NBN Rollout Scrapped

[JTLP]

Actually not that happy with the current Labor government but really anti Abbott who really is a drop kick heavily defended on this site.

.

What most if not everyone here is look the other way at the alternative say no and do nothing Abbott with his bunch of losers.



Inept management is a understatement but there should be a dividend for Australia from mining (WA Liberal Governess thought so) but Labor has sold Australia short in the mining tax that they are going to raise.

As for Carbon tax everyone here has been in complete denial with their fingers in their ears going na na na na about the coalitions direct action tax funded BS.



Not at all just means I don't talk to those that decide to label me various names based on their opinion instead of talking about the issue.

Thanks for your reply - I do appreciate it.

What if the Libs dropped Abbott - would you back them then? Surely a majority Coalition in your eyes would be a lot better than a minority Labor? (for me I think I would flee Australia for 4 years if we had a majority Labor )

This one is for NBNMyths -
Have you physically read the NBN document? Mate it is ridiculous that facts and figures you are spitting out about this thing...you either have:
A) Too much time (no offence intended) on your hands
B) Are somewhat involved.

- Hit that deny deny deny button all you like - but even the staunch Labor supporters don't know jack about the NBN - just that it is something that Lib voters oppose so they like it :

PS you really think Internet speeds are exponential? Lolly what's that speed of light?

 

[medicowallet]

Also calling someone a clown is a clear personal attack and a sure sign your loosing the argument which of course is somewhat inevitable when any one argues against progress and human development.

Hop off your high horse, of course it is not a personal attack, Mr Sensitive.

I think the argument is anything but loost.

 

[todster]

Well we sure as hell don't e-mail it all to the docks do we??

No DO YOU GET that we do not have to manufacture trinkets, we only need to turn ore into steel.

Do you get that sunshine?

Of course I know that China uses our raw materials to manufacture stuff to sell to the USA and to customers of photo labs.

But what would it hurt to value add a bit to our product.... you do understand that concept, don't you?

Onesteel do it now,have a look at the chart.

 

[medicowallet]

Onesteel do it now,have a look at the chart.

Sad isn't it.

Our $ is killing all exporters, so what we should do is invest $50 billion into faster internet so we can consume more.

In reality a chart like that clearly shows that we need to be doing more here.

Manufacturing in this country is not a lost cause, we just need Govt to support it more.

 

[So_Cynical]

PS you really think Internet speeds are exponential? Lolly what's that speed of light?

Have you heard of Moore's law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law ill quote the wiki "The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras"

And we can add to that list, software and internet speeds and capacity...for example: i like to play PC games, FPS - First Person Shooters being my favourite, the first one i ever played was Doom (1995) and it came on i think 8 or so floppy disks so the whole game was less than 20 Meg's in size, then a few years later came Doom 2 which was on a CD i think and that was about 400 Meg's in size.

Anyway fast forward to this weekend when i downloaded one of the latest FPS games to be released COD black ops multi-player (steam had a free game play weekend) it was a 6 Gig download, this game has global sales of over 8 million copy's (1 billion$) that's alot of gigs.

With Games getting bigger and Multi-player being such a popular way to play, the growth of consoles and their integration into the family TV and entertainment space....the file sizes will just continue growing and the bulk of those files will be distributed digitally and stored in clouds and local machines...we need the NBN speeds just to keep pace with digital reality's.

 

[medicowallet]

Have you heard of Moore's law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law ill quote the wiki "The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras"

And we can add to that list, software and internet speeds and capacity...for example: i like to play PC games, FPS - First Person Shooters being my favourite, the first one i ever played was Doom (1995) and it came on i think 8 or so floppy disks so the whole game was less than 20 Meg's in size, then a few years later came Doom 2 which was on a CD i think and that was about 400 Meg's in size.

Anyway fast forward to this weekend when i downloaded one of the latest FPS games to be released COD black ops multi-player (steam had a free game play weekend) it was a 6 Gig download, this game has global sales of over 8 million copy's (1 billion$) that's alot of gigs.

