NBN Rollout Scrapped

[Junior]

What short memories some people have. When ADSL was rolled out by Telstra most avoided the 1536/256 plan because of cost. Over time things changed, people moved up plans, Telstra uncapped speeds to allow full sync then ADSL2 became common.

FTTP has a lower operational cost so a greater proportion of money goes towards capex which has advantages. Labor favoured the laser printer model for printing lots of documents. Coalition changed it to the lower cost inket printer with more money going towards ink.

Labor FTTP allowed multiple voice providers and multiple data providers. Coalition changes with FTTN allows 1 voice provider if you don't have a data provider. It also only allows 1 data provider.

FTTP has far better capacity to scale to the future. Seems short sighted to change infrastructure investment for only the here and now and ignoring future growth. Malcolm still spouting old figures for FTTP deployment costs yet happy to use newer/adjusted FTTN deployment costs.

As for satellite - too latent for many uses and high cost. Mobile phone network has too many limitations - spectrum limitations and retail cost of data is far too high to replace much fixed line use.

ADSL used the existing copper network. NBN is costing a f*cking fortune and may or may be completely superseded by other technology by the time it's installed.

 

[sptrawler]

ADSL used the existing copper network. NBN is costing a f*cking fortune and may or may be completely superseded by other technology by the time it's installed.

I agree with you Junior, stupid price for something that 1% of people actually need, the problem is you are arguing against a dream that has been sold.
As though we need the debt for this, when the Government can't even afford, the day to day running costs of the Country.
The place has gone mad, peoples debt binge has flowed over into an underlying belief that just because we want something, we should have it.
Whether we can afford it doesn't matter, just put it on the tick mentality.
Everyone believes that gold plating of the power system was a disaster, which has caused the massive price hikes in electricity, but in the same breath they want to gold plate a bloody telephone system, weird $hit.

 

[SirRumpole]

Everyone believes that gold plating of the power system was a disaster, which has caused the massive price hikes in electricity, but in the same breath they want to gold plate a bloody telephone system, weird $hit

Well you have to blame both major parties don't you ?

Turnbull didn't say it shouldn't be done he just said it shouldn't be done Labor's way.

Hypocrisy all round.

 

[sptrawler]

Well you have to blame both major parties don't you ?

Turnbull didn't say it shouldn't be done he just said it shouldn't be done Labor's way.

Hypocrisy all round.

I agree, there is much more pressing infrastructure required IMO.
Like I said roll it out to CBD's, there is an argument for the efficiency gains, then roll it out to suburbia as it starts making money. All greenfield sites should be equiped with fibre, but replacing existing should have been started last, again just my opinion.
Turnbull should have put the brakes on and re set the roll out, rather than reconfigure the equipment, but as I said earlier that can't be done because neither side can get over themselves.
Why they can't put us first, rather than their pettiness is the root cause of 90% of our problems.IMO

 

[drsmith]

Just when Labor was hoping 4 years may have softened the public memory of the NBN they were attempting to roll out, someone's popped up to help.

 

[SirRumpole]

Just when Labor was hoping 4 years may have softened the public memory of the NBN they were attempting to roll out, someone's popped up to help.

Well, he's right. Turnbull sold us a pup. It's all on the LNP's head now.

 

[drsmith]

Well, he's right. Turnbull sold us a pup. It's all on the LNP's head now.

You've missed the point.

Labor wouldn't be happy with Kevin Rudd's intervention as it focuses public attention back to his tenure as PM and the lack of progress of the NBN during Labor's time in office.

 

[Tisme]

Well if you research it a bit, people aren't going for the highest speed, they are going for the slowest cheapest speed.

I don't know why. I negotiated 100megs down, 40megs up and a 4/5g wireless backup for way less than $100/month ..Telstra

 

[sptrawler]

I don't know why. I negotiated 100megs down, 40megs up and a 4/5g wireless backup for way less than $100/month ..Telstra

Obviously not everyone has your money, 80% who have signed up, have gone for 20meg or less

 

[Tisme]

............., 80% who have signed up, have gone for 20meg or less

That kinda defeats the purpose, yes? Apparently there is currently a huge demand for 4k TVs .... won't they get a shock when Netflix starts streaming Ultra HD here = minimum 25megs and even then there is some stutter and that's with other devices on the home network off

 

[sptrawler]

That kinda defeats the purpose, yes? Apparently there is currently a huge demand for 4k TVs .... won't they get a shock when Netflix starts streaming Ultra HD here = minimum 25megs and even then there is some stutter and that's with other devices on the home network off

You are spot on with that analogy, the only problem is, do we really need 4K t.v more than road, rail, airport, wharf's etc?
I suppose it gives people something to do, when they're unemployed.

 

[Tisme]

You are spot on with that analogy, the only problem is, do we really need 4K t.v more than road, rail, airport, wharf's etc?
I suppose it gives people something to do, when they're unemployed.

Yes I chose the lowest common denominator, but I guess it does open opportunities for upsell and value add for the NBN as a consequence.

I remember back in the 80's the big thing was multi function polis'. We were going to ride the wave of innovative technology into prosperity. Here we are 30 years later and we are playing catchup on many fronts due to failure to launch.

 

[overhang]

Do people forget that Labor actually took the FTTN rollout to the 2007 election. But not one of the companies that submitted a tender met the met the requirements. It was also made apparent that we would have to buy back the ducts from Telstra (thanks Howard) and then require Telstra to maintain these ducts which didn't seem sensible for a retail service provider to have that type of control over a wholesale network (again thanks Howard for not splitting Telstra into separate wholesale and retail divisions before the sell off). The ACCC also provided the expert panel with advice that 70% of the costs to build a FTTN would be stranded costs in any subsequent upgrade to FTTP. The panel of experts recommended to the government that FTTN provided an inefficient upgrade path.

