NBN Rollout Scrapped

[NBNMyths]

6-months after coming to office, Labor was still on plan A.

Yes, they were. As are the Coalition, more-or-less, yet look at the major changes that have already occurred. My point is that you're trying to say "Labor=bad" due to the rough 6-year evolution of the NBN into what it is today, while saying "Liberal=good" because there haven't been as many issues in their first 6 months.

They haven't even reach any hard spots yet. The only thing they have going for them is that Telstra are somewhat friendlier now than they were back when Labor tried to do FTTN. How friendly is yet to be seen however.

 

[drsmith]

My point is that you're trying to say "Labor=bad" due to the rough 6-year evolution of the NBN into what it is today, while saying "Liberal=good" because there haven't been as many issues in their first 6 months.

After 6-years in office, Labor essentially failed on delivery and part of the reason for that was that their project was fanciful within the parameters set during their time in office. Remember that Stephen Conroy effectively confessed as much in relation to FTTP to MDU's. There's also Simon Hackett's views in relation to the use of existing HFC.

While debate and issues will obviously continue around the detail, the multi technology approach was always going to be more sound as a matter of principal than one size fits all. To that end, I note that in Malcolm's statement of expectations from last week that the principal constraints are time and cost and not the specific tech that's to be used at any given location. This gives the Coalition a greater prospect of success than the red underpants approach from Stephen Conroy.

http://www.communications.gov.au/__...14/221162/SOE_Shareholder_Minister_letter.pdf

 

[Calliope]

. My point is that you're trying to say "Labor=bad" due to the rough 6-year evolution of the NBN into what it is today, while saying "Liberal=good" because there haven't been as many issues in their first 6 months.

Parrotting the parrot.

The Galah said;

Your wasting your breath quoting facts as you see from the replies through out this entire thread no facts but ultra politicization Coalition good Labor bad.

 

[overhang]

After 6-years in office, Labor essentially failed on delivery and part of the reason for that was that their project was fanciful within the parameters set during their time in office. Remember that Stephen Conroy effectively confessed as much in relation to FTTP to MDU's. There's also Simon Hackett's views in relation to the use of existing HFC.

Yes this was one of Labors biggest failures, they had 6 years to get the NBN to a position where the coalition couldn't come in and make a diabolical mess of it that at some point will require a large expenditure to fix.

You know you have really stuffed the NBN up when even The Australian thinks you have.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...oadband-service/story-e6frg9tf-1226883007979#

I note most of those opposed to the NBN in this thread demanded a CBA be carried out by Labor, I expect you'll hold the same level of disgust to Turnbull who is now switching to his NBN model before the CBA is released.

 

[drsmith]

Yes this was one of Labors biggest failures, they had 6 years to get the NBN to a position where the coalition couldn't come in and make a diabolical mess of it that at some point will require a large expenditure to fix.

You know you have really stuffed the NBN up when even The Australian thinks you have.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...oadband-service/story-e6frg9tf-1226883007979#

I note most of those opposed to the NBN in this thread demanded a CBA be carried out by Labor, I expect you'll hold the same level of disgust to Turnbull who is now switching to his NBN model before the CBA is released.

More sour grapes.

None of your response above effectively addresses the point of mine that you quoted.

 

[drsmith]

An update on rollout expectations,

The slideshow also reveals NBN Co will, as previously reported, easily exceed its 357,000 brownfields premises passed target for the end of June 2014. NBN Co is currently tracking to pass around 400,000 brownfields premises by the end of June, and around 102,214 greenfields premises, with a total of around 596,000 premises covered by the network, including fixed wireless.

NBN Co is also estimating that by the end of the year, when NBN Co's legacy fibre construction contracts run out, the fibre network will reach 550,000 brownfields premises, meaning NBN Co is only expecting to pass an additional 150,000 brownfields premises in the last six months of this year.

http://www.zdnet.com/au/revealed-nbn-co-scales-back-fibre-rollout-7000028381/

 

[sydboy007]

After 6-years in office, Labor essentially failed on delivery and part of the reason for that was that their project was fanciful within the parameters set during their time in office. Remember that Stephen Conroy effectively confessed as much in relation to FTTP to MDU's. There's also Simon Hackett's views in relation to the use of existing HFC.

