NBN Rollout Scrapped

[sydboy007]

Syd,

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've suggested that Labor's rollout schedule is more realistic than that of the Coalition's.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21778&page=112&p=767415&viewfull=1#post767415

* It*takes*approximately*4*quarters*for*activity*at* NBN*Co*to*fully*reflect*changed*policy - if Malcolm is able to achieve this I'll take my hat off to him. To be able to redesign the network rollout, run tenders and pick suppliers, renegotiate with Telstra and Optus will be pretty hard to achieve in 1 year. I think there was a 3+ month period between the deal with Telstra getting board approval and the shareholder vote.

We'll have to wait for the detail, but it wouldn't surprise me if these targets are too ambitious.

the beginning of your response in red.

 

[drsmith]

* It*takes*approximately*4*quarters*for*activity*at* NBN*Co*to*fully*reflect*changed*policy - if Malcolm is able to achieve this I'll take my hat off to him. To be able to redesign the network rollout, run tenders and pick suppliers, renegotiate with Telstra and Optus will be pretty hard to achieve in 1 year. I think there was a 3+ month period between the deal with Telstra getting board approval and the shareholder vote.

We'll have to wait for the detail, but it wouldn't surprise me if these targets are too ambitious.

the beginning of your response in red.

In that statement, I didn't make any comparison with Labor's rollout which is what you seem to want to imply.

 

[drsmith]

Not at all. Because the Coalition's policy is so light on detail, all we know about it is that everyone must have access to 25Mbps by 2016. If we ignore HFC, then the quoted figure is accurate.

There's enough detail if you choose to look.

Approximately 65 per cent of the FTTN portion of the rollout is expected to be completed in the four years to 2016-17. The remaining 35 per cent will be deployed in 2017-18 and 2018-19 and will in most cases be in areas served by HFC networks.

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

 

[NBNMyths]

There's enough detail if you choose to look.



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

The question is then, how do the 'missing' 20% get 25Mbps by 2016? Delivered by the fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Turnbull says everyone will have access to 25Mbps by 2016. But he also says he's only doing 65% of the FTTN by then. HFC is only available to maybe 15%, so that leaves 20% with no upgrade at all. And 15% with no choice but monopoly HFC for 25Mbps, if the Coalition can re-negotiate the Telstra/Optus deals, if people can actually get connected to it and if it can actually deliver 25Mbps to them.




http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/gov...declare-on-turnbulls-plan-20130409-2hjil.html

 

[sydboy007]

There's enough detail if you choose to look.



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

On page 2 of the document it states by Late 2016 EVERY household and business will have speeds of 25-100Mbs

That's a bit tricky to have one goal post as the first thing a reader will see, and to then change it to sometime in 2017 near the end of the document.

Caliope would definitely give that the slippery eel moniker

 

[sydboy007]

In that statement, I didn't make any comparison with Labor's rollout which is what you seem to want to imply.

Wasn't saying you did, only that you seem to have some doubt as to the LNP being able to porvide 25-100Mbs within the time frame they have stated.

As my previous post has shown, they seem to have 2 time frames, depending on how far within the broadband document you are willing to read.

 

[sptrawler]

So how is the coalitions claims any different to the governments claims, they seem to be both full of it.

You guys say the coalition can't meet their timeframes.

The government isn't meeting theirs.:1zhelp:

 

[Calliope]

On page 2 of the document it states by Late 2016 EVERY household and business will have speeds of 25-100Mbs

That's a bit tricky to have one goal post as the first thing a reader will see, and to then change it to sometime in 2017 near the end of the document.

Caliope would definitely give that the slippery eel moniker

I really have no interest in either Conroy's or Turnbull's NBNs. I get along nicely on ADSL 2.

 

[sptrawler]

I really have no interest in either Conroy's or Turnbull's NBNs. I get along nicely on ADSL 2.

Hooray, a voice in the wilderness, I agree with you.
We need bling speed internet to the home, about as much as we need a bidet in every bathroom.

Spend the $50b on dams, irrigation, flood mitigation, drought proofing, sustainable industry, agriculture, marine aquaculture.

 

[sydboy007]

So how is the coalitions claims any different to the governments claims, they seem to be both full of it.

egads

Are you casting aspersions on the righteous and holy LNP who shalt forever be destined for power as the one and true party of the never ending surplus?

I do find it sad that when the LNP is caught out, it's "they all do it" yet when at first it seems just the ALP or Greens are doing it, then it's attack mode straight for the jugular.

The point I think that we are trying to make is that the LNP policy is based on

- being faster to implement hence cheaper - yet seems to have unrealistic rollout targets so would probably experiencing far great cost blowouts than the current NBN.

- uses the copper network - therefore cheaper (Malcom's words) - yet it does not provide any kind of estimate as to how much copper will need to be replaced. How can you claim to have a costed policy that doesn't even attempt to estimate what would be a major cost increase.

You have to wonder what they've been up to for 2.5 years. I mean a policy document of 18 pages and a "back ground paper" that is 36 pages long and only starts to detail the assumptiosn behind the LNP policy on page 30. Page 32 starts talking about the NBN being on or off budget.

So just 2 pages out of 36 used to provide some insight into how they've come up with their $29 billion Fraudband proposal. I would laugh, except it's likely what we will end up with for the next decade or more.