With Games getting bigger and Multi-player being such a popular way to play, the growth of consoles and their integration into the family TV and entertainment space....the file sizes will just continue growing and the bulk of those files will be distributed digitally and stored in clouds and local machines...we need the NBN speeds just to keep pace with digital reality's.

Ah, now I see.

Happy gaming.

PS Doom 2 was distributed on floppy too. Doom was released in 1993 and doom 2 in 1994.

 

[So_Cynical]

Ah, now I see.

Happy gaming.

Yep i play games and i cant spell...your point is? if it helps with your superiority complex im also in the under 50K annual income bracket...feel better now big fella?

PS Doom 2 was distributed on floppy too. Doom was released in 1993 and doom 2 in 1994.

Yep my bad...i was thinking Doom2 but it was actually Quake II in 97 and i was right as it was about 450 Meg's in size so from floppy's to CDs in under 5 years...and now we have made the leap from DVD's to online distribution and cloud storage.

 

[NBNMyths]

This one is for NBNMyths -
Have you physically read the NBN document? Mate it is ridiculous that facts and figures you are spitting out about this thing...you either have:
A) Too much time (no offence intended) on your hands
B) Are somewhat involved.

- Hit that deny deny deny button all you like - but even the staunch Labor supporters don't know jack about the NBN - just that it is something that Lib voters oppose so they like it :

PS you really think Internet speeds are exponential? Lolly what's that speed of light?

No offence taken. I have too much time. I spend a fair bit of time waiting for things to happen, and while I'm doing that I jump on forums and read up on my pet project.

I haven't read the biz case or other technical docs end to end, but when someone says something I open them up and search for that info.

I also have a google notification set up for NBN-related searches, so I read most NBN articles.

Internet speeds are not increasing exponentially, but they are increasing rapidly. They've gone up ~1,000 times in the last 15 years. You don't need the speed of light to change to achieve that. Light doesn't move any 'faster' down fibreoptic cable than it did 30 years ago, but they get more throughput by splitting the light into different colours, and sending it down the same cable.

I'm also not a staunch labor supporter. I'm a staunch NBN supporter. I am actually quite pleased that Turnbull of late has shifted his position from "12Mbps is enough for anything" to clearly angling towards a ~25Mbps Fibre To The Node proposal. While that's still pretty backward and unlikely to be value for money, at least it's a move in the right direction. I feel less concerned at the prospect of them getting in in 2013. After all, it took the ALP 2 years to dump the FTTN idea. If the Libs move on the same schedule they might even back the NBN by 2013....

 

[medicowallet]

Yep i play games and i cant spell...your point is? if it helps with your superiority complex im also in the under 50K annual income bracket...feel better now big fella?



Yep my bad...i was thinking Doom2 but it was actually Quake II in 97 and i was right as it was about 450 Meg's in size so from floppy's to CDs in under 5 years...and now we have made the leap from DVD's to online distribution and cloud storage.

My point is that your motives for support may not be the same as someone who isn't a gamer.

In my opinion, the government should spend our money the most effective way it can.

The current government has a pathetic record.

The NBN will be no different, with cost blowouts, and overservicing 99% of the population.

We would be much better off spending the money to make a ROI rather than spending it on a machine used for consumption.

You game ok now. You pirate movies ok now.

The coal exporters are bottlenecked by rail and port infrastructure.

We sell raw materials without any value adding.

Can you not see how this is crazy?

 

[bellenuit]

The argument that the NBN can deliver fast speeds is not the issue with many here. The 4 main things about the NBN that I am opposed to are:

1. The assumption that fast internet speed can only be delivered by government, when it has been mainly private industry that has brought computing and communications to the stage it is in today. Compare both computing and communications speeds with what they were only 10 years ago. This was mostly all done without government involvement.

2. It is hard to predict what the needs will be in 10 years time. Speed will undoubtedly be required, but access method is constantly changing and the trend is strongly towards mobility. Although the NBN may serve as a useful backbone, does it need to go to every home?

