Conroy: Coalition NBN Alternative ‘Quicker and Will Cost Less’
Senator Stephen Conroy this morning conceded the Labor Government’s $50 billion version of the National Broadband Network will cost more and take longer than the approach proposed by the Coalition.
Why then has Labor refused to evaluate any alternatives? And why has Senator Conroy refused to subject his plan for the NBN to cost-benefit analysis?
Speaking on ABC Radio Senator Conroy stated: “It would be quicker and will cost less to build a fibre-to-the-node network. That is just an unambiguous fact.”
This moment of candour raises serious questions the Government must answer immediately:
- How much more will Australians pay for the NBN because of Labor’s failure to properly investigate the alternatives?
- How many additional years will it be before all Australians have access to fast affordable broadband?
- Why did Senator Conroy prevent the alternatives being properly evaluated?
- Exactly what actions did Senator Conroy and the then Minister for Finance, Lindsay Tanner, take to ensure Labor’s NBN policy provided value for money?
Labor’s NBN is yet another example of this Government’s incompetence in delivering programs and disrespect for taxpayers.
At the next election the Coalition will offer a policy that delivers universal access to fast broadband sooner, at less cost to taxpayers, and at more affordable prices for consumers.
35 Responses to “Conroy: Coalition NBN Alternative ‘Quicker and Will Cost Less’”
Yet however much you might spend on a FTTN solution in the short term, most is wasted in the long term when the inevitable upgrade to FTTH comes.
But you never mention that.
Huh? You can still provide fiber on demand in a FttN scenario. I’m also yet to be convinced that a large scale FttH upgrade is “inevitable”.
When will the many NSW towns with over 1000 people West of Dubbo + Wagga get connected ?
Mate, I am originally from Griffith, they are not even slated to get NBN within the 3 year term, and they are officially a city. Don’t hold your breath, it will likely depend on the next government, probably not ALP.
Ref: http://www.nbnco.com.au/rollout/rollout-map.html?address=hay
Undoubtably your approach will be quicker to implement. But it will not be NOT quicker as in bandwidth, and CERTAINLY will not as effective in the long term as more and more throughput is required. Every solution requires compromises. I like the Government’s compromises far more than yours!
What ever happened to your mates over in NZ who were supposedly building a far better FTTN network cheaper and quicker then NBNCo? Oh thats right they ditched it for a FTTP network because FTTN simply wasn’t adequate. Funny how you don’t mention them much any more.
The previous comments obviously are pro ALP, didn’t you read the title of the article “Quicker and will cost less”. Some people just like to flush money down the dunny, you forget that taxpayer money is the blood, sweat and tears from the working class of Australia, so if we can save a dollar here or there and still deliver awesome service, so be it. Money that could go to state hospitals, dental, housing shortage, etc…
Your approach will cost less, but only in the short term as it does not contain an upgrade path to FTTH.
What do you call ‘fast’ broadband? 12Mbps may be reasonably fast today but in 5 years’ time it will already be inadequate. Will your approach cater for the need for ever faster speeds as time goes on? Fibre connections are almost infinitely upgradable. Will the same be true of your ‘cheap and quick’ approach? I doubt it. You get what you pay for. I am prepared to wait a bit longer and get something that is going to stand the test of time rather than get something fast that is going to prove outdated and totally inadequate within a few years.
It would have been quicker and cheaper to buy a barge to transport cars across Sydney harbour, instead of building the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
It would have been quicker and cheaper to send every Australian a drum of fuel to power their generators, instead of rolling out the electricity network.
It would be quicker and cheaper to roll out FTTN, instead of rolling out FTTP.
Tottally agree Muz.
Could not have put it better myself.
FTTP is the only way to go.
Noel – quicker to build, not quicker in speed or capacity.
In reply to Noel:
The funding for the NBN is not ‘on budget’. It is an investment that is forecast to return 7% per year when it is up and running. Apart from the fact that the NBN will be a viable business on its own, with the Australian government as its shareholder, there are the many other benefits of a ubiquitous first-class telecommunications network that will accrue to the nation. Rather than ‘flushing money down the dunny’ we are investing in a prime infrastructure asset that will return immeasurable benefits to the nation and its citizens.
Malcolm, forget NBN or you miss the boat. Smokin’ Joe is making a run for LOTO with his “Age of Entitlement”. What’s yours?
“It would be quicker and will cost less to build a fibre-to-the-node network. That is just an unambiguous fact.”
