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

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/nbn_work_grinds_to_halt_in_some_8xnphrriSnRSZMDQNEzL0O

But analysis of statistics from the company reveal that most of the progress has been in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. The *rollout has dramatically slowed down in all other states and territories.

In Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia and ACT, only 141 existing homes and businesses have been passed with fibre-optic cabling since June 30 – an average of just 21 premises per week across all four states and territories.

South Australia has been one of the hardest hit, with 86 new brownfield premises passed since March 23 – an average of just 4.2 homes and businesses per week.

In contrast, NBN Co has passed an average of 952 premises per week in Victoria over the same period.

The ACT’s brownfield premises passed count has remained stagnant since June 2014 with a weekly average of 2.4 premises passed over the past six and a half weeks.

The national rate of construction has also slowed down. Where the rollout was hitting an average of 4152 existing premises passed per week in the six months ending June 30, it has slowed to 2714 premises per week since then.
 

Well, what a surprise. A hand-picked team (many of whom had a long-standing opposition to the NBN), found that the Coalition's version was better. Who could possibly have foreseen such an outcome?

What's really surprising is that even with Ergas on board, they still found that Labor's NBN had a positive cost-benefit outcome!

I wonder what happened to the promise of an independent CBA by the Prod Comm, or infrastructure Australia?

All that aside, as I've written previously, a CBA for an enabling tech like the NBN is totally worthless, because it cannot possibly value uses for the project that are unknown at this time. And there is nothing surer than the idea that there will be uses for the NBN that cannot be imagined today, just as today there are uses for electricity that were not imagined 100 years ago, uses for the copper that were not imagined 30 years ago, and even uses for the internet that were not imagined just 5 years ago.

It's not like doing a CBA on a road, because the chance that we'll suddenly discover a previously-unknown use for roads in the next 20 years is unlikely.

The other side of course is that the CBA compares tech that is currently available. Turnbull lamented that a CBA wasn't done by Labor. Yet if it had been, then the fast technologies Turnbull is now touting as part of his policy (Gfast, wholesaled HFC) did not exist, and therefore could not have been part of a ~2009 CBA in any case. A 2009 CBA could only have compared ~20Mbps FTTN to 100Mbps FTTP. Not the proposed ~50-100Mbps FTTN and 100-1000Mbps FTTP.
 
I am so troubled I through out my Mum's old Astor wireless ( http://nostalgicwireless.com.au/?p=147 ). If I'd kept it I would be 100% internet ready for the Turnbull NBN.

Malcolm must be such a sentimentalist for the old times, a time when life was uncomplicated, when Menzies told us what we wanted for the good of empire and we happily obeyed. What would a country of people who farm sheep, wheat and iron ore want with an internet thingy that apparently Malcolm invented in the first place, but sold it as a passing fad.
 
Myths,

Uses for a project that are unknown at this time are of little fundamental value. To suggest otherwise is to take on an enormous risk as demonstrated in practice on improvements in speed via copper over time as outlined in the last paragraph of your post.
 

Those speed improvements are very much at the shorter cable lengths, so probably 25-30% of those on copper will likely not see much better than the 20-25Mbs that pre g.fast could provide.

So far the Govt has yet to release any speed results of customers at close to maximum cable distance - say 500M - though as yet Turnbull hasn't actually defined what the deigned maximum will be.

With no actual agreement with Telstra, no costing on owning / renting the copper network, how do you say the MTM is cheaper? NBN and Telstra are spending millions in the high court over $200M, so it's not hard to imagine Telstra fighting tooth and nail for a much larger pot of money.
 

With an attitude like that, nothing would ever get built. You must make some assumptions, based on what you do know. And what you know is that since the internet was first invented, new uses requiring ever higher bandwidth have been developed incessantly. What you know is that internet speeds have increased 10000% in the last 10 years. What you do know is that average user volume has doubled every 6 months for a decade, and shows no sign of slowing.

Only a fool would build a broadband network to meet the needs of today.


The cost of rolling out the copper network was (in adjusted terms) about the same per connection as FTTP. But ~50-100 years ago, the only benefit was personal conversation.

~100 years ago, the only use for electricity was lighting.

There is no doubt that a CBA for copper now would be positive. But do you honestly think that a CBA which could only have valued personal conversation and lighting, would have recommended the spending of tens or hundreds of billions rolling out the electricity and telephone grids (respectively) in their time?

As for the enormous risk.... But it isn't enormous, and there is risk both ways. No matter the improvements in copper, fibre is still (and will always be) faster (basic physics). The only 'risk' is the additional cost of doing fibre v copper, which (according to the Coalition's original and CBA reports) comes to (at worst) $14bn. On the other side, the risk is that the MTM will only have a useful life of ~10 years before needing an FTTP upgrade, which would cost far more than $14bn to rectify.
 
