NBN Rollout Scrapped

[So_Cynical]

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.

It is an entirely sensible approach and i wish the Howard Govt had committed to such a plan when it was appropriate to do so 7 or 8 years ago...how however its a different story, now we have contracts in place, plans well established, equipment purchased, homes, schools and businesses connected.

What would of been an entirely sensible thing to do 7 or 8 years ago is now in the face of the NBN reality, a half arsed outcome arrived at for purely political reasons.

 

[bellenuit]

What would FTTP be superseded by?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

It could very well be that the existing copper may meet the speed needs of households in the future if they continue to come up with new technologies that can run over it. We have already seen increased speeds over copper achieved as they went to ADSL 1 then ADSL 2 etc.

But as to your question what would FTTP be superseded by, isn't that the whole point in favour of the coalitions policy. They are not betting the farm on what will be available 10 or 15 years from now. We simply don't know, so it makes sense to not overspend up front.

 

[Calliope]

Does anyone have an answer to why fiber can be rolled out by private companies like google to cities in other countries but couldn't be in Australia?

Because Google is not controlled by Conroy.

 

[Julia]

Because the LNP are making time frames a HUGE issue

Please, sydboy, the LNP only exists as a single party in Queensland.
Nationally, it's the Coalition of the Liberal and National Parties, viz "The Coalition".

 

[Some Dude]

It could very well be that the existing copper may meet the speed needs of households in the future if they continue to come up with new technologies that can run over it. We have already seen increased speeds over copper achieved as they went to ADSL 1 then ADSL 2 etc.

But as to your question what would FTTP be superseded by, isn't that the whole point in favour of the coalitions policy. They are not betting the farm on what will be available 10 or 15 years from now. We simply don't know, so it makes sense to not overspend up front.

Granted Telstra have a vested interest but from 2003:

A month ago, before a Senate committee inquiry into broadband competition, Telstra's Bill Scales and Tony Warren rather let the cat out of the bag.

Warren, group manager, regulatory strategy, told the committee: "I think it is right to suggest that ADSL is an interim technology. It is probably the last sweating, if you like, of the old copper network assets. In copper years, if you like, we are at a sort of transition - we are at five minutes to midnight."

A few minutes later his boss, Bill Scales, attempted to bury this bit of candour: "The only point of clarification, just so that there is no misunderstanding, is that when we think about the copper network, we are still thinking about 10 years out. So five minutes to midnight in this context . . ."

Dr Warren (chiming in): "Doesn't mean five years."

Mr Scales: "It does not. It could be 10 or even 15 years, just to get some context into that."

Phew. That was close. Telstra's copper will be sweated for a few years yet, thanks very much.

Trouble is, in world terms, Telstra is flogging a sick horse, if not quite a dead one, and the world is rapidly moving towards FTTH - including in Australia. TransACT has laid fibre to the home in Canberra; Western Power subsidiary Bright Telecommunications is doing it in Perth.

My understanding is that most in the industry know exactly what it is.

 

[DB008]

Because Google is not controlled by Conroy.

LOL

 

[So_Cynical]

It could very well be that the existing copper may meet the speed needs of households in the future if they continue to come up with new technologies that can run over it. We have already seen increased speeds over copper achieved as they went to ADSL 1 then ADSL 2 etc.

How do you reckon they will get light pulses to travel at the speed of light down copper wire???

 

[Some Dude]

How do you reckon they will get light pulses to travel at the speed of light down copper wire???

Well that quantum entanglement technology is just around the corner

 

[bellenuit]

How do you reckon they will get light pulses to travel at the speed of light down copper wire???

I don't get your point. You you don't need to increase speed to increase throughput. You can, for instance have better compression technology, so the same amount of information can be sent using less bits. In video delivery for example, the emerging High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard or H.265 is designed to offer almost double the compression efficiency of H.264, reducing storage and bandwidth costs.

 

[So_Cynical]

I don't get your point. You you don't need to increase speed to increase throughput. You can, for instance have better compression technology.

Point is that if you have fibre you get current technology light speed, no compression or any other rubbish needed to achieve high speeds and or increase throughput etc...i mean the back bone is fibre for a reason.

 

[bellenuit]

Point is that if you have fibre you get current technology light speed, no compression or any other rubbish needed to achieve high speeds and or increase throughput etc...i mean the back bone is fibre for a reason.