Now if Malcolm was willing to say he will resign from office if his target is not met for ALL households and businesses to have a minimum of 25Mbs by the end of 2016, then I might take his proposal a bit more seriously.

 

[sptrawler]

egads

Are you casting aspersions on the righteous and holy LNP who shalt forever be destined for power as the one and true party of the never ending surplus?

I do find it sad that when the LNP is caught out, it's "they all do it" yet when at first it seems just the ALP or Greens are doing it, then it's attack mode straight for the jugular.

The point I think that we are trying to make is that the LNP policy is based on

- being faster to implement hence cheaper - yet seems to have unrealistic rollout targets.

- uses the copper network - therefore cheaper (Malcom's words) - yet it does not provide any kind of estimate as to how much copper will need to be replaced. How can you claim to have a costed policy that doesn't even attempt to estimate what would be a major cost increase.

You have to wonder what they've been up to for 2.5 years. I mean a policy document of 18 pages and a "back ground paper" that is 36 pages long and only starts to detail the assumptiosn behind the LNP policy on page 30. Page 32 strts talking about the NBN being on or off budget.

So just 2 pages out of 36 used to provide some insight into how they've come up with their $29 billion Fraudband proposal. I would laugh, except it's likely what we will end up with for the next decade or more.

Now if Malcolm was willing to say he will resign from office if his target is not met for ALL households and businesses to have a minimum of 25Mbs by the end of 2016, then I might take his proposal a bit more seriously.

Mate, youve really lost it, they aren't in office and you're paying out.

You're taking the pizz out of their roll out targets, yet supporting roll out targets of the government, that keep falling short.
Tell me what the rollout targets were for the pink batts?
Tell me the roll out targets and budget outcomes, for the school building programme?
No you can't because they were crap.

Someone said, what infrastructure project did the Howard government build.
One has to ask what has this government built other than a huge debt, that you and I will be crunched for.

 

[NBNMyths]

[video=youtube_share;b-6E5yX1E0U]http://youtu.be/b-6E5yX1E0U[/video]

 

[So_Cynical]

[video=youtube_share;b-6E5yX1E0U]http://youtu.be/b-6E5yX1E0U[/video]

The high speed train analogy is a beaut...you wouldn't build a Melbourne to Brisbane high speed train that stopped at Lithgow to drop of passengers heading to Sydney.

30 Billion to build a half arsed NBN is crazy.

 

[drsmith]

As my previous post has shown, they seem to have 2 time frames, depending on how far within the broadband document you are willing to read.

The latter half of 2016 is within the 2016/17 FY. You're grasping at straws there.

Wasn't saying you did, only that you seem to have some doubt as to the LNP being able to porvide 25-100Mbs within the time frame they have stated.

No. You went further than that in attempting to relate my comment about the Coalition's rollout prospects to your own views on Labor's.

I would argue up to 8 years seems a lot more realistic than what the LNP is saying at present. You seem to have hinted you at least partially agree with this.

 

[Knobby22]

Very funny. Good show - Mad as Hell.

 

[sydboy007]

The latter half of 2016 is within the 2016/17 FY. You're grasping at straws there.



No. You went further than that in attempting to relate my comment about the Coalition's rollout prospects to your own views on Labor's.

The page 2 date does not state it is a fiscal year. So possibly you are the one grasping at straws? If you are correct, then I would argue the majority of punters who see late 2016 as a date would think it to mean late calendar year 2016, not up to mid 2017. Certainly MT needs to make this cleared for the voting public.

Seems I have misinterpreted you comment for the rollout of the LNP NBN and how much faith you have in the schedule, so I'll leave it be.

 

[drsmith]

The page 2 date does not state it is a fiscal year. So possibly you are the one grasping at straws? If you are correct, then I would argue the majority of punters who see late 2016 as a date would think it to mean late calendar year 2016, not up to mid 2017. Certainly MT needs to make this cleared for the voting public..

That part of the rollout can finish in late 2016 and within the 2016/17 FY. There's a 6-month overlap between the two.

My reflection in the likelihood of the Libs achieving their rollout schedule was an attempt to introduce some bipartisanship into the discussion. I like a bit of partisan political argy bargy as you do, but if that's all it is, it ultimately becomes pointless.

As for any comparison between my expectations for the Coalition's rollout and Labor's, we've already seen two significant delays in Labor's.

 

[sydboy007]

That part of the rollout can finish in late 2016 and within the 2016/17 FY. There's a 6-month overlap between the two.

Then MT should make that clear

I think it's reasonable to think that the majority of people who see late 2016 would not consider it to mean a fiscal year.

MT needs to clarify this so a large section of the community don't have unrealistic expectations of when they will receive an upgrade to their internet service.

 

[Smurf1976]

If someone tells me "late 2016" then I will expect it by mid-December and will enforce Dec 31 at the latest.

If someone is referring to a financial year then this it is normal practice to say so. Either as "2016-17" or "2016 financial year" or something like that. To do otherwise is dishonest at best.

 

[drsmith]

If someone tells me "late 2016" then I will expect it by mid-December and will enforce Dec 31 at the latest.

If someone is referring to a financial year then this it is normal practice to say so. Either as "2016-17" or "2016 financial year" or something like that. To do otherwise is dishonest at best.

I think the point Syd is making is that to say "late 2016" in one part of the document and "in the 4-years to 2016-17" in another part is inconsistent.

It depends on how you want to look at it.