. When that is no longer the case and households need more, households will of course be able to upgrade to FTTP or whatever technology is most suited at that time (and who knows, it may well not be fibre).

Dates and capacities are way out.

My first Mac was entry level at the time and included a 40MB hard drive. That was in about 1992. By 1996, a 1GB drive was pretty standard at the entry level. 10GB would have been available in 1996, but with a pretty high price tag.

I do remember the guy I bought my LC off building an external SCSI drive with a 160MB capacity for another friend, and laughing about how anyone could want such a massive drive for household needs. 40MB was sufficient to meet foreseeable needs for most households, he said. Or something like that.

Of course there really was no specifications available that would require more at that time. Today however, we already have a video standard ratified and in use which requires 28Mbps. I guess some people can only "foresee" when facing backwards.

 

[Some Dude]

If you are talking 1996, I think you must be referring to a 10MB drive, not a 10GB. I think the IBM PC Junior, I think it was called, had an external 10M drive that cost well over $1K.

Where I was supplied systems (software and hardware) to businesses running AutoCAD and required larger than house hold drive requirements which is how the conversation started. When I first started in 1987, the 386 was just coming into our development pipeline and the 20 MB drive that we used was considered amazing.

 

[sptrawler]

I remember a hardware salesmen who was working with me at the time (1996) that a 10GB drive was all you would ever need and no one could possibly come up with a reason for why you would need more in a typical home computer.

I remember when Telstra implemented 3GB caps to their plans in 2001 and reading comments that anyone who needed more than 3GB was either downloading things they shouldn't be or at best over using a limited resource.

I'm sure we can dig out more anecdotes.

I remember when single lane roads, were big enough to carry the traffic flows, now they are choked: Does that mean all roads built in Australia, should be built to carry three times their current flow requirements?

Trains are being used more and more to reduce truck trafic and obvious ineffeciencies, yet we only have one single freight track across Australia. Therefore trains have to sit idle in sidings, waiting for the train comining in the opposite direction to go by. Does that mean we need duplicate tracks everywhere?

 

[Some Dude]

Does that mean we need duplicate tracks everywhere?

If a pattern of usage and demand can be identified that warrants what you suggest and will be beneficial in some economic sense, then yes.

 

[sptrawler]

If a pattern of usage and demand can be identified that warrants what you suggest and will be beneficial in some economic sense, then yes.

The arguement, surrounds the issue, of do all houses need it?
Where does that pass your suggested criteria. I'm confused

 

[NBNMyths]

I remember when single lane roads, were big enough to carry the traffic flows, now they are choked: Does that mean all roads built in Australia, should be built to carry three times their current flow requirements?

I have three arguments:

1.
It depends. If you had a usage graph that looked like this:



...and a group of the foremost international computer and telecommunication experts telling you that such an upgrade was the most prudent option, then you would probably take their advice.


2.
Is it better value for money to spend $30bn on a road that will last maybe 10 years before it requires an additional $40bn upgrade, or $44bn now to build a road that (based on our knowledge of the technological capabilities) will likely not require a major upgrade in our lifetimes? Is it better to spend the $30bn (~$3,000 per premises) on the basic upgrade, and then charge households who want to "go the whole hog" another ~$3,000 (~$6,000 ea total), or simply spend ~$4000 letting everyone "go the whole hog" as they see fit?


3.
Your argument could just as easily apply to the coalition's plan. I'm sure there are many people for whom, right now, the 'road' doesn't need any upgrade at all. So why do anything? Why do an upgrade that only some people want or need? Why not wait until everybody needs the 'road' upgrade, and then do it? People who want fibre today can get it if they have a spare $5-20k and $1k per month, or so.

 

[drsmith]

Not history, just future. Except for those lucky enough to be in areas already under construction of course.

I fully expect the coalition to win in September. All it means is that in 10 years time when the luddites are all senile and the next generation is voting, we'll look back at Tony and Mal's prophetic "25Megs is enough" with comedic incredulity, and spend another $40bn fixing up the mistake.

Such is life.

In 10 years time, the NBN might still be getting rolled out, $40bn over budget and superseded.

That's if Labor wins. :

 

[MrBurns]

In 10 years time, the NBN might still be getting rolled out, $40bn over budget and superseded.

That's if Labor wins. :

Exactly I don't know what you're all arguing about do you really expect Labor to finish anything ?

 

[Some Dude]

In 10 years time, the NBN might still be getting rolled out, $40bn over budget and superseded.

What would FTTP be superseded by? Especially in the context of existing copper network that FTTN would need?