Conroy confused yet again, Julia not telling the truth about broadband again.
Just watching Stephen Conroy’s press conference I see that he is claiming that were the NBN to be redesigned so that the broadband upgrade in built up areas was effected as a Fibre to the Node (FTTN) design this would mean there could be no structural separation of Telstra.
That assertion is absurd. A FTTN redesign would see NBN Co acquire the copper loop on the customer premises’ side of the node. The service provided would be the same layer 2 service as if the node was located in the customer’s premises (FTTP).
And not to be outdone by that nonsense Julia Gillard claims that a vote for the Liberal Party means no broadband! At least she didnt repeat her claim that we would be tearing the fibre out of the ground (presumably with our teeth).
The truth is, as she well knows, that the Coalition supports structural separation of Telstra, supports upgrading the broadband services across Australia but will ensure that is done in a manner that promotes competition (as opposed to stamping it out) and is done in a manner which is cost effective resulting therefore in Australians getting very fast broadband sooner (because a more cost effective approach could be completed more quickly), cheaper (because a mix of technologies including FTTN costs less than FTTP) and more affordably (because a less expensive network and a more competitive environment will result in lower prices).
40 Responses to “Conroy confused yet again, Julia not telling the truth about broadband again.”
FTTN does NOT cost less then FTTP. If we go with FTTN, and the inevitable upgrade – (as even you have admitted) – to FTTP occurs, a massive percentage of the infrastructure rolled out under an FTTN plan becomes 100% useless. The 80,000+ nodes – (that are powered, and therefore cost money for electricity to operate) – that would be required to complete an FTTN rollout can no longer be used. It’s wasted. If FTTP is inevitable, why not do it once and not waste money on a short-term intermediate fix? You know this stuff Malcolm, stop being so disingenuous.
MW,
you’re completely wrong, because – once more – you have totally ignored the cost savings from deferring the labour component of replacing the last mile from the node to the premise.
stop being so fixated on the “power-hungry cabinets”. the equipment cost of FTTN is trivial in comparison to the labour component of FTTP.
FTTP will cost AT LEAST 3 times more than FTTN.
I’m not comparing the price of FTTN or FTTP – I’m comparing FTTN and then FTTP.
If it costs $17b for Malcolm’s plan, and then $26b for a FTTP plan later, that’s $43b in TOTAL.
Just doing FTTP is cheaper in the LONG TERM.
MW,
Wrong again. Opportunity cost savings from deferring the labour-intensive (and expensive) task of replacing the last-mile far overwhelm the cost of any FTTN investments (equipment, etc) stranded by any potential future upgrade. FTTN is a WIN from a LONG TERM perspective, after factoring in all the capital servicing costs of FTTP.
Basic maths eludes, hey? Seriously…if you can’t see that 17 + 26 is higher than say, 30 – (the costs of FTTN won’t be “completely” wasted) – I don’t feel inclined to place much credence in your position. Argue all you like, FTTN is a stop-gap measure that wastes some billions of dollars in the short term, when everyone agrees FTTP is the ultimate endgame.
MW,
First of all, you can’t just add together two streams of payment that occur at different points in time. There’s a concept called “present value discounting”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value
Please read for your own enlightenment.
FTTN is no more a stop-gap measure than GPON. Technology is constantly evolving and getting cheaper. It never makes sense to chase technology just for the sake of having TODAY’s “leading edge”. From the POV of policymakers, technology is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. FTTN will more than suffice for residential fixed-line purposes for many, many years to come.
FTTN doesn’t “waste” any money. Au contraire, FTTN saves money, because there is a high cost to gold-plating with FTTP when there is no generalised residential demand for the kind of speeds that would justify building FTTP.
Just because we might need “100 more hospitals 50 years from now”, doesn’t mean we build them TODAY. In this respect, saying that “FTTP” is the end-game is a completely trivial and inconsequential speculation.
The truth is, as she well knows, that the Coalition supports structural separation of Telstra, supports upgrading the broadband services across Australia but is annoyed that Labor did it first and are chucking a tantrum
Got it in one skywake!
Like 20 bb policies have come to nothing, now NBN is rolling out and will boost productivity and GDP the stupid Libs have to carp!
FTTN is STUPID and more expensive in long run! 80 cabinets built then discarded, anything more ridiculous? Meantime I am using useless wireless bb because I am on pair bloody gain! Lib bb failure!
I have Fibre to my house and have found the service to be a bit of a failure. That is to say, my service levels were at one stage below ADSL speeds and when I investigated this issue with Internode (took 8months to get their full attention) we later found that it was a case of finger pointing as to who was at fault. Internode blamed wholesaler (OptiComm) and they in turn blamed the other.