3. The enormous cost of the NBN. Note they haven't upgraded the cost even though they are assuming more risk than previously since last weeks decision. Many would ask if investing that amount in the NBN provides the most benefit to Australia.

4. And extremely importantly. There is the whole assumption that the NBN that we are being told we will get can be delivered successfully. This government has failed to handle projects and policies far less complex. Not only have they often not delivered, they have screwed up entirely, setting whole industries back years (think roof insulation). Many of us simply believe that the NBN will be another fiasco. We may end up worse off than we currently are if the NBN doesn't deliver while it stymied private investment in this same area. The attempts to stifle competition to the NBN and the secrecy surrounding many aspects of the project are clear indications that it is already heading that way.

 

[bellenuit]

Workers may hold NBN to ransom, according to industrial agreement

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...strial-agreement/story-e6frg9hx-1226069735242

 

[NBNMyths]

The argument that the NBN can deliver fast speeds is not the issue with many here. The 4 main things about the NBN that I am opposed to are:

1. The assumption that fast internet speed can only be delivered by government, when it has been mainly private industry that has brought computing and communications to the stage it is in today. Compare both computing and communications speeds with what they were only 10 years ago. This was mostly all done without government involvement.

The problem is that the market (in Australia) hasn't delivered fast internet speeds.

Neither the Optus or Telstra HFC networks have been expanded for over a decade. The Telstra net only passes ~25% of the population, with less than that actually able to be connected. The Optus net is even less, passing ~20% and available to ~15%. The standard to increase these networks to 100Mbps per node was ratified way back in 2007, but Telstra and Optus have only just begun updating parts of their network to it.

With the exception of new estates, we have no FTTP networks, while overseas they have been building them for a decade. In most cases by partially or fully-Government owned telcos.

The gradual improvements using ADSL and ADSL2+ have been delivered by Telstra, but not everywhere. There is only competing infrastructure in about 400 of our ~6000 exchanges.

While the private sector have delivered overseas (the US is the best example), they simply haven't done it here. One of the biggest reasons is that the fibre/cable nets in the US are funded by payTV subscriptions. That won't happen here because we have low payTV uptake due to anti-sihoning laws (which IMHO are a very good thing).

2. It is hard to predict what the needs will be in 10 years time. Speed will undoubtedly be required, but access method is constantly changing and the trend is strongly towards mobility. Although the NBN may serve as a useful backbone, does it need to go to every home?

The trend isn't a change to mobility, it is the addition of it. Data growth over fixed networks continues to increase much, much faster than data over wireless networks. From Q4 2009 to Q4 2010, the ABS reported that data over wireless increased by 2,500 Terrabytes (to 16990), while data over fixed lines increased by 61,000 Terrabytes (to 174665).

Mobile broadband connections cannot physically cope with our current data needs, let alone the massive growth that we have every year. There is no mobile technology on the horizon that can overcome this, and there is no country or telecommunications provider anywhere in the World that is advocating wireless to replace fixed networks in metropolitan areas.

Then of course there is the price, which is up to 1,333 times more expensive than fixed connections.

3. The enormous cost of the NBN. Note they haven't upgraded the cost even though they are assuming more risk than previously since last weeks decision. Many would ask if investing that amount in the NBN provides the most benefit to Australia.

That's a fair argument, and there are strong opinions on either side. Personally, I have no doubt, but other feel strongly the other way.

From my POV... I think the future is undoubtedly dependent on a fast network, fibre is undoubtedly the most future-proof solution, and there will be large and widespread benefits. I also don't support comparison with 'spending' on things that don't provide a measurable return. Unlike most govt spending, the NBN actually provides measurable income, so the spending on it cannot be compared to, say, building a toll-free road.

4. And extremely importantly. There is the whole assumption that the NBN that we are being told we will get can be delivered successfully. This government has failed to handle projects and policies far less complex. Not only have they often not delivered, they have screwed up entirely, setting whole industries back years (think roof insulation). Many of us simply believe that the NBN will be another fiasco. We may end up worse off than we currently are if the NBN doesn't deliver while it stymied private investment in this same area. The attempts to stifle competition to the NBN and the secrecy surrounding many aspects of the project are clear indications that it is already heading that way.