While debate and issues will obviously continue around the detail, the multi technology approach was always going to be more sound as a matter of principal than one size fits all. To that end, I note that in Malcolm's statement of expectations from last week that the principal constraints are time and cost and not the specific tech that's to be used at any given location. This gives the Coalition a greater prospect of success than the red underpants approach from Stephen Conroy.

http://www.communications.gov.au/__...14/221162/SOE_Shareholder_Minister_letter.pdf

technically the CBN no longer has a rollout schedule - makes it easy to never miss a target

So we've gone from late 2016 time frame pre election, to 2019 once the fairy tale rollout was shown to have been either an outright lie or poorly planned election promise, to the latest revision that actually doesn't mention a completion date but does have the following aspirational objective:

The Australia Government is committed to completing the National Broadband Network ('NBN') and ensuring all Australians have access to very fast broadband as soon as possible..."

The design of a multi-technology mix NBN....download data rates (an proportionate upload rates) of at least 25Mbs to all premises and at least 50Mbs to 90% of fixed line premises as soon as possible.

http://www.communications.gov.au/__...14/221162/SOE_Shareholder_Minister_letter.pdf

What time frame do you consider "as soon as possible" doc?

What do you think of Turnbulls' unwillingness to talk about TPG and it's FTTB plans with a decision on if it's legal or not? He harped on so many times about how Labor was nearly communistic in bringing back a Government monopoly, yet he seems reluctant to allow private sector investment that would compete with the CBN.

 

[overhang]

More sour grapes.

None of your response above effectively addresses the point of mine that you quoted.

There was nothing of substance to address, as per usual you play the blame game.

From the article you quoted but left out

The 20 percent of premises is down from the 24 percent proposed in NBN Co's own multi-technology mix model in the NBN Strategic Review released last year, and down from 22 percent outlined in the Coalition's 2013 election policy.

More broken promises from this government. What a shambles this NBN will become in 20 years when fibre is still the benchmark and yet we still have millions of dollars in copper maintenance per year, thanks Turnbull.

 

[NBNMyths]

After 6-years in office, Labor essentially failed on delivery and part of the reason for that was that their project was fanciful within the parameters set during their time in office. Remember that Stephen Conroy effectively confessed as much in relation to FTTP to MDU's. There's also Simon Hackett's views in relation to the use of existing HFC.

While debate and issues will obviously continue around the detail, the multi technology approach was always going to be more sound as a matter of principal than one size fits all. To that end, I note that in Malcolm's statement of expectations from last week that the principal constraints are time and cost and not the specific tech that's to be used at any given location. This gives the Coalition a greater prospect of success than the red underpants approach from Stephen Conroy.

http://www.communications.gov.au/__...14/221162/SOE_Shareholder_Minister_letter.pdf

You're forgetting the issues that Labor faced at that time. Labor set a target of 100Mbps. Given that "expectation" and the situations below, FTTP was really the only choice available to them.

FTTN?
They couldn't do FTTN because of Telstra, and they couldn't include Telstra's HFC for the same reason. They had three choices:
1. Do nothing (i.e. allow Telsra to do FTTN as they saw fit)
2. Forcibly acquire Telstra's copper (cost estimated at $20bn)
3. Do FTTP

They went with #3, which I'm sure few people would disagree with given the available choices.

Additionally, in 2009 you could not practically do 100Mbps via FTTN. So if 100Mbps was the target, then even if they could pry the copper from the three amigos, it would not have delivered the target capability.


HFC?
In my submission to the NBN enquiry some years back, I suggested they use HFC as an interim measure, allowing HFC areas to be done with FTTP last. However, I have since learned that (at the time) there was not a single wholesale HFC network operating anywhere in the World, and I believe (happy to be corrected) this was because the HFC standards at that time did not facilitate a wholesale network.

Then there's the upgrades required. Optus HFC has less than 20% take-up, and even with that level it was only delivering ">8Mbps" in 2009 (according to Optus). So you can imagine the upgrade cost to deliver 100Mbps to 90% of premises in the footprint, given that it's a shared network (so more connections means slower speeds for everyone).

So even if they had been able to access Optus HFC back then, it's entirely possible that it would not have been a practical solution.