On the topic of risk, there's a risk Labor's FTTP wouldn't have been built in 10 years.
 

Back in 1914, 100 years ago, the Australian Government issued a very dire warning to the Tasmanian state government to the effect that under no circumstances would the state be bailed out financially should its' electricity venture fail. Noted in particular was that only one significant consumer of electricity, a zinc smelter, existed and that in the event that business failed there was unlikely to be an alternative use for large amounts of electricity.

25 years later the whole thing was deemed of sufficient importance at the national level to warrant it's own defence patrols and even an army of sorts lest someone tried to bomb it during WWII.

50 years later approximately 1 in every 5 jobs in the state were directly due to energy-intensive industry and the generation of electricity.

100 years later and the zinc works is still in operation and it's still the state's largest overseas exporter and second largest energy user. And needless to say, plenty of other uses of electricity have emerged over the past century too. And despite the warnings, the state never went broke owning a business that makes a profit.

A key difference with the internet however is the pace of development. 20 years ago, few people had ever used the internet or even really understood what it was. It is now almost as essential to modern life as electricity or transport, having displaced or radically altered many other industries in that time. In contrast, neither electricity nor motor cars achieved anywhere near that level of impact in the first 20 years of commercial usage.
 
Anyone picked up on how the audit estimates the cost to taxpayer was net $20bn ish, while before the election the LNP told us hand on heart they had independent costings of $70bn ish?

Does that mean the projected deficit, with interest, was way too ambitious?
 
The CBA is a joke, told us nothing we didn't already know, im sure we were all surprised that rural connections would be more expensive to roll out than urban fibre, i like the bit about future proofing the NBN by not committing to any one technology because not going with the best proven technology is future proofing.
 

In an election period, anything goes. Wasn't Malcolm saying $96 bn maximum cost of the ALP's NBN ?
 
And they wonder why the population is cynical about the "debt crisis".

I was really looking forward to the various LNP govts reducing red tape and throwing out the myriad of Gillard/Rudd laws that basically turned us all into public servants (public servants know they are getting into a paperwork nightmare, scrutiny and stringent procedures). Instead little Napoleons like Campbell Newman and his boy blunder have elevated big brother and cronyism to all time highs.

No wonder Clive is attracting a large vote.
 
Some interesting reading material

http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/fttn-construction-fact-sheet.pdf

How Big is the Cabinet?
The cabinets being supplied by Alcatel-Lucent are, in their words, the smallest possible to minimise visual impact. The actual size is 850mm wide x 1150mm high x 500mm deep and are planned to be installed on a concrete plinth that is expected to sit a few centimetres above the ground. Each cabinet can support up to 384 lines

I'll be interested to see how they're able to fit the above where the pillars are in my area. Considering there's already little space to walk off the road it's going to be a very tight fit .

The fact sheet states that NBN Co is “using Alcatel-Lucent ISAM 7330 VDSL2 Vectoring hardware.” Each cabinet can support 384 lines and that FTTN nodes “can be installed on the street near the [existing Telstra] pillar to house new broadband equipment and enable the physical connection to existing copper in the pillar.”

The existing Telstra telecommunication pillars are “dome-topped metal cylinders that contain connections to copper services for around 200 premises.” What this means is the FTTN cabinets could be only 60 per cent utilised, and this adds up to a significant under-utilisation and cost blow-out for a national FTTN rollout.

There is a degree of optionality with the nodes, but it is still quite likely there will be an high level of underutilisation.

It will also be interesting to see how they are provisioning the back-haul back to the NBN POI. The ISAM 7330 supports up to 8 * gig-e lines. That should be plenty of capacity to ensure congestion is minimised IF it's used. The problem is it starts to get expensive for every extra gig-e port you use as it will be a separate fibre for each port used. It might have been cheaper to have moved to 10G to minimise the fibre rollout costs.

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/nbn_vows_to_use_telstra_rivals_NobsOfoYxzbtJHt5Z7KEKM

Just so no one thinks we're seeing Telstra moving back as the spider in the centre of the web pulling the strings of the telco industry.
 
games.on.net said:
The sixth (!) review of the National Broadband Network is now complete, and the results are in: by 2023, the average Australian household should only need 15 Mbps.
Click to expand...

http://games.on.net/2014/08/15-mbps...australian-household-according-to-nbn-review/

The beauty of a CBA that makes such blatantly stupid claims is that the Nolaition can later distance itself from such stupidity by saying that it was the opinion/conclusion of the CBA experts...thus shifting blame.

They demand a CBA, appoint (hand pick) the panel, implement the findings then distance themselves from any negative repercussions.
 
http://www.itnews.com.au/Feature/391548,nbn-cba-proves-turnbulls-mtm-is-fraudband.aspx

1. Your bandwidth needs will decrease over time – and Malcolm Turnbull will tell you how much you need

According to Turnbull’s cost-benefit analysis, in 2023 – that’s less than 10 years’ time - the bandwidth requirements of the median household will be 15 Mbps.

