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
NBNMyths said:
"We have better things to spend $50bn on..."
This is another logical fallacy, because you ignore the fact that the choice we face isn't between a "$50bn" NBN and nothing. It is a choice between a "$50bn" FTTP and a ~$35bn FTTN.​
Click to expand...
How did FTTN get to be $xxbn ?

Wern't Labor originally going to support it to the tune of ~$4bn ?
 
drsmith said:
How did FTTN get to be $xxbn ?

Wern't Labor originally going to support it to the tune of ~$4bn ?
Click to expand...

The original "$4.7bn" FTTN NBN was actually a $15bn-odd project, to be done by the private sector with $4.7bn of Govt investment.

Citigroup recently estimated that FTTN would cost about $17bn, but that excluded the satellite segment of the NBN which are already contracted, taking it to ~$19bn. Plus an estimated $15-20bn to buy Telstra copper network, which would be required to implement FTTN. Hence $34-39bn total.
 
noco said:
Why can't Labor tell the truth about NBN?




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../fact_checking_how_the_abc_pushes_labors_nbn/
Click to expand...

Oh, the Andrew Bolt blog complaining about another blog not being objective.

How did the irony not cause Andy to spontaneously combust?


Seriously though, Graeme Lynch is not exactly an objective commentator on the NBN himself, and has some form when it comes to criticising the project subjectively:
http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/grahame-lynch-intertubes-australian.html#.USmfXo7V2kR
 

Oh! The irony! Myths is talking about the objectivity of other commentators. You, yourself have never deviated from the Party line.
 

I remember reading an article where the CIO of CCA basically said if you have an IT manager that tells you to out source you need to get a new IT manager that's willing to do their job.

Outsourcing is based on loosing money for the first 2 years, breaking even to small profit in the third year, then milking the contract for the next X years.

You only have to see how well Howard's Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars.

Best to have the knowledge inhouse, best to have the accountability inhouse.

An ex boss of mine said the main reason companies outsource is so that when something goes wrong you have someone to blame, and can get some service credits back.
 

NBNMyths, how about you answer this question yourself with some substance to back it up. Alternatively as you seem to have very many facts at your disposal which the rest of us punters don't perhaps you could give us some data to help us objectively answer that question ourselves. If I simplistically take your $50 bn spent over 10 years versus $34-39bn over 10 years plus a deferred $20 bn 10 years after that I would conclude on a net present cost basis that the FTTN could be the way to go. But I suspect that is not the answer implied by your rolling eyes emoticon.
Why don't you lay out more clearly (an excel spreadsheet would be handy) the respective expenditure and revenue profiles for each of these options and then those of us here who understand the time value of money and net present value calculations would be able to draw a more objective conclusion than the one you offer or indeed anyone is offering right now. I am not even saying you are wrong. You might be right. But this whole debate is so devoid of sufficient facts that quite frankly I do not believe anyone's assertions .... least of all the government and our very own 'world's best treasure' whose monumental screw-up over the mining tax proves beyond any doubt in my mind that he doesn't understand how to analyse a business cashflow.
 

So a FTTN endeavour, rolled out for $15 billion less is going to generate almost identical revenue (as a price point for the higher speeds can be the same for the download limit - ie 25 speed can be charged the same as 100 speed) and will be delivered many years earlier, so it will be cash flow positive earlier, and businesses will be able to harness it earlier...........

Sorry, why is this not being done pronto????? It makes no flipping sense the way they are doing it, as evidenced by the fact that a cost-benefit was not officially adhered to..

I never paid for coffee or tea for my staff

My argument is that FTTP is not economical at the moment and FTTN is more affordable.

How many small businesses do you think teleconference... lmfao... I have teleconferenced over ADSL2 lines in medicine, and it worked quite well.... up to an adequate level for small business yes (but admittedly for health delivery no)

"we have $50 billion to spend on" <---- strawmanning, well done.

MW
 
Calliope said:
Oh! The irony! Myths is talking about the objectivity of other commentators. You, yourself have never deviated from the Party line.
Click to expand...

I'm not a journalist. I don't have a code of conduct I'm supposed to follow. And given Bolt's writings on... well, pretty much everything... he apparently doesn't think he has one either.

I just thought it was rather amusing that he titled his blog post with the phrase "fact checking", when he wouldn't know a fact-check if it jumped out at him from behind a cloud of plant food.
 