Again, some of that is a fair argument.

I have no doubt that this Govt has stuffed things up, as all Governments do. The last one was no exception, it's just that we tend to remember the current Government's stuffups while people forget about the billion-odd we threw at the Seasprite fiasco, for example.

But the Government isn't doing the NBN. They have appointed a company to do it, full of very experienced and qualified people, and from all indications they are doing a pretty good job. Hundreds of contracts have been signed, all seems to be on budget so far and any delays are minimal and largely outside their control (ie Telstra deal). For such a massive start-up project, I'd say they are doing very well indeed.

Looking at an alternative suggested by the coalition...where Govt pay the private sector to improve the network outside profitable areas... This has far more in common with the insulation scheme that what the Government is actually doing with the NBN. While the Govt did a piss-poor job of supervising the insulation scheme, it was the private sector that provided the poor/unsafe workmanship and committed the frauds.

The "secrecy" surrounding the NBN is a fallacy promoted by Turnbull et al. As I've demonstrated, there is vast amounts of NBN info out there. The only things missing are in-depth costings for tenders etc, which I think is quite sensible to keep private. No company tells it's shareholders the detailed costings of what it expects to pay for upcoming contracts. It would be stupidity.

As for stifling competition. I have no issue with what they have done, which is to legislate that if any company wants to build a competing fast fixed-line network, then they must do so on the same terms as the NBN. That is: wholesale-only, open access. But if the private sector wanted to build a fast network, why haven't they done anything for the last 10 years? AAPT's Paul Broad is a great example. He jumped up and down about the restrictions if he wanted to build a FTTP network. Well Paul, where have you been for the last 10 years? He has never even proposed doing such a thing, why would we believe he's going to start now?

Workers may hold NBN to ransom, according to industrial agreement

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...strial-agreement/story-e6frg9hx-1226069735242

There's a big difference between what the unions want to get through, and what they will actually get through. I'm sure anyone who has ever dealt with such negotiations would realise that the wish list sent through by either side as a starting point is not particularly close to the eventual reality.

I would hope that they take a leaf out of the Sydney Olympics book, and get a good working relationship with the construction unions.

 

[JTLP]

Have you heard of Moore's law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law ill quote the wiki "The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras"

And we can add to that list, software and internet speeds and capacity...for example: i like to play PC games, FPS - First Person Shooters being my favourite, the first one i ever played was Doom (1995) and it came on i think 8 or so floppy disks so the whole game was less than 20 Meg's in size, then a few years later came Doom 2 which was on a CD i think and that was about 400 Meg's in size.

Anyway fast forward to this weekend when i downloaded one of the latest FPS games to be released COD black ops multi-player (steam had a free game play weekend) it was a 6 Gig download, this game has global sales of over 8 million copy's (1 billion$) that's alot of gigs.

With Games getting bigger and Multi-player being such a popular way to play, the growth of consoles and their integration into the family TV and entertainment space....the file sizes will just continue growing and the bulk of those files will be distributed digitally and stored in clouds and local machines...we need the NBN speeds just to keep pace with digital reality's.

I have actually and knew it was around processing speeds - was it really intended for internet speeds? I don't think it was...open to interpretation though.

 

[bellenuit]

The problem is that the market (in Australia) hasn't delivered fast internet speeds.

Neither has the NBN yet. The market delivers what the market wants. It is the story of capitalism. Saying the market can't do it because they haven't up to now is like saying that the market can't deliver IPTV because they haven't done so in the past. A lot of things have to come together to make it feasible for private industry to get involved. The NBN is being rolled out to serve a future anticipated need. You are attacking private industry for not serving that need when it hasn't been there up to now. The planned NBN rollout, with its legislative impediments to competition, has ensured that the market will not get involved, even when they agree that need will be there in the future.