It always amazes me the backlash people have to spend $50 billion on a public infrastructure project that will eventually pay for itself and provide many economic benefits along the way. But no one gives a stuff if we spend $50 billion on 12 submarines, in a climate where biggest enemies don't have a navy and use gorilla warfare. Where our greatest defense is being a close ally of the US and having China so heavily invested in our country they can just buy us out instead of invading.

Murdoch ran a campaign opposed to the NBN from day one because it presented competition to his cable network, sadly many people couldn't see the conflict of interests he had and that he doesn't represent the national interest.

 

[drsmith]

Do people forget that Labor actually took the FTTN rollout to the 2007 election. But not one of the companies that submitted a tender met the met the requirements. It was also made apparent that we would have to buy back the ducts from Telstra (thanks Howard) and then require Telstra to maintain these ducts which didn't seem sensible for a retail service provider to have that type of control over a wholesale network (again thanks Howard for not splitting Telstra into separate wholesale and retail divisions before the sell off). The ACCC also provided the expert panel with advice that 70% of the costs to build a FTTN would be stranded costs in any subsequent upgrade to FTTP. The panel of experts recommended to the government that FTTN provided an inefficient upgrade path.

Rather than mandating 100% of the fixed line rollout as FTTP as Labor did, a minimum level of service (a speed of say 25 mbps as the social objective) should have been the criteria to be delivered by the most economical choice of technology on a location by location basis and not subject to the political time constraints that both sides have inflicted on the project with their respective rollouts. This would have been a true technology agnostic approach and may have resulted in a greater penetration of FTTP but obviously not 100% of the fixed line footprint. This would have also improved the economics of the project thereby allowing lower wholesale charges and perhaps avoided the CVC pricing component which has plagued speed across the fixed line footprint.

With Bill Morrow's commentary this week on taxing competing mobile services, we've come a big step closer to the inevitable multi-billion dollar writedown of the government's investment which was essentially set in stone at the time Labor's model was conceived. The Howard government should have structurally separated Telstra's wholesale and retail businesses before prior to privatisation but that doesn't excuse Labor from the disastrous publically owned NBN fantasy journey they started us on.

I note that further refinement is being considered to the current NBN wholesale pricing model.

 

[boofhead]

I don't understand how a technology agnostic approach with minimum 25 megabits/s would improve anything, especially for the long term.

 

[drsmith]

I don't understand how a technology agnostic approach with minimum 25 megabits/s would improve anything, especially for the long term.

That's the social objective which could have applied to provide a minimum level of service with rollout technology then decided by economics on a location by location basis.

That's basically what the current government has done at least with the minimum service level but like its Labor predecessor, it mandated a rollout timeframe that was too short.

 

[PZ99]

The Govt would be better off with a 5G roll out than a Fibre to the Telephone Box style NBN delivering just 25 megabits/s.

 

[boofhead]

Wishy washy stuff. Can you explain it in more concrete ways that show long term benefits instead of short term headlines? What model(s) do you use for economics? Do you include operational costs? Direct revenue? Indirect via taxation etc? Do you include potential for economic growth? Do you factor in the brakes that are applied if the choices are too limited?

 

[overhang]

Rather than mandating 100% of the fixed line rollout as FTTP as Labor did, a minimum level of service (a speed of say 25 mbps as the social objective) should have been the criteria to be delivered by the most economical choice of technology on a location by location basis and not subject to the political time constraints that both sides have inflicted on the project with their respective rollouts. This would have been a true technology agnostic approach and may have resulted in a greater penetration of FTTP but obviously not 100% of the fixed line footprint. This would have also improved the economics of the project thereby allowing lower wholesale charges and perhaps avoided the CVC pricing component which has plagued speed across the fixed line footprint.

With Bill Morrow's commentary this week on taxing competing mobile services, we've come a big step closer to the inevitable multi-billion dollar writedown of the government's investment which was essentially set in stone at the time Labor's model was conceived. The Howard government should have structurally separated Telstra's wholesale and retail businesses before prior to privatisation but that doesn't excuse Labor from the disastrous publically owned NBN fantasy journey they started us on.

I note that further refinement is being considered to the current NBN wholesale pricing model.

The original Labor model was to provide at least 12mbps to 98% of the country. During the tender process numerous issues were raised, it was noted that a recurring theme was that companies were finding it difficult developing and financing their proposal given the flexible nature of the governments approach. Labor failed to consider the compensation that Telstra would require for access to it's customer access network and as a result it became quite apparent that the $4.7 billion cost wasn't achievable.

The economics are never going to stack up to provide regional areas FTTN or FTTP, if they did then the private sector would have done this themselves. I respect you have a different opinion here but imo it's the role of the government to fill that void. The expert advice given to the government was that FTTN was a stepping stone to FTTP where most the costs would not be retrieved. This was a great opportunity imo for the government to roll out a network to the majority of Australians with the same technology and upgrade path, this makes future upgrades and maintenance simplistic and more efficient.

Given both Labor and Liberal policies have seen substantial cost and time blowouts one can appreciate how complex this issue is. Telstra had an original plan that they discussed with the Howard government to role out FTTN. It was later revealed Telstra's cost estimates were way off in the tune of billions.

There are many things Labor could have handled better but the fundamentals for FTTP are sound.

 

[drsmith]

The expert advice given to the government was that FTTN was a stepping stone to FTTP where most the costs would not be retrieved.

Whether or not the fundamentals for FTTP is sound relative to the alternatives is dependant on more than the above. The more interesting question now is where rather than as a whole.