NBNMyths said:
You seem to have a comprehension issue, or are simply being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...

My first thought was its the Latter, but actually thinking about it a little its more likely the first option....based on the "cat got tongue" thing.



A personal example of this i recently en-counted was my Sinus CT scan, the file i was told was simply to large to email so the CT place had to burn it to disk and post it to me....my specialist didn't have the CT images on file also because of the size, interesting the the Diagnostic imaging business has to either host the files themselves or get a third party to host them and the various doctors simply log in to the server to view the picture files.​
 

Except for a few things...

First, Turnbull has already said his FTTN will be cheaper than the NBN for consumers, not more expensive (although I doubt it will be, speed for speed).

Also, for 25Mbps FTTN to retail for the same as 100Mbps NBN, that would mean consumers would be paying considerably more than they do today for 5-20Mbps ADSL2+ or 30Mbps Telstra/Optus cable, particularly in metro areas.

Then there are the areas that already have FTTP NBN, which will cover about 2,000,000 premises by the time the current rollout contracts are completed. So 2,000,000 premises dotted around the country will have access to 100Mbps for the same price as the rest of us pay for 25Mbps. That'll be popular with the voters.
 

I agree with you on the first point.

As you know ADSL2 is up to speeds, and NBN delivers speeds, therefore 25Mbps NBN is better than ADSL2 and could carry a premium.

It doesn't matter that there would be differences, as currently there are differences wrt zones 1,2,3 with ADSL2 and that doesn't really cost anyone votes.

What matters is cash flow, and FTTN progressing to FTTP when needed is a much better proposition, and anyone with any business sense would understand this to be the case.....

How about FTTN for everyone, FTTP for sml businesses and FTTP upgrade for residential when time permits???

Surely this make massive financial sense, even for someone like me who does not really believe that faster speeds make any real difference to productivity, I believe that a sensible cash flow positive rollout makes much more sense, and would stand a greater chance of being delivered on time..

MW
 

With an FTTN rollout, ADSL2+ would (by necessity) be eliminated, so if your idea of charging NBN 100 speeds for FTTN 25, then people would be forced to pay more, whether they want FTTN or not. This is not the case with the NBN because people have the option of getting 25 for the same price as ADSL2+ or paying a premium for faster speeds.

The practical difference between the current ADSL zones and FTTP would be that the more expensive ADSL zones are generally in rural areas. There are fewer votes there, and people are used to being screwed. However, NBN FTTP does or will exist in many regional areas, plus all of Tasmania and Darwin. Additionally, NBN 25Mbps wireless and sat will cover hundreds of small towns.

How do you think the millions of city/suburban voters would feel about country Armidale getting 100Mbps for the same price as they pay for 25Mbps? Or the farmer in Oodnadatta getting 25Mbps via satellite for half what city dwellers pay for the same speed on FTTN?

Additionally, Telstra ADSL2+ pricing is flat nationwide. It's only 3rd-party charges that differ, which usually means they just don't offer services in outer areas.


FTTN doesn't really "progress" to FTTP. It's not a simple upgrade path. You would build then throw out billions of dollars in equipment in the 'upgrade', because it would not be required for FTTP.

http://nbnexplained.org/wordpress/technical-points/the-fttn-first-debate/

 

A very quick google of iinet pricing shows that 200gb plan on ADSL2 is cheaper than on NBN for 25 speed, only 12/1 is the same price.

Hence a FTTN could offer the same price for 12/1 (which is essentially the same speed as ADSL2) and a premium price for 25 speed.

I really don't gas about what city bumpkins drinking lattes think about what 20000 people in armidale pay. If only city people realised how much rural people subsidised their existence, the country would be a better place.

What you are saying is that the NBN should be designed for political purposes, and that is the bloody problem.. that some moron ex-pm didn't perform analysis on a $50 billion project..

It may not be a direct upgrade path, but it

1. Is an upgrade path.
2. Allows for cheaper, speedier delivery
3. Allows for FTTP to be rolled out where it is productive, and FTTN to be rolled out where it is not (ie business vs non-business) ie the best of both worlds.

MW

PS i can't wait to hear the whining when Liberals chop up your beloved NBN
 
NBNMyths said:
How do you think the millions of city/suburban voters would feel about country Armidale getting 100Mbps for the same price as they pay for 25Mbps?
Click to expand...