My point is that myself the consumer had no resolution in the end, as in the end we are held hostage by the wholesaler and that for me is the flaw in current thinking. If Telstra becomes the choke point and faults do occur, how does one escalate their dominance to a higher power for proactive resolution?
Its the same problem we consumers face today, the bigger the supplier the slower they are to react and the more hostile the consumer gets with the onseller (internodes etc).
I’d like to see a better structure from govt around how they plan to divorce the network from situations like this and more importantly how competition will increase our potential vs suffocate it given the ISP industry is currently going through a mass consolidation world-wide (hence the cloud movement etc).
You guys answer that in a clear concise manner, you earnt my vote.
This is a very good point, and I don’t know what the final resolution process will be once the NBN has rolled out to you.
We presently experience this reseller situation with a number of services -
- Telstra wholesale / third-party resellers of home phone / internet
- Electrical resellers providing power from a wholesaler / grid
- Some mobile companies; e.g. I use Virgin mobile who resell Optus mobile.
and I find I get varying success with each.
Virgin Mobile, for example, are completely useless at resolving any mobile problems. Telstra are pretty poor at providing wholesale service (it’s taking me 4 weeks to get a new internet connection at the moment, due to Telstra being required to install it – but I wonder if it would it be quicker if I were connecting through Telstra retail!) But I find the owners of the power grid to be pretty good – after the flood in Brisbane last year they were generally pretty good at rewiring whole suburbs, given the circumstances.
Given the Telstra network privatisation has proven to be less than ideal, it appears that both sides support some government-owned (or at least wholesale only) internet infrastructure. This will lead directly to the problem that you raise.
But I see some benefit in having a national infrastructure owner. When you have just a few thousand connections, as OptiComm probably do, every connection problem is unique. When you have several million connections you can easily identify reoccurring problems. Telstra are a great lumbering sloth of an organisation, but they have some very smart engineers who are able to resolve the genuinely obscure problems that arise. The one-in-a-thousand problems that arise have been seen before, simply because of the scale of the beast.
So a monolithic organisation gains efficiency through its size. Yes, it will lose efficiency through size as well. But given a high uptake across a consistently designed network (far fewer technologies being supported than the organically grown current network), which is being used in a manner for which is was designed, I expect technical difficulties will *decrease*.
I think the NBNco will be like Australia Post, a power company, or Medicare. When things don’t work you’ll complain, but generally the service is pretty good. There will be an ombudsman or similar for genuine complaints, but I expect good process will allow it to run fairly smoothly.
When has the ALP ever been concerned about doing anything that is cost-effective & efficient?? The cycle continues…the Coalition creates a surplus; the ALP spends it & some more; the Coalition returns to balance the books & get our counytry back in order
Good luck upgrading FTTN to FTTP in the future when it’s needed – which will cost the same as going from where we are now (maxing out copper) to FTTP, and take the same amount of time. May as well go it in one step.
We may not all require 100mbit/s now, but when we do it’ll be ready on FTTP. And then when we require 1Gbit/s, it’ll be ready, and possible with infinite cheap/simple upgrades (100Tbit/s anyone? That’s the current lab speeds) Can’t do that on copper with all the research in the world.
I can understand why Tony Abbott and all other members of the Coalition would naysay such a project, they are simply ill-informed, but surely you of all people would understand the benefits and merits? It must be hard to be so resilient against such an obviously good nation building idea.
Sometimes, quickly isn’t the best option – patience is a virtue.
Scott,
The NBN scenario separates the delivery hardware from the content. NBN Co maintains the hardware and is responsible if it doesn’t work. You buy the content – internet, phone, entertainment – from whoever offers the deal you choose.
None of this guarantees anything, the NBN Co have to be kept on their toes as does your ISP.
What the NBN does give you is the ability to switch phone and internet suppliers, rather than being held to ransom by the cable owner, as has happened with Telstra in Oz, and happens elsewhere in the world. Business love being the sole supplier, for good reasons (money).
This is a massive project comparable to water supply, grid electricity, the phone system or sewerage. It’s not a case of wave the wand and say a few magic words. Problems are normal for big systems. What we want is push for defect resolution.
that makes no sense whatsoever. under Labor’s NBN, we’ll be “held to ransom” by the new NBNco monopoly.
Labor’s overcapitalised NBN IS the great big defect.
It really doesn’t matter as it will all be outdated by the time its finished! Spend the money elsewhere whre its needed!
Personally I’d be happy with a consistently stable Internet connection at around the 5-6Mbps rates I get now (but with higher upstream rates). I don’t live far from the capitol of Qld and yet the copper line quality between my place and the ADSL enables RIM down the road is atrocious. Telstra are next to useless in doing anything about this and I can’t imagine a similar large wholesaler would be any different.