Ok. But nobody disagrees that fibre is faster. The point is it costs a lot more to install to every home and there are ways to get acceptable speeds for a lot less. The coalition plan doesn't preclude getting faster speeds when they are eventually needed whether it be new technology that better utilises copper, installing fibre or something from left field that is being worked on in the labs that we don't know about yet.

 

[Some Dude]

Ok. But nobody disagrees that fibre is faster. The point is it costs a lot more to install to every home and there are ways to get acceptable speeds for a lot less. The coalition plan doesn't preclude getting faster speeds when they are eventually needed whether it be new technology that better utilises copper, installing fibre or something from left field that is being worked on in the labs that we don't know about yet.

Any theoretical technology that is being worked on in the labs will be used in the backbone first, and one is not being used yet. Betting that a left field technology will appear does not seem like a viable option. Fibre is the next step and one day it will be replacing the copper network in it's entirety to the home. Why do it piecemeal which will cost so much more per residence instead of one standardised rollout?

 

[sydboy007]

Please, sydboy, the LNP only exists as a single party in Queensland.
Nationally, it's the Coalition of the Liberal and National Parties, viz "The Coalition".

Julia

considering the meakness of the Nationals in the face of Fraudband, you could be right.

Still, they shack up together so cozy it's hard not to see them as the LNP, or maybe the LnP to show just how weak the Nationals really are.

 

[sydboy007]

I agree with that completely, it doesn't matter which one goes ahead, it will be a slow process.
The logistics are huge, however it obviously would be quicker if you don't have to run to the premise then install new equipment.
But as you say fabricating and fitting out 60,00 cabinets in 3 years doesn't sound plausible either.

My guess is if Libs do FTTN, it will take 6 - 10 years, but will be completed.

Then why not spend the money to do it once, than to go through two drawn out network upgrades.

I can see Fraudband costing as much as the NBN simply because it loses the scale economics of a single fibre rollout.

Malcolm can't even get his first 2 years OPEX right, so really how can we take the rest of his calculations with anything but a huge amount of skepticism!

 

[moXJO]

Point is that if you have fibre you get current technology light speed, no compression or any other rubbish needed to achieve high speeds and or increase throughput etc...i mean the back bone is fibre for a reason.

I agree do it once and do it right. Labor has good ideas but it really stuffs up on the rollouts. Their nbn is far better then the libs and while costing more, I believe there are better productivity gains and tech advancements to offset any costs.

 

[Calliope]

I believe there are better productivity gains and tech advancements to offset any costs.

You have hit the nail on the head. The Turnbull model offers 25 -50mgs rollout for everyone, but the "better productivity gains and tech advancements to offset costs" from 100mgs are available to any business for around $5000...which is chickenfeed.

It's like flying economy or first class. If you want superior service you pay for it.

 

[bellenuit]

Any theoretical technology that is being worked on in the labs will be used in the backbone first, and one is not being used yet.

That's a huge call to make. What about, say, community wide wifi? Wifi that would not be limited to just inside the premises, but could extend over a greater area, perhaps the same footprint that will be covered by the street boxes that join the FTTN back bone to the local copper. The requirements for the last mile are very different to what is needed for the backbone, so you cannot assume that there will be no independent developments that might be suited to the former but inappropriate to the latter.

Betting that a left field technology will appear does not seem like a viable option.

But you are not betting the farm on that. That is just one of several possibilities, as I mentioned.

Fibre is the next step and one day it will be replacing the copper network in it's entirety to the home. Why do it piecemeal which will cost so much more per residence instead of one standardised rollout?

Again you are making assumptions that may very well not be the case. Doing fibre to a premise now may well be cheaper than installing just to a street node now and eventually upgrading the copper part to fibre 10 years down the track. But few installations are happening NOW. The reality is likely to be that the coalition's NBN will be bringing in revenue a lot sooner and costing less in interest than Labor's NBN, so you would have to ensure that the revenue increase coupled with reduced costs do not more than cover the total extra cost of the double installation to say the Labor version is cheaper. And that is on cost/premises basis. What about all those premises that are happy with the speeds that they get under the coalition plan? They don't require a second upgrade.