Totally true, but that doesn’t mean it is the best approach. If you had said this ten years ago, I might have agreed with you, as we could have got 15 to 20 years’ use out of FTTN before needing to go the FTTH path. Looking at our future bandwidth needs, it is now far too late to roll out a FTTN network via ageing copper wire, bearing in mind that, although quicker to roll out, it would still take several years to become ubiquitous. By the time it is rolled out, you may get 5 years’ use out of it before it becomes hopelessly inadequate compared to what the rest of the developed world will be using. As there is no upgrade path available from FTTN to FTTH, at that point you still have to spend an enormous amount of money to make the necessary change to FTTH. Pretty pointless, in my opinion.
It’s quicker and cheaper to lean a piece of corrugated iron against a tree than to build a house. But I know what I’d rather live in.
It’s quicker and cheaper to have dirt roads than asphalt.
But I know what I’d rather drive on.
It’s quicker and cheaper to eat at McDonalds instead of a quality restaurant
But I know what I’d rather eat.
It’s quicker and cheaper to do nothing at all
So why not just do that, if those are the only criteria that matter?
Only 7% return for the NBN?!
I’d be happy to put my super into the NBN and for a sustainable 7% pa.
NBN is long term, slower to roll out but ultimately better, and it will cheaper to do now instead of in 10 years time.
And that’s before calculating productivity gains, the advantages of telecommuting, and economic growth of the iBusiness sector.
The NBN will allow people to download movies and play games over the ‘net much faster. The NBN company is relying on entertainment to drive a proportion of the take up. That’s not worth $50 billion. We can achieve faster internet service for less, spend the money more wisely, perhaps on health services etc, and be in a position to move with improved tecgnology in the future.
Faster in this instance doesn’t mean faster speeds it means faster rollout. I’d also argue that “faster” in this case is purely academic as by the time a Coalition FTTN plan would be able to be implemented this FTTH NBN would have had two years of political thought bubbles, two years of planning, one year of testing and two years of deployment. This Coalition FTTN idea, for all we know, is still in the thought bubble phase! We don’t even know what speeds they’ll be delivering so they’ve got a long way to go.
So the question shouldn’t be “which is faster to deploy” because we’ve already started with FTTH. The real question should be “will going back to the drawing board be faster/cheaper than finishing what we’ve already started?”. These are two very different questions.
Why build a house when setting up a tent is faster and cheaper?
@John
There are loads of other uses for the NBN.
The customer-transfer deals with Telstra and Optus will ensure that take-up is high, along with the excellent value already being offered over the network.
$50 Billion is not the actual cost. The Government plan is to invest $28 Billion – and all of this will be paid back. Net cost to the taxpayer is zero.
“Faster internet service” you say, but faster than what? Faster than dialup? For how long will it be good enough? If we will need FTTH eventually, why not build it now?
The NBN doesn’t take money away from health services or education or anything.
The best position to move forward is the one where we already have the fibre we need for the future.
When will fools like NBN-Myths & co. learn to get their facts straight? Never.
FTTN = fibre to the node. If you want and need fibre to the home from there, its very simple: You ask for it and pay for it (as you should).
The fact is that the majority of people already connected to the NBN do NOT have a plan that delivers 100Mbps – they do not need such speeds. FTTN can deliver as well as they are getting over copper. Thats a fact.
The truth is that the pro-NBNers simply want FTTH for “free”.
The majority of Australians will NEVER require 100Mbps.
Yes backslider, and 640k will be enough for anyone.
The majority of Australians will NEVER require 100Mbps.
If someone had suggested in 1995 that ADSL2 would arrive in a decade and deliver a (theoretical) 24Mbps, you would have said then that “The majority of Australians will NEVER require 24Mbps”.
The fact is that standard internet speeds are a thousand times higher than they were 15 years ago. Surely, no-one with even half a brain would think that we will never need speeds 10x higher than the current average? That’s just ridiculous. As history reminds us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCKQdh8qQxM
Oh, did somebody mention “telecommuting”???
I have been telecommuting for years, currently on a 3.5Mbps (actual) connection. Not a problem. I get my work done, I teleconference…… people just have no idea, you do NOT need fibre at all to do this.
The required speed depends on your needs, and as much about upload speed as download speed.
My wife tried to work from home instead of commuting to her office in North Sydney (2 hours by train).
