This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

NBN Rollout Scrapped

Jump to new
drsmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then can you explain a way to look at it where they are not inconsistent.

I'm not being partisan in this, am just saying that from my reading of the document it seems inconsistent.

So I'd like to see why you believe it isn't so i can better understand your point of view.

As smurf has said, the usual way to indicate a financial year is 2016-17, otherwise I'd say most people will see the 2016 deadline as Dec 31 2016.

The only way I can see that it isn't inconsistent is that the second reference is talking about not only the upgrade to a minimum 25Mbs by 31/12/2016, but is also including some of the further rollout to HFC areas and providing the further upgrade to 50Mbs by 31/12/2019 as he does state it will be completed in 2019.

Surely he got some people not too au fey with the policy to read it and catch these kinds of ambiguities?
 
drsmith said:
The 2016-17 FY is from July 01 2016 to June 30 2017.

The end of 2016 is within the above FY.
Click to expand...

So how does one distinguish between 2016 calendar year and 2016 fiscal year, when all you are told is that work will be completed by late 2016?

Do you agree that it it makes much more sense to be specific and say 2016-17 or the 2016 fiscal year?

All MT has to do is update his document on page 2 to say late 2016 fiscal year or 2016-17 and this fog is cleared up, and it will also allow people to see that the promised upgrade may not occur till mid 2017.

This is an important policy and I feel that things need to be as precise as possible as it allows people to make the best informed decision they can, and it also allow us to hold MT accountable should things fall short of what has been promised.
 
sydboy007 said:
So how does one distinguish between 2016 calendar year and 2016 fiscal year, when all you are told is that work will be completed by late 2016?

Do you agree that it makes much more sense to be specific and say 2016-17 or the 2016 fiscal year?
Click to expand...
As I've said above, the time frames for 65% of the FTTN rollout and min 25 mbps frames are not mutually exclusive. The end of 2016 is within the 2016/17 FY.

With min 25 mbps, he has been specific in saying the end of 2016.

sydboy007 said:
This is an important policy and I feel that things need to be as precise as possible as it allows people to make the best informed decision they can, and it also allow us to hold MT accountable should things fall short of what has been promised.
Click to expand...
If you want further clarification on the detail, there's no harm in asking.

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/contact/

As for things falling short, public judgement will ultimately be between the outcomes of the two parties.
 
drsmith said:
I'm surprised no one's picked up on this,



This sort of flexible thinking is what we need in our politicians, unlike the political dogma of Stephen Conroy.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...lition-may-increase-ftth-nbn-rollout-turnbull
Click to expand...

Let me translate Turnbull:

"If the rubbish "FTTN is 1/4 the cost of fibre" campaign I've been running for the last 3 years turns out to be wrong, then the current NBN model (which I've also been bagging for 3 years) is actually the way to go. Sorry."
 
NBNMyths said:
Let me translate Turnbull:
Click to expand...
The cost and timeframe of Labor's NBN is by no means settled yet, but I knew I could draw you out.

How do you want to translate Stephen Conroy ?

You know it'll have to include red underpants and the dogma that money is no object.
 
drsmith said:
The cost and timeframe of Labor's NBN is by no means settled yet, but I knew I could draw you out.

How do you want to translate Stephen Conroy ?

You know it'll have to include red underpants and the dogma that money is no object.
Click to expand...

Dr Smith, when nation building does money really matter? i mean the 45 to 90 billion isn't going to break us as a country, wont even come close, a literal drop in the bucket.

Do you think wars are won worrying about the cost? what % of GDP did the Trans-Australian Railway cost in 1912/17? wiki says it cost £4,045,000 to build it, an extraordinary amount in those days, pushed forward by a Labor Govt going about the business of nation building.

EDIT:

Total Federal Govt revenues in 1909 were £14,350,793

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/F266A9AFC7CD16B7CA257AEE0011E796/$File/13010_1901_1909%20section%2019.pdf

Same in 2012 expected $376.1 billion

http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/html/overview_42.htm

So the spend is somewhat comparable to previous nation building initiatives.
 