The trend isn't a change to mobility, it is the addition of it. Data growth over fixed networks continues to increase much, much faster than data over wireless networks. From Q4 2009 to Q4 2010, the ABS reported that data over wireless increased by 2,500 Terrabytes (to 16990), while data over fixed lines increased by 61,000 Terrabytes (to 174665).

Mobile broadband connections cannot physically cope with our current data needs, let alone the massive growth that we have every year. There is no mobile technology on the horizon that can overcome this, and there is no country or telecommunications provider anywhere in the World that is advocating wireless to replace fixed networks in metropolitan areas.

Again you are trying to compare a fixed network model to an all mobile model. The trend is clearly towards access from mobile rather than fixed devices. This may well increase at a faster rate the amount of data that flows on fixed networks between nodes that service the mobile devices. But the issue is the market will provide the speed and throughput where it is most wanted and profitable. Private industry has successfully done that up to now. This doesn't always mean that there won't be black spots where industry is uninterested because it doesn't make economic sense, but the government can fill the voids through subsidies or other means. You don't need a $35B commitment to do that.

fibre is undoubtedly the most future-proof solution

You cannot make anything future proof. The best thing to do in such a fast changing environment as data communications may be to just plan to meet short term known requirements with some risk taking, but not throwing billions at one option only. Follow the need as it arises. Remain flexible and responsive and don't put everything in the one basket. A few years ago it may have seemed that putting a PC on every student's desk linked via a wired LAN would be the way to go. It was comparable on a micro scale with the NBN in many respects. Now schools are looking at giving iPads to students instead. Setting up such a school infrastructure to provide a PC / Wired LAN solution would have been beneficial but wasted compared to the alternative's available today. I was reading today that some airlines, I think BA was mentioned, are looking at providing passengers with iPads for the duration of their flights rather than installing expensive seat entertainment networks. What a great idea. Load the two dozen or so movies that they normally deliver on in flight entertainment on the iPads and hand out to the customers. If an iPad isn't functioning just replace it. If one or more inbuilt seat entertainment systems fail, you end up with many unhappy passengers.

But the Government isn't doing the NBN. They have appointed a company to do it, full of very experienced and qualified people, and from all indications they are doing a pretty good job. Hundreds of contracts have been signed, all seems to be on budget so far and any delays are minimal and largely outside their control (ie Telstra deal). For such a massive start-up project, I'd say they are doing very well indeed.

Looking at an alternative suggested by the coalition...where Govt pay the private sector to improve the network outside profitable areas... This has far more in common with the insulation scheme that what the Government is actually doing with the NBN. While the Govt did a piss-poor job of supervising the insulation scheme, it was the private sector that provided the poor/unsafe workmanship and committed the frauds.

I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. First paragraph: You agree government stuffs up but the NBN Co will contract the work out to private companies so that is OK. Second paragraph: It wasn't the government that stuffed up but private companies.

The "secrecy" surrounding the NBN is a fallacy promoted by Turnbull et al. As I've demonstrated, there is vast amounts of NBN info out there. The only things missing are in-depth costings for tenders etc,

There is a lot more missing than that. I will have to research some of the facts I based my comment on as I don't have them to hand, but I clearly recollect when initially reading about them that the secrecy was not limited to just business in confidence issues.

As for stifling competition. I have no issue with what they have done, which is to legislate that if any company wants to build a competing fast fixed-line network, then they must do so on the same terms as the NBN. That is: wholesale-only, open access. But if the private sector wanted to build a fast network, why haven't they done anything for the last 10 years? AAPT's Paul Broad is a great example. He jumped up and down about the restrictions if he wanted to build a FTTP network. Well Paul, where have you been for the last 10 years? He has never even proposed doing such a thing, why would we believe he's going to start now?

The last 10 years issue I have dealt with above.