Unfortunately, my ADSL2+ upload speed of about 600kbps was nowhere near fast enough to cope with the VPN connection to her company’s SAP system. Thus, her telecommuting trial lasted for 2 days.
Some of the NBN defenders seem to think that the Coalition will ban fibre connections to the home. I haven’t heard anything from Malcolm Turnbull or anyone else about banning it. He just doesn’t agree with the Labor government about making it compulsory, and neither do I.
————————-
I think you have a few misunderstandings of the two policies, James.
The NBN is (predominantly) Fibre To The Premises (FTTP). It’s not compulsory to connect, but it will replace the existing copper network eventually, so if you want a fixed line service you will have to get it through the NBN fibre. You can use any ISP to do so, such as Telstra, Optus, iiNet, TPG etc, just like you do now.
The Coalition’s policy is (predominantly) Fibre To The Node (FTTN). This replaces most of the existing copper network with fibre, but instead of going all the way to each premises, it only goes to a street cabinet where it rejoins the old copper. The length of the remaining copper determines how fast the connection can be. Shorter lengths mean faster speeds but a more expensive rollout. Typically in overseas deployments, FTTN results in a copper length of 500m to 1km.
Just as with the NBN, if you want a fixed connection, you won’t have any choice but to use the FTTN system, which (from recent statements) will be operated wholesale-only by NBN Co, in exactly the same way as the current NBN policy. So the only real difference from a connection perspective is that you either have a copper line or a fibre one into your house.
Of course, FTTN is a cheaper and faster-to-install alternative, but it also has a vastly inferior capability. It was a great technology 5 years ago, but many countries have moved on. The original NBN plan in 2007 was also FTTN, but following a review by a panel of experts and problems with an obstructive Telstra, it was upgraded to FTTP.
Countries that previously rolled out FTTN but have now changed to FTTP include New Zealand, the UK and Germany. There are currently over 60 countries Worldwide that are currently installing assorted levels of FTTP networks.
——————————
What a non-story, Malcolm … with a misleading headline too.
For the ill-informed, they will think your headline infers “quicker” as in a faster data throughput, when you really mean that construction time would be faster.
And of course the coalition’s network would be cheaper, because it would be a vastly inferior piece of infrastructure.
As Tony Windsor said when he chose to back the Gillard government, “You do it once, you do it right and you do it with fibre.”
I feel sorry for you Malcolm that you are hamstrung by bad coalition policy. From your Ozemail history, you must know that the NBN is the right choice for Australia – a piece of infrastructure that will serve Australia for decades to come. It is a pity that Tony Abbott lacks that sort of vision.
NBNmyths, I think I understand quite well. You want people to believe they will never have fibre all the way to their home unless the government makes it the only possible connection, destroying all the copper and coax just to make sure.
In fact, under a FTTN plan there will be nothing to stop telcos taking advantage of high-capacity FTTN local exchanges to extend fibre all the way to homes later, if there is market demand for doing so. But communities might prefer to stay with copper for a while, or HFC, or wireless, or any combination of the above which meets market demand at an efficient price. The difference is it would happen a lot sooner, a lot more cost-effectively, and give communities and households more choices.
Can you explain how it would give “households more choices”?
Less than 25% of households have a choice to take up HFC in Australia because the expansion of those networks stopped a decade ago. Even within the HFC footprint, there are a large number of premises that cannot connect (eg: Optus claim to pass 20% of premises, but can only actually offer a connection to 15% due to technical limitations).
Under the NBN, people still have the choice to go wireless or not should they want to trade off speed and cost for mobility.
You’re presuming that ISPs would offer an FTTP upgrade from FTTN. This is rather unlikely. It could happen now, but doesn’t. FTTN cabinets are rarely provisioned for an FTTP upgrade, and doing so would drastically reduce the cost savings of doing FTTN in the first place.
So, HFC areas aside, there is no additional choice for households between the two policies. The NBN gives people a choice between fibre or wireless.
FTTN gives people a choice between FTTN and wireless.
There is no doubt that FTTN is faster and cheaper to deploy. But that doesn’t mean it is “more cost effective”. • Per Mbps, FTTN is more expensive than FTTP.
• A substantial part of the investment in FTTN is wasted during the later upgrade to FTTP (throw out all the electronics, cabinets etc)
• Maintenance costs are far higher to support two networks than one.
• FTTN consumes 3x the electricity of FTTP.
And how many of those 15 per cent actually take up the HFC offer? What does that tell you about the