And what about the cost of doing bad fibre installations? We already have had stories about how few NBN installers have been properly trained.

I think it is too difficult to make a call on what is cheaper and too difficult to make a call on what is going to be the requirements and technology 10 years hence.

 

[drsmith]

Malcolm can't even get his first 2 years OPEX right, so really how can we take the rest of his calculations with anything but a huge amount of skepticism!

In drawing that conclusion for those two years (FY2014 and FY2015), has the late 2014 start date of the large scale rollout of the Opposition's FTTN model been considered ?

I made a reference to this in response to one of your posts yesterday.

 

[Some Dude]

That's a huge call to make.

True, my bad. I was referring to technologies that will increase signal speed e.g. fibre optic vacuum, that would be potentially beneficial for large scale purposes.

What about, say, community wide wifi? Wifi that would not be limited to just inside the premises, but could extend over a greater area, perhaps the same footprint that will be covered by the street boxes that join the FTTN back bone to the local copper. The requirements for the last mile are very different to what is needed for the backbone, so you cannot assume that there will be no independent developments that might be suited to the former but inappropriate to the latter.

A decision will need to be made at some point, one can't wait for what might come around the corner forever. None of the technologies you suggest to my knowledge provide any such possibility for an economical deployment to the distance and population requirements?

But you are not betting the farm on that. That is just one of several possibilities, as I mentioned.

I disgaree with the characterisation of "betting the farm on it". The decisions have costs, and both proposals are not insubstantial, but to characterise fibre optic as betting the farm on it as if we will regret it because some magic technology may come along is problematic for me. One one hand we have observations that most homes won't need the bandwidth (I disagree with this also), and then on the other hand we should hold out for something faster and better?

Again you are making assumptions that may very well not be the case. Doing fibre to a premise now may well be cheaper than installing just to a street node now and eventually upgrading the copper part to fibre 10 years down the track. But few installations are happening NOW. The reality is likely to be that the coalition's NBN will be bringing in revenue a lot sooner and costing less in interest than Labor's NBN, so you would have to ensure that the revenue increase coupled with reduced costs do not more than cover the total extra cost of the double installation to say the Labor version is cheaper. And that is on cost/premises basis. What about all those premises that are happy with the speeds that they get under the coalition plan? They don't require a second upgrade.

I think your premise there is faulty. You may not want it but why constrain the future users because of your requirements now. Where I do think you could have a point is on coverage. I was talking to someone today who models these situations and they made the point that substantial savings could be had by lowering the coverage rate from 93% to another figure (say 85% for discussion sake). In this manner, they briefly demonstrated how the system would be significantly cheaper (closer to the coalitions stated cost) but still get to the vast majority of the population with the benefits of fibre optic.

And what about the cost of doing bad fibre installations? We already have had stories about how few NBN installers have been properly trained.

I think it is too difficult to make a call on what is cheaper and too difficult to make a call on what is going to be the requirements and technology 10 years hence.

Most of the professionals in the field I have discussed it with seem to disagree that it is to difficult to make a call.

 

[sydboy007]

In drawing that conclusion for those two years (FY2014 and FY2015), has the late 2014 start date of the large scale rollout of the Opposition's FTTN model been considered ?

I made a reference to this in response to one of your posts yesterday.

If that's the case then seriously, 25Mbs minimum speed for EVERYONE getting FTTN is not possible. That would make the rollout share of 2016 at over half the FTTN footprint.

I've used a graph from ofcom - MT should be happy with it since he holds up BTs FTTN network as something for Australia to aspire to.

Ignore VDSL2 as MT has not indicated we'll be using 2 copper pairs to provide for that kind of service. If he is then the costs are going to climb at more than double the current rate as he will need to be replacing a LOT more copper.

The good thing about this ofcom graph is that it's more about real world results than the theoretical graphs you see.

So to give us all 25Mbs we will need to be within 900M of a node.

To get up to that magical 50Mbs minimum means we need to be around 200M from a node.

Compare that to the theoretical graph which shows 50Mbs at around 1000M and 25Mbs at 1250M

I bet I know which graph MT is making his cost saving assumptions on.

The only way you can go from 25 to 50Mbs is to connect users up to 1 node further away, then reconnect to a closer node a few years later if you are getting less than 50Mbs. Seems like a lot of double handling to me.