But companies can't build competing networks on the same terms as the NBN. They are being prevented from competing in that space. There is no reason why it should be wholesale only. What you are saying is, you can compete, but you must dump your retail base to do so. That is a restriction that is only there for the purpose of stifling competition to the NBN, not to ensure that the best network is rolled out to consumers based on what consumers eventually want. In any case, I have read some articles where the NBNCo or some planned subsidiary of it will be able to provide retail services to large institutions.

 

[boofhead]

Fibre has a bit of future proofing. The bulk of the physical layout can be left as is while equipment attached to it can be upgraded. Similarly to how copper has managed to be extended a bit but that appears to be reaching limits partly because of Telstra's buildout.

IPTV mostly hasn't happened here because of the networks. Telstra don't enable multicast to wholesale customers. That leaves ISPs deploying own DSLAMs. That has cost and needs competitive backhaul. Tasmanians know what it is like - often overlooked. People in NT experience it now. Also Telstra own and operate exchanges - they have their fees and procedures. Then you have the South Brisbane issues. Telstra decommissioned an exchange. What is the competitive environment like with that?

 

[drsmith]

Some interesting speculation about the industrial agreement for NBN contractors.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-tender-pd20110606-HK47E?opendocument&src=idp (subscription required)

 

[NBNMyths]

Neither has the NBN yet. The market delivers what the market wants. It is the story of capitalism. Saying the market can't do it because they haven't up to now is like saying that the market can't deliver IPTV because they haven't done so in the past. A lot of things have to come together to make it feasible for private industry to get involved. The NBN is being rolled out to serve a future anticipated need. You are attacking private industry for not serving that need when it hasn't been there up to now. The planned NBN rollout, with its legislative impediments to competition, has ensured that the market will not get involved, even when they agree that need will be there in the future.

But the market hasn't even delivered ADSL to many metropolitan areas, and surely no-one could deny that there is massive demand for that?

The installation of competitive DSLAMs is another great example. There are about 6,000 telephone exchanges in Australia. Yet "the market" has only installed relatively cheap DSLAMs into about 400 metropolitan exchanges. If these companies aren't willing to spend on a $500 piece of basic commodity technology that will serve 20 connections, what hope is there for spending a few thousand dollars per premises?

Also, the NBN isn't just about delivering a future need, it's about fixing the failure of the market to deliver for existing needs. But it does so using technology that will deliver sufficient bandwidth for the foreseeable future.

The thought that the market would ever deliver fibre to the premises on anything like the scale of the NBN is just fantasy.

Again you are trying to compare a fixed network model to an all mobile model. The trend is clearly towards access from mobile rather than fixed devices. This may well increase at a faster rate the amount of data that flows on fixed networks between nodes that service the mobile devices. But the issue is the market will provide the speed and throughput where it is most wanted and profitable. Private industry has successfully done that up to now. This doesn't always mean that there won't be black spots where industry is uninterested because it doesn't make economic sense, but the government can fill the voids through subsidies or other means. You don't need a $35B commitment to do that.

You are misunderstanding the ABS statistics. They are not measuring the total amount of data flowing "between nodes", they are measuring the total amount of data downloaded via fixed connections to ordinary subscribers (ie ADSL and Cable).

The use of mobile devices is growing, but they are not replacing fixed connections. Note that I am not including mobile devices connected via WiFi in this, because those WiFi connections depend on the fixed network like the NBN.

The other part of your case is a philosophical one. Yes, you can make an argument to leave it to the market in profitable areas and subsidise them in unprofitable areas. Or you can deliver ubiquity in one swoop. I think there are pros and cons for either model, but I'm quite happy with the NBN model. I doubt the overall cost would be very different either way. The problem with paying a subsidy is that you effectively have to pay a subsidy so the telco can achieve a commercial return (say 15% ROI). The NBN is only trying to achieve 7%. So that extra 8% must either come from excessive subsidies in the unprofitable areas, or from higher prices (if we assume the cost of actually building the network is the same either way). So why is that better?

You cannot make anything future proof.