FTTN is esssentially what I have now (the RIM down the road essentially being connected via fibre back haul to the rest of the network).
This clearly isn’t a workable solution.
I’m wondering what the Coalition actually mean by a “mix of technologies” that apparently Labor aren’t doing with the NBN. Apparently keeping mobile competition going and doing FTTH/LTE/Sat isn’t a “mix”.
So a mix is presumably doing FTTN randomly in some FTTH areas, ignoring Sats and keeping all legacy networks running. Which is great…. if you think that the mess Telstra announced for their NBN plans is a good thing. Forget the POTS port on the NTU or the ability for the NBN to multicast (not yet but) lets run Foxtel on HFC/Sats, do phone on the copper and data on the NBN and pay “line rental” for all. That’d be better, right?
If I had a choice between paying to keep two or three networks running for the sake of “having a mix of technologies” or using mobile and whatever NBNCo does in my area for the same thing… I know what I’d do. That’s not me making a politically motivated or ideological decision, that’s me saying “two things cost more to run than one”
i laugh at the fellow coaltion supporters with no evidence to back up the claim it will be outdated.
The only thing what tis outdated is copper and yet fellow coalition supporters want the coalition to spen more on old copper then the nbn
Im quite ashamed ot be support the coaliton now
malcolm why is the coaltion spending the same amount of very outdated technology as copper
if copper is so outdated, why are equipment manufacturers including Alcatel spending millions on researching and developing new equipment that extend the life of copper as a last-mile delivery mechanism?
So you are saying that even the research to keep copper costs a lot, on top of he cost of implementing any solutions. Why bother?
Fibre is the best long-term solution.
I’m saying there are hundreds of billions of dollars of cost savings associated with deferring replacement of the last-mile copper globally, which justifies the paltry millions being spent on FTTN-based R&D by companies such as Alcatel.
Michael, you said in relation to the suggestion that NBN will perform better than Telstra:
– Michael says:
– February 28, 2012 at 11:54 am
– that makes no sense whatsoever. under Labor’s NBN, we’ll be “held to
– ransom” by the new NBNco monopoly.
– Labor’s overcapitalised NBN IS the great big defect
In other words, you do not support NBNco.
But the blog post above, which is apparently contrasting Coalition policy against Labor policy, says
– A FTTN redesign would see NBN Co acquire the copper loop on the
– customer premises’ side of the node. The service provided would be the
– same layer 2 service as if the node was located in the customer’s
– premises (FTTP).
In other words, Mr Turnbull *does* support NBNco to build a FTTN network. He states that the Coalition support the structural separation of Telstra, which implicitly means that the network would be bought from Telstra by another (non-retail) organisation – a natural monopoly.
I understand that Mr Turnbull is concerned about anti-competitive restrictions being placed on Telstra’s wireless networks, but he apparently supports the NBNco “Fibre Monopoly” that you decry.
Where is the real Coalition policy position on this issue?
Malcolm Why are you and Rupert Murdoch restricting TV access through fibre optical! You dont support competition, you only support a system of competition which benefits Foxtel and its associated scoundrels!
All, read the Artical. It says a mix of technologies. 1 shoe does not fit all best value technology for the area. Makes sense to me. Wether that be fttn,FttP, satellite or a tin can with string let spend our taxes wisely, promote competition and if we can crap Telstra up at the same time well I won’t complain too much.
Not sure if NBN will really promote switching. New Telstra NBN bundles all have 2 year lock contracts, whereas their is no fixed line lock in today.
@Leon You think NBNCo aren’t using a mix of technologies? I mean sure, one technology doesn’t work for all areas because of population density and so on but what do you think NBNCo are doing? What was all that Coalition satellite bitching and new wireless tower whining about if NBNCo aren’t using a mix of technologies?
So….what if Telstra refuses to sell the consumer side copper loops to NBNCo Malcolm? Simple question….what’s your answer?
There will be no stick to beat them over the head with as this Govt was able to do…so why should they give up their wholly owned asset?
Just a thought…..You could Nationalise Telstra…..Now there’s a thought!! Lol!!
You seem to be a little confused on a few points, Malcolm:
If, as you suggest, NBN Co take over the copper loops and use them to provide FTTN, can you explain how this increases competition over the current NBN model? Seems to me that it would be exactly the same level of competition. Except that if the change were too great, you may send some smaller ISPs to the wall
Can you also explain how you could build FTTN faster? Assuming you get into office at the end of 2013, how long do you think it would take to:
1) Cancel the running NBN rollout contracts and throw away all the design work done so far.