Decided I have too many unanswered questions from the LNP broadband policy (not sure 18 pages counts as a policy) So I've emailed the following to Malcolm.

I'm expecting to get back the same kind of waffle I've received on previous emails, but I'll post what ever I receive.

Malcolm

I've been reading your broadband policy with quite some interest. I must admit I'm quite disappointed that after 2.5 years the policy you have presented is all you've got.

After reading you policy and background papers a few times, I'm still quite unclear about a range of issues. I'm hoping you can clarify these for me.

Telstra

When do you expect a signed agreement with Telstra on use of the copper network?

Why do you believe that this agreement will not add any cost to the current agreement NBN has with them?

Do you expect that ACCC will need to clear any agreement?

Do you expect a new agreement will require a vote by Telstra shareholders?

Copper remediation / replacement

Does your current costings have any amount for copper network repairs?

Have you any forecast figures as to how much copper will need to be repaired?

Who will pay for the copper repair?

If a significant amount of copper - say greater than 20% - needs to be replaced will this have an impact on your rollout schedule?

If an area has most of its copper replaced, will they still be connected to a node? I'm assuming this would be more costly to run that a GPON network?

Network Rollout

How long will the tender process take to determine the node / equipment supplier?

How will the network rollout proceed before you have a signed agreement with Telstra?

When do you expect the first node to go live?

How many nodes do you expect to be installed by late 2016 and then late 2019?

How many premises do you expect will be cutover to the network by late 2016 so as to have access to a minimum of 25Mbs?

How long will it take to reach the highest daily rate of cutovers? How many premises per day do you expect this to be?

What is the maximum node to premises cable length that you have forecast that will allow a minimum of 25Mbs?

Are MDUs is current HFC areas due for an upgrade by late 2016, or will they be part of the late 2019 rollout?

I'm looking forward to your response to these questions as it will help me in weighing your proposal against Labor's.
 
sydboy007 said:
I've emailed the following to Malcolm.
Click to expand...
There's some good questions in there.

I perhaps would have asked them in the form of a formal letter and not been so disparaging at the beginning. That's only going to lead the reader to think you have made up your mind regardless of how the questions are answered.
 
So_Cynical said:
Dr Smith, when nation building does money really matter? i mean the 45 to 90 billion isn't going to break us as a country, wont even come close, a literal drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...
That statement well illustrates things. Firstly, the lack of respect of the value of money typical of the current government and a lack of confidence in the projected costing of the current NBN rollout.

As for comparisons with federal budgets of 100 years ago, what were the other demands on government in terms of social security, healthcare, pensions etc ?

I think you'll find it's not exactly a rational comparison.
 

My personal feeling is what Malcolm has is more a discussion paper than a true fully costed policy. Both documents total less than 60 pages, most of which is just criticising the NBN.

It's certainly not the quality document I think a lot of MT supporters were expecting.
 
sydboy007 said:
My personal feeling is what Malcolm has is more a discussion paper than a true fully costed policy.
Click to expand...
One thing to consider is that oppositions don't have the resources of government when it comes to evaluating and costing projects.

It may also be the case that the Opposition haven't released all the background information. It is a political environment in which they operate after all, and the information is for broader public consumption. It may not necessarily reflect all the research they have conducted.

I hope in their own minds that they do see it at least in part of a discussion paper and that's why I've been encouraged by some of Malcolm's comments regarding the potential scope of the fibre rollout relative to cost. With that in mind, it's obviously beneficial all round if NBN Co are successful in bringing the rollout costs to expectations as, judging by Malcolm's comments, this would enable the expansion of FTTH relative to FTTN under their model.

I don't know if you noticed, but in the Coalition's background documents, Malcolm assumed an FTTP cost of $3600 per premises in his time value of money argument. That leaves a lot of scope to expand FTTP beyond 22% under the Coalition's model if the actual cost is closer to NBN Co's $2400 PP.

If your questions are raised in the context of genuine interest as part of a formal letter, it will be interesting to see what responses you get. I'm sure Myths could make worthwhile additions to the list.
 