Yet as noted in the report itself, NBN Co figures show that 57.8 percent of NBN fibre-connected premises have already taken up speed bands of 25 Mbps or higher.

Even if one were to try and dismiss these take-up rates as reflective of early adopters electing the highest speed packages, the even more recent figures in the NBN Co annual report 2013-14 belies this.

As at 30 June 2014, the average speed ordered and provisioned across all fibre end-users was 36 Mbps. Early adopters could account for the slight decrease in average speed of 3 Mbps in the previous year, but there the explanation ends.

It is impossible to reconcile the assumptions of a cost-benefit analysis which purports a bandwidth requirement in the next decade which is less than half that of today’s reality.

And don’t forget, this is coming from a bloke who stood next to his leader when he announced on 9 April 2013: “[We] are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household.”

Maybe that’s the reason why Turnbull denies he has broken any promises, including this one made the very same day:

“Under the Coalition, by 2016…there will be minimum download speeds of 25 megabits… We will deliver a minimum of 25 megabits…by the end of our first term.”

After all, you’re only going to need 15 Mbps, so who’ll even notice?
 
Yes, written by a Labor MP. But he's right on the money.

https://www.businessspectator.com.a...logy/turnbulls-nbn-vision-has-no-future-sight

Some highlights:

Turnbull's NBN vision has no future in sight

For all the complexity of the great debate over the national broadband network, the arguments boil down to two world views:

We have those who say yes, invest now, because all the evidence points to exponentially increasing requirements for fast broadband. They recognise that if you’re reacting to the here and now, you’re too late;
...
Then we have the naysayers who want the broadband equivalent of replacing gas flames with electric lights on our streets.
...
Turnbull’s plan is the equivalent of building a one-lane highway when you know three lanes are going to be needed in a few years’ time. It will be cost-effective this year and efficient next year, but out of date as soon as an election is out of the way.

Why? Because Turnbull wants to incorporate Telstra’s old copper network into the NBN. In fact he boasts he’s negotiated with Telstra to acquire the copper network at “zero cost”.

This is the same 80-year-old network that Telstra’s own regulatory guru Tony Warren described as being “five minutes to midnight” in terms of its useful life at a Senate Committee hearing 11 years ago in 2003.
....
It beggars belief that Turnbull will build Australia’s vital telecommunications future on a technology that frequently ceases to work when it rains!
 
This article http://www.businessspectator.com.au.../what-nbn-cost-benefit-review-doesnt-tell-you seems to leave the Vertigan cost benefit analysis floating somewhere between Utopia and LaLa Land.


I can't tell how solid this critique really is. What do people who know about the technology think of it? Or of the CBA?
 

The relationships between total network and link capacity, traffic class management, upload speeds and symmetric transmission requirements are not adequately covered in the CBA. Neither are the operational and maintenance costs, new applications and consumer expectations

The focus has been on download speeds, yet migration to the cloud will require much higher upload speeds than we currently have.

Telstra copper maintenance costs somewhere between $500-1000M a year at present. I'd argue proper maintenance is at the upper end of that figure as Telstra has not invested in the copper network for a very long time.

There's no analysis as to estimates on how much the cost of copper remediation will be.

Let’s not forget that FTTP connections provide the advertised speed while FTTN connections provide “up to” the advertised speed and often less than 25 per cent of FTTN connections will achieve a speed between 75 and 100 per cent of the advertised speed (CBA page 189).

The Govt has backed away from their pre election 25Mbs minimum guarantee. NBN has been forced to back peddle from selling the 50Mbs and 100Mbs plans without adequately testing to ensure the customer is able to at least over 50Mbs on the top speed and close to the 50Mbs mark for the next tier. The dreaded up to will be brought back into use as compared to FTTP which provides the speed you pay for.

We will also see with FTTN that someone who'd be willing to pay for a 100 Mbs wont be able to get that service because they're too far from the node. Plenty of people are willing to pay for 50 / 100Mbs speed tiers at present so this will be a reasonably significant issue as the FTTN rollout occurs.
 
We've been saying since before it was released that Malcolm's CBA was worthless. Now the man Mal appointed to head NBN Co has dismissed some of the key planks on which the CBA is based, namely that 15Mbps will be sufficient for most users in 2023, and that only 5% of users will need 43Mbps by 2023.

Mr Morrow says 15Mbps isn't enough for his family TODAY, and NBN figures reveal that over half of NBN customers already choose speeds of >25Mbps, and 28% are already choosing 50-100Mbps.

How can anyone take seriously a report that predicts broadband demand will be lower in 9 years than it is today?


http://www.jasonclare.com.au/media/...-thinks-malcolms-mates-report-is-rubbish.html
 
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...