They would think (and they would be right) that it was part of Gillard's bribe to get Windsor on side.

Or the farmer in Oodnadatta getting 25Mbps via satellite for half what city dwellers pay for the same speed on FTTN?
Click to expand...

They would be very surprised, because the farmer in Oodnadatta is a figment of your imagination
 
Calliope said:
They would think (and they would be right) that it was part of Gillard's bribe to get Windsor on side.

They would be very surprised, because the farmer in Oodnadatta is a figment of your imagination
Click to expand...

Lovely fantasy, but Armidale was chosen as an NBN trial site long before the 2010 election, and therefore long before it was known that Windsor would hold the balance of power.


What, cattle stations don't count as farms? There were plenty of cattle roaming around last time I was there.
 

iiNet is one supplier. Telstra (with 50% market share) and Optus both charge the same for 25Mbps NBN as they do for ADSL2+ or 30Mbps cable. Discount operators like Pennytel have 25Mbps NBN bundles for slightly less than ADSL2+/phone bundles.


Don't worry, there will be plenty of whining if that's what they do. Especially in about 10 years time when the non-tech heads realise what a blunder it was.
 
The one thing I have noticed with this NBN issue is, I dont think it is reflective of mainstream Australia.
The pro NBN members are generally in IT based jobs or computer enthusiasts.
I thought tonight how many of the people in my immediate family or close friends will really care.

Well my wife and myself use computers all the time for banking, surfing, buying etc. We are happy with the speed.

We have four children ranging from 27 - 35, one has a landline, two use wireless and the other doesn't have a phone or computer.

Next I thought what about our parents, both males have passed away.
My mother was very adept on computers during her working life, she asked me to get her on the internet and bought a laptop. Two years later, she has passed on the laptop and isn't interested, gone back to sewing.
The mother inlaw has never been interested.
That's eight people in my immediate family that have no interest in the NBN and resultant faster speeds.

This is the problem with the government, there is no one in my family can see their vision.
I'm sure 80% of Australians have the same feelings.
 

Don't go using the most expensive ripoff merchants as your proxy for pricing... I do realise that you like monopolies and lack of competition, but I like choice and efficiency.

Telstra 25 200gb = $115/month http://www.telstra.com.au/internet/national-broadband-network/plans-and-products/

ADSL2 200gb = $115/month

iinet 25 NBN 200gb $65 per month = add their voip plan to this and it absolutely destroys Tel$tra$ plan.

The more efficient providers are the ones who drive affordability in the marketplace NOT monopolies, and it looks like only the top 3-5 of providers have a future in the NBN world...

Then again you already knew that anyway, as Mr Hacket pointed this out many moons ago, hey NBNMyths.. or do you disagree with that too, to make stuff up?

MW
MW
 

Nice cherrypick. I notice you only mentioned one of my examples. Wonder why that was...


I just gave you three operators. One expensive, one middle and one cheap:

Telstra, the market leader. Overpriced they may be, but the fact is that they alone command ~50% of the market, and therefore their speed/pricing is the comparison that a very sizeable chunk of Australians will be comparing, and they charge the same for 25Mbps NBN as they do for ADSL2+.

Optus, the #2 broadband operator, likewise charge the same for 25Mbps NBN as they do for ADSL2+, at considerably lower prices than Telstra.

So in those two ISPs alone, there is probably 60-70% of the market selling 25Mbps NBN for the same price as ADSL2+. You don't think that is relevant? In your mind the only relevant ISP is iiNet, since their pricing supports your conclusion?


Then there's Pennytel (owned by iiNet, BTW) selling unlimited-data/unlimited-phone 25Mbps NBN bundles for $60/month, which is $8 a month less than their ADSL2+ bundles.


Perhaps there will be ISP consolidation, perhaps not. We will see. However there are currently 40 ISPs offering NBN services, many using POI aggregators like NextGen to help them compete with the likes of Telstra et al, by overcoming the cost of connecting to every POI. I should also also point out on this topic that the coalition's NBN will have the same issue because the reasoning Simon gave for his assessment is the 121 POI situation, and that will not change one iota under the coalition policy.


sptrawler...
Yes, I think you're right to some extent. Hence my comment that the non-tech heads will realise the blunder in 10 years!
 
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...