The only change I think was plausible was to do MDUs as FTTB as the default. Despite Turnbull's ramblings, that was always permitted under the NBN plan if the MDU was frustrated (i.e. the body corporate refused FTTP), but I do think that making FTTP an opt-in for MDUs would have been a better idea.

 

[So_Cynical]

While debate and issues will obviously continue around the detail, the multi technology approach was always going to be more sound as a matter of principal than one size fits all.

A half arsed bits and pieces approach of copper, fibre, cable, satellite and wireless across the board is better than fibre for 90% of us? .. more sound as a matter of principle.?

I'm stunned at the depth of absolute lunacy that the above quote displays, the absolute contempt for logic and sense.

 

[NBNMyths]

A half arsed bits and pieces approach of copper, fibre, cable, satellite and wireless across the board is better than fibre for 90% of us? .. more sound as a matter of principle.?

I'm stunned at the depth of absolute lunacy that the above quote displays, the absolute contempt for logic and sense.

Couldn't agree more. Pretty much everyone admits that FTTP is the end game. In 20 years, that's what will be the standard, just as copper twisted pairs have been the standard for the last hundred years. Yet here we are with people saying that it's more sensible to spend billions of dollars on technology which is admittedly nothing more than a stop gap, than to spend a few more billion doing it properly the first time.

100 years ago, the same sort of people were complaining about the cost of replacing iron with copper. Imagine if they'd gone with a "multi technology approach" then. Iron for most, copper twisted pairs for the lucky 25%, telegrams with messenger boys for the suburbs, carrier pigeons for the rest.

Yep, multi-technology is the way to go alright. I know that when I was building my house, the PGH sandstocks were damn expensive. So I decided to do part of the house with sandstocks, then a few areas with commons and the rest with fibro. That way, in 10 years I can rip out the commons and the fibre and do the rest of the house in the sandstocks. Sure, it will cost me 50% more by the time I finish, but at least I saved a few dollars in the first 10 years.

 

[drsmith]

Couldn't agree more.

Then you're at odds with Stephen Conroy post election, Simon Hackett and yourself.

The only change I think was plausible was to do MDUs as FTTB as the default.

And that's at odds with the statement of expectations for the NBN issued under Labor.

The Government expects that NBN Co will design, build and operate a new NBN to provide access to high speed broadband to all Australian premises. The Government’s objective for NBN Co is to connect 93 per cent of Australian homes, schools and businesses with fibre-to-the-premises technology providing broadband speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, with a minimum fibre coverage obligation of 90 per cent of Australian premises. All remaining premises will be served by a combination of next-generation fixed wireless and satellite technologies providing peak speeds of at least 12 megabits per second.

My bolds.

http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/statement-of-expectations.pdf

 

[NBNMyths]

Then you're at odds with Stephen Conroy post election, Simon Hackett and yourself.

And that's at odds with the statement of expectations for the NBN issued under Labor.


My bolds.

http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/statement-of-expectations.pdf

No, I'm not. FTTB is essentially FTTP. The fibre goes all the way to the building. It doesn't involve the construction and powering of 60,000 outdoor node cabinets which will be obsolete under FTTP. It doesn't involve spending billions purchasing or leasing Telstra's copper network. It requires very little additional equipment, and that equipment is cheap. The copper loop is well under 100m long (in most cases, probably ~20m). The technology exists now (and even then) to deliver 100Mbps over that distance.

I'll have to search to see how far back the agreement goes to allow FTTB for frustrated MDUs, but it's at least a few years. Possibly back to the KPMG implementation study IIRC.

 

[drsmith]

No, I'm not. FTTB is essentially FTTP. The fibre goes all the way to the building.

That's not what Labor meant by minimum 90% FTTP in their statement of expectations and you know it.

A half arsed bits and pieces approach of copper, fibre, cable, satellite and wireless across the board is better than fibre for 90% of us? .. more sound as a matter of principle.?

You're the one who quoted the above and said you couldn't agree more.

What about Simon Hackett and HFC or do you now consider him to be on the dark side as well ?

 

[sydboy007]

From Bill Morrow (NBN CEO):

“A building that signs up to TPG runs the risk of being left with only one retail service provider -- TPG itself,” he told the AFR as NBN Co prepared to launch what he describes as “a commercial response to emerging competition”.