That's true, but the LNP do have considerable resources at their disposal, and polling would suggest this is a particularly important policy area, so I would have thought they would put more effort into it.

I don't feel that the current policy provides enough information to determine if their costings are in the ball park.

At a minimum Malcolm needed to state how many nodes would be required and the approx max cable length to provide a minimum 25Mbs. These are the 2 factors that have the most bearing on rollout costs.

Considering there's a website called http://www.adsl2exchanges.com.au/ that provides reasonable cable length estimates I would think he could have gained access to similar data sets. I hope he has.

Copper remediation would be the next biggest cost.

I do find it rank hypocrisy that Malcolm is having it both ways in saying the NBN will cost $94B but then says if the current FTTP rollout costs are true then he will allow more FTTP under his policy. He's having a two way bet and the media isn't hammering him enough on this duplicity.

I am hoping to get a reasonable response from him, but my experience from sending him emails in the past about what he's said on talk shows and radio has usually been he responds to just one question in such a limited way as to offer no real understanding as to what his true position is.
 
When you open them the way you've open the one above, it's obvious you've made your mind up and are not a genuine seeker of additional information.

A response (if any) is drafted accordingly.
 
drsmith said:
When you open them the way you've open the one above, it's obvious you've made your mind up and are not a genuine seeker of additional information.

A response (if any) is drafted accordingly.
Click to expand...

Aug 22 2012 Malcolm stated on ABC Lateline that he had a fully costed broadband policy. He then release his "fully costed" policy in April 2013 and well it's a pretty thin document that doesn't show any estimates as to the main cost compnents of the network rollout.

So yes, I'm disappointed and feel right to criticize the document to Turnbull directly.

As for making my mind up, yes I'm a support of the current NBN, but if I had great faith in the costings and rollout schedule of the LNP version, while probably not wholeheartedly supporting it, I could see why the electorate my decide to go with it, and accept it.

Does that make me political? I suppose it does, but no more than you or pretty much anyone else on this forum. I'm at least attacking the LNP policy based on the technical criteria.
 
drsmith said:
If your questions are raised in the context of genuine interest as part of a formal letter, it will be interesting to see what responses you get. I'm sure Myths could make worthwhile additions to the list.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't place too much hope in getting a decent reply.

I sent a polite, formal letter to MT in late 2010, asking several very specific questions about speed, coverage, technologies and future upgrades under his policy. All I got back was a 2-page form letter on 21/1/11 that said (summarised into brief points):

The NBN is "an irresponsible plan that will..."
- "increase the cost of internet access for consumers due to real price increases".
- "duplicate existing infrastructure and scrap existing copper, HFC and FTTP networks"
- "not deliver value for money"
- "has been exempted from FOI laws"

"Wireless is the type of broadband in greatest demand" yet the NBN is only fixed line.
"12Mbps is more than sufficient for residential customers".


Interesting that since then:
#1 has been shown to be false, with current pricing below copper and an SAU submission requiring a fall in real prices for 30 years.

#2 is somewhat false and the rest will ultimately apply to his plan as well in the case of copper and probably HFC.

#4 is incorrect, since NBN Co was explicitly subjected to FOI even though GBE are automatically exempted.

#5 applies equally to his own policy.

He has now decided that #6 is wrong and is offering 25-100Mbps in his own policy.



He didn't answer a single question I asked of him.
 

Questions and catching them out won't help out much in changing opinion on the NBN. Continually lobbying them with the affordability and future economic benefits will more than likely turn them. If you can get the numbers of people supporting you to a decent number then the door will be left open to changing their stance. There are a lot of libs that do support the nbn and I think it's a sticking point with a lot of them. This is one area I think the libs look a little stupid in. But I would consider it more an election tactic at this point then anything else.
 
Do you want answers or just to make a political point ?

It's your choice, but don't expect the former when you're looking for the latter.

And don't worry about the forum. It's ultimately not about winning a debate here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
A
National Broadband Network
23 24 25
Replies
483
Views
57K
sptrawler
ASF Mark III
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
44K
mr. jeff
A
Money management
Replies
0
Views
4K
absolute1
A
R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...