2) Re-negotiate with Telstra to sell NBN Co the copper loops
3) Write and pass the required legislation through a hostile senate
4) Design an FTTN network
5) Put out tenders
6) Construct the FTTN network
Do you really think it will be faster than just keeping the NBN going? I doubt it.
Malcolm, the NBN network is the not the question, what technolgy that will be fitted to it either commercial or private. FTTP and copper will not suffice. FTTN will allow the latest technolgy to be used by all and it will provide a standard fitting across the supplier industries. When I buy electronics I buy the latest and it is soon out of date, so is copper. Another point, never shop on price. If you buy an item for $2 then it fails, it is $2 wasted but if you buy an item for $20 and it works, it is good value.
Malcolm, you are consistently complaining about waste relating to the cost of the NBN . Getting back to my $2/$20 theory, in the past 30 years Federal Govts and companies have wasted $millons on the Telstra/ Optus/ Vodafone rollout of individual towers. The biggest loosers in this situation was the rural communities who had a restricted choice of providers for many years, and usually it was only Telstra. The other fiasco was the fibre optic cables installed by Telstra and Optus a few years later. In my street I have 2 cables, my daughter has one cable in her street and not far from here in Brisbane, residents have no broadband, not even ADSL as I write. This fact proves that companies such as Telstra and Optus will only install cables where there is a cost benefit. The developers of an estate nearby would not have a bar of installing fibre optic, why I do not know. As far as I am aware Optus did not install cables in Adelaide or Perth and other regional cities. Telstra spun off ADSL and it is inferior to cable. These comments demonstrates the need for the NBN. My point is that the solutions of previous Govts may have cost the proverbial $2 as you you are hell bent on spending, but it was all wasted. If Govts had started in 1980 and spent the $20, the NBN would have been up and running today. Individual telephone companies would have shared mobile phone towers in rural areas if the NBN model had been applied to the mobile phone industry from day one and true competition for all Australians for their mobile phone would have been provided. The statements from the Noalition about the NBN are an insult to the intelligence of the people of Australia. They are not valid criticisms or viable alternatives. You have been in the internet industry for many years and I fail to comprehend how you let Mr Abbott take the lead on the unintelligent bagging of the NBN. Last week I was quite concerned about the future of the NBN if the Gillard Govt was forced to the polls but yesterday’s announcement from the ACCC puts the NBN out of reach of the Noalition, I hope. Anyhow, lets move on, support the NBN. I may not see the full use of the NBN in my lifetime but history will be kind to, and techology will embrance, the NBN with open arms.
Now NBN supporters are suggesting the mobile/wireless sector should be nationalised too… LOL
[...] a media statement, opposition communications spokesperson Malcolm Turnbull said: “A FTTN redesign would see NBN Co acquire the copper loop on the customer premises’ side [...]
Again, the Kiwis have outsmarted the Aussies with their own approach to high speed internet. With a cost of around $400 per household (compared with Australia’s $3,800 per household), 93% of NZ households will have wired access with the balance wireless/satellite. I find it appalling that taxpayers here will fork out $50 billion+ (and who knows how much that will blow out) and many of us will be waiting up to nine years to get it assuming there are no delays. The fact that the whole deal was done by Rudd and Conroy on a flight to Brisbane just demonstrates the dysfunctional way in which Labor has been running government.
oh come on please NZ is a small island state with what population? Australia is a continent with 22 million people. Not a good comparison unless you think only the east coast between Melbourne and Sydney deserve broadband?
[...] a media statement, opposition communications spokesperson Malcolm Turnbull said: “A FTTN redesign would see NBN Co acquire the copper loop on the customer premises’ side [...]
I was NOT suggesting that the mobile/wireless sector should be nationalised. My suggestion was that Telstra/Optus/Vodafone should have installed shared transmitters in rural areas when the mobile phone was first introduced to Australia. If this had been done, maybe the present day NBN would have emerged from a wholesaling consortium owned by Telsta/Optus/Vodafone. The point I was trying to get across was that in parts of Australia, there seemed to be an oversupply of mobile and broadband services and in the rest, none.
Today’s Free App of the Day…
All weekend on The Coupons App they have a 60% coupon at Loop 18. $20 off coupon at Halloween Effects. A FREE combo coupon for California Tortilla and an appetizer coupon from Camille’s Sidewalk Cafe! http://thecouponsapp.com/download Really, why work…
Today’s Free App of the Day…
All weekend in The Coupons App snag a 75% off coupon towards Kashi. $20 off coupon at Saveology. A FREE meal coupon for Wienerschnitzel and an appetizer coupon from Bill Knapp’s Restaurant! http://thecouponsapp.com/download Honestly, just try it….
Thnx for publishing this resource on the internet.