So much for Turnbull being pro facilities based competition from the private sector.

 

[NBNMyths]

That's not what Labor meant by minimum 90% FTTP in their statement of expectations and you know it.

You're the one who quoted the above and said you couldn't agree more.

What about Simon Hackett and HFC or do you now consider him to be on the dark side as well ?

There are two different issues here:

1. Why didn't Labor use HFC.

I answered this above. When the FTTP NBN was announced, it was not practical for them to acquire an HFC network, nor was it practical to deliver 100Mbps over HFC.


2. Why not include HFC now? /Simon Hackett's view:

Even Simon says that FTTP is the end game, even though he advocates making HFC part of the NBN now. His primary reasoning is speed of rollout.

And he only advocates it if it is upgraded (at considerable cost) to be able to deliver NBN-class speeds ("100Mbps down and 30-40Mbps up").

This depends on two things:

a) NBN Co acquiring an HFC network (or two).

b) NBN Co investing a sizeable amount of money to upgrade the HFC network(s) to be able to deliver such speeds.

To be honest, I doubt whether it would be economical for NBN Co to acquire and upgrade the HFC to deliver true NBN-class speeds during busy periods. It would cost a fortune to do so.

I suspect what will really happen is that they'll get the Optus HFC, then perform minor upgrades which allow 100Mbps during off-peak periods. They would have more trouble getting Telstra's HFC because Telstra are still planning to use it for Foxtel. And the Optus HFC network is smaller, slower and less well maintained that Telstra's, making the cost of upgrading it higher.

Remember that MT regularly tells us that "the last mile" is the reason why FTTP is so expensive. Yet ~70% of premises in the HFC footprint don't have HFC leadins either. And given that MDUs are rife within the HFC footprint, chances are that almost every street will need fibre run down it anyway to do FTTB for MDUs. So if you need to run fibre down 70% of streets, and HFC requires you do to 70% of leadins, will it really be much cheaper to buy and upgrade HFC instead of doing FTTP?


To summarise my position on this….

IF it's substantially cheaper to buy and upgrade the HFC to deliver true NBN-class speeds 24/7, and such upgrades really occur, then I can live with it. Because (from a user's perspective), there would be no difference. But I don't believe that will actually happen. I believe that users in the HFC footprint will receive a lower class connection, because the cost of upgrading it will be prohibitive.

That's the problem with the "multi technology" approach. It doesn't matter how much you spin it, the only technology that can really deliver an equivalent service to everyone is FTTP.

FTTN QOS is dependent on the length of the copper loop. People who live at the end of the street will receive lower capability than people at the top of the street.

HFC QOS is dependent on the number of people on the node, and how heavily they use the network.

 

[NBNMyths]

I should also add, that what seems to be lost a little here in the talk about the alleged efficiencies of the "technology agnostic approach", is that the alleged savings have come at the expense of capability.

It wouldn't be so bad if the CBN was "technologically agnostic" with an expectation of minimum 100Mbps speeds rising to 1000Mbps (like the real NBN), but it isn't is it? The alleged saving of $10-15bn (~30%) has come with a 50-75% reduction in capability to just 25-50Mbps.

 

[Bintang]

I should also add, that what seems to be lost a little here in the talk about the alleged efficiencies of the "technology agnostic approach", is that the alleged savings have come at the expense of capability.

It wouldn't be so bad if the CBN was "technologically agnostic" with an expectation of minimum 100Mbps speeds rising to 1000Mbps (like the real NBN), but it isn't is it? The alleged saving of $10-15bn (~30%) has come with a 50-75% reduction in capability to just 25-50Mbps.

Maybe that will just mean that people will spend 25% to 50% less time glued to their PC screens and mobile devices. Heavens, it might even give them some spare time to do something unusual like go for a walk and exercise their limbs. And maybe it might help reduce obesity in Australian kids by 25% to 50%.

 

[drsmith]

~70% of premises in the HFC footprint don't have HFC leadins either.

Where does this 70% figure come from ?

 

[NBNMyths]

Where does this 70% figure come from ?

Sorry, don't have the ref. I remember reading it some time ago (although it was given the other way around i.e. that ~30% do have working leadins.)

It's likely pretty accurate, based on Optus saying recently that they had <20% take-up of HFC.