Fibre is a future-proof as it gets. It has been the fastest technology for 30 years, and nothing is approaching it. In fact, it keeps getting faster than any alternative. Speeds over fibre can be increased relatively easily using technology that's already in use. Just last week we saw another speed record set over fibreoptic cable.

For mobile broadband to ever approach the capacity of fibre optics would require a rewrite of the laws of physics. That's not an exaggeration. There's simply not enough radio spectrum in existence to carry that much data, even if the current practical limitations were overcome. It's not just a matter of waiting for a technological improvement as it was for your classroom wired/wifi example above.

What will happen is a boom in WiFi (and in the future WiGig) connectivity. Short range wireless networks connected to the fixed network. The NBN will assist this boom because there will finally be a fixed network that can match the capacity of WiFi.

Your BA iPad example does nothing for your cause either. Those iPads will be filled with data via the WiFi network of BA, not the mobile broadband network.

I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. First paragraph: You agree government stuffs up but the NBN Co will contract the work out to private companies so that is OK. Second paragraph: It wasn't the government that stuffed up but private companies.

Not quite. The NBN isn't the Government. I have more faith in their ability to get value for money from tenderers than some faceless department hack.

There is a lot more missing than that. I will have to research some of the facts I based my comment on as I don't have them to hand, but I clearly recollect when initially reading about them that the secrecy was not limited to just business in confidence issues.

I await your research.

But companies can't build competing networks on the same terms as the NBN. They are being prevented from competing in that space. There is no reason why it should be wholesale only. What you are saying is, you can compete, but you must dump your retail base to do so. That is a restriction that is only there for the purpose of stifling competition to the NBN, not to ensure that the best network is rolled out to consumers based on what consumers eventually want. In any case, I have read some articles where the NBNCo or some planned subsidiary of it will be able to provide retail services to large institutions.

That is partially true. The NBN model of having universal access cost across the country means that metro areas will to some extent subsidise rural areas. The size of the network lets them get some back through economies of scale. But, if it were open for a private company to come in to a high-profit, low cost area and run a vertical network, then they could probably undercut the NBN. And that destroys the cost base for the network. Again, this comes down to the build-all or market+subsidy model already discussed. And again, I have no issue with the rules that have been put in place to ensure that if anyone does come in, they must wholesale to everyone equally, just like the NBN has to.

Just like water pipes or power lines, telecommunications networks are a natural monopoly. It makes no more sense to have duplicated physical networks than it does to have multiple power lines running to each house. It's just money down the drain, as Telstra and Optus found out in the 90s. The best solution is to have one set of "wires", then ensure you have strong competition for the retail market, allowing ISPs to develop different and competitive services over your pipes.

The NBN and any subsidiary is specifically restricted to wholesale only, with the exception of services to utilities for specified services such as smart metering, traffic lights controls and things like that. If during the course of operations, they acquire a retailer, they must dispose of it's retail operations within 12 months. The example given is say the NBN buy a company that owns a fibre network, in order to use that network rather than overbuild it. If that company has a retail arm, then the retail arm must be either closed or sold within 12 months.

You can check the legislation for yourself here:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00022/Html/Text#_Toc289934635

 

[cynic]

Fibre is a future-proof as it gets. It has been the fastest technology for 30 years, and nothing is approaching it. In fact, it keeps getting faster than any alternative.

Are you sure about this?

I was of the understanding that there have been some significant scientific discoveries/breakthroughs over the past few decades that would appear to presage the advent of superior (in terms of speed and infrastructure size) data transmission technology.

Perhaps you could put the "rose coloured" optics aside for a moment and perform an exhaustive investigation first, rather than automatically fending off the various challenges to the wisdom of NBN policy with such bold statements about "future-proof" data transmission technology.

 

[boofhead]

What alternatives to fibre are future proof that you're aware of? Most of the wireless advances do not come close to approaching fibre.

 

[cynic]

What alternatives to fibre are future proof that you're aware of? Most of the wireless advances do not come close to approaching fibre.

Discoveries regarding quantum entanglement appear to suggest that seemingly "instantaneous" data transmission is achievable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement