Um, neither.
GREG HOY: The ground in this debate is shifting as street node technology improves allowing individuals or perhaps even governments to later upgrade Telstra's old copper cable to optical fibre. Significantly this has meant one arch critic of the Coalition's plan has become a supporter.
GRAEME SAMUEL: Back when the ACCC advised the Government on this back in 2009 it was clearly the position that if fibre to the node had been pursued that around, let me just simply say, several billion dollars of nodes would potentially be of little use at some stage in the future as you upgrade it to a full fibre to the premise technology. I think it's only appropriate to acknowledge that. What it means is that if you want, at your option, to convert the copper running from the node to the premises into fibre to get super high fast speed broadband then you can do it.
That's a bit like saying you have a worn out car that will manage another 10,000 km at best and then only with extensive maintenance and smoke blowing out the exhaust. Sure, a new car will cost more but pretty soon you're going to have to pay anyway.
If we build the Liberal NBN today, then it will only be a few years until we have to go back and do what is currently planned anyway. At best, the Liberal plan defers the expense by a few years but also increases the final cost due to rework.
That's a bit like saying you have a worn out car that will manage another 10,000 km at best and then only with extensive maintenance and smoke blowing out the exhaust. Sure, a new car will cost more but pretty soon you're going to have to pay anyway.
If we build the Liberal NBN today, then it will only be a few years until we have to go back and do what is currently planned anyway. At best, the Liberal plan defers the expense by a few years but also increases the final cost due to rework.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, you - provision for demand where it is today and in the foreseeable future. You don't - taking the approach of building - investing in infrastructure on the basis that you think It'll be needed in 20 years time, which is what Stephen Conroy is fond of saving, that could be said only by someone who doesn't care about taxpayers' money. You invest in infrastructure to cater for the demand today and in the foreseeable future and build into your plans the flexibility to expand further, if and when or as demand increases and that way, of course you take advantage of the latest developments in technology as you go.
I'm sure it costs a lot to replace it as well.
Most people would be happy with the speed increase provided by the Lib plan those who want more will probably be businesses and they just might have to pay.
My opinion is not really based on a political view but a view of who is going to be charged with implementing the NBN, Labor are proven failures and the Libs seem to get things done.
Personally, I know that the copper in my street is excellent, because it was replaced last year. But that replacement gave a very good indication of just how bad it is generally.
Although my house (and therefore local copper line) is only 8 years old, my area was built out in 1973 making the street copper ~40 years old. Quite young compared to a lot of areas. It's an area with a lot of rock and very good drainage. Certainly not a challenging environment for copper. About half the copper in my street is underground, the rest is on poles. Then it's underground from the end of my street to the exchange, about 1km away.
LEIGH SALES: Are they still then responsible for maintaining the copper?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is a matter that would be the responsibility of the NBN Co and may well contract Telstra to maintain that copper. And what you do, just to go through the mechanics here, if you've got an area, this area in front of us is a portion of a suburb, you will form a judgment about the quality of the copper in that area. There may be some that you will remediate, that you will upgrade with copper. There may be an area that perhaps is very wet ground that floods a lot, you've had a lot of maintenance problems. And so you might say alright, we'll run fibre through there. So what you do is you make sensible, cost effective decisions about the upgrading the network and so that you can do it in a speedy and you've got to remember, under our plan, I mean Labor's got an ad out there saying connecting to Labor's NBN will be free. Can you imagine a bigger falsehood than that? It will be $94 billion to the taxpayer and as we've demonstrated in our policy documents today, it's considerably, on average, at least $300 a year more for people to actually connect to it.
Sure, let's give the Libs a shot at delivering the current NBN FTTH solution smarter and at lower cost. What they have put forward though is a sham and should be exposed as such.
That is a matter that would be the responsibility of the NBN Co and may well contract Telstra to maintain that copper.
And what you do, just to go through the mechanics here, if you've got an area, this area in front of us is a portion of a suburb, you will form a judgment about the quality of the copper in that area. There may be some that you will remediate, that you will upgrade with copper.
There may be an area that perhaps is very wet ground that floods a lot, you've had a lot of maintenance problems. And so you might say alright, we'll run fibre through there.
My opinion is not really based on a political view but a view of who is going to be charged with implementing the NBN, Labor are proven failures and the Libs seem to get things done.
If we build the Liberal NBN today, then it will only be a few years until we have to go back and do what is currently planned anyway. At best, the Liberal plan defers the expense by a few years but also increases the final cost due to rework.
GRAEME SAMUEL: said:GRAEME SAMUEL: What we have got is now an acceptance in Australia, that a lot of money in tens of billions of dollars must be invested in high speed broadband available to 100 per cent of the population. And that will lift us out of the mediocrity stakes as far as developed countries are concerned, into one of the more advanced countries in this area. And it is an economic necessity as far as Australia's concerned.
LOL what is with the political bias of the ASF right, just say it.
Libs getting things done hey...for example?.
Malcolm's Turnbull's analogy.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, you - provision for demand where it is today and in the foreseeable future. You don't - taking the approach of building - investing in infrastructure on the basis that you think It'll be needed in 20 years time, which is what Stephen Conroy is fond of saving, that could be said only by someone who doesn't care about taxpayers' money. You invest in infrastructure to cater for the demand today and in the foreseeable future and build into your plans the flexibility to expand further, if and when or as demand increases and that way, of course you take advantage of the latest developments in technology as you go.
LOL, since Telstra owns the copper who may be paid to maintain it? NBN Co does not own the CAN, has no interest in trying to maintain it currently and this has never been in scope until today.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Because Telstra is being paid $1,500 or thereabouts per premise as is it cut over to the NBN. So they're in effect being paid for their copper already. Their obligation is to decommission the copper. So what we're proposing to Telstra and we're very confident we can reach agreement here, is to say to them well, "you give us your copper," really the last 500, 800 metres or whatever what they call the D side copper. "You give us your copper and then we will, as premises are - as the NBN's fibre nodes are connected to that copper, those premises will be connected to the NBN and you will be paid the contracted amount."
You don't "upgrade" with UTP copper. You can replace it but why would you if you can pull fibre instead, even at a higher cost.
LOL, my guess is that you would need to be rowing a boat around your property several months a year before serious consideration is given to run fibre since many such areas are in remote or regional areas.
At best, the Liberal plan defers the expense by a few years but also increases the final cost due to rework.
That will be up to the electorate to decide.Problem is that's exactly what the noalition is going to do, fibre to everywhere but the pole or home...the fibre is for current and future demand.
As Turnbull said at the conference, saying the NBN is future proof is a myth. It may be the most future proof of the technologies available currently, but technology changes so much and so quickly that the most future proof technology has probably not been thought of yet. Deferring deploying infrastructure that currently is not needed is very prudent in such an environment.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Speed is only valuable to you in so far as you can use it for something. The value or the utility of broadband does not increase in a linear fashion with the speed.
In other words, 20 megabits per second is not twice as useful or valuable to you as 10, and 40 is certainly not twice as valuable to you as 20.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Because Telstra is being paid $1,500 or thereabouts per premise as is it cut over to the NBN. So they're in effect being paid for their copper already. Their obligation is to decommission the copper. So what we're proposing to Telstra and we're very confident we can reach agreement here, is to say to them well, "you give us your copper," really the last 500, 800 metres or whatever what they call the D side copper. "You give us your copper and then we will, as premises are - as the NBN's fibre nodes are connected to that copper, those premises will be connected to the NBN and you will be paid the contracted amount."
Ok, let's dissect this little piece of polly babble. Yes, Telstra is being paid to decommission each premises end point connection, copper out, fibre in and $1500 thanks. Now if you say to Telstra "give us your copper" when we connect fibre to a street node and we will pay you $1500 for each copper connection to that node that is "connected to the NBN" (and all will be), Telstra will laugh all the way to the bank (seriously looking at TLS shares again). Thanks for the quote, this has to be one of the most poorly considered and phrased statements I have seen from Turnbull to date.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: We're not expecting to pay anything additional for Telstra's copper.
LEIGH SALES: Why is that?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Because Telstra is being paid $1,500 or thereabouts per premise as is it cut over to the NBN. So they're in effect being paid for their copper already. Their obligation is to decommission the copper. So what we're proposing to Telstra and we're very confident we can reach agreement here, is to say to them well, "you give us your copper," really the last 500, 800 metres or whatever what they call the D side copper. "You give us your copper and then we will, as premises are - as the NBN's fibre nodes are connected to that copper, those premises will be connected to the NBN and you will be paid the contracted amount."
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Speed is only valuable to you in so far as you can use it for something. The value or the utility of broadband does not increase in a linear fashion with the speed.
In other words, 20 megabits per second is not twice as useful or valuable to you as 10, and 40 is certainly not twice as valuable to you as 20.
Telstra will be happier with the Coalition's plan than Labor's, but not for the reason you suggest.
You completed missed the point.
The obvious point being missed by Turnbull here is that speed (bandwidth) drives product and content innovation. The greater the bandwidth for ALL users the greater the variety of content and services that can be delivered over the net. There will likely be many use cases in the future where twice the bandwidth will deliver more than twice the utility or value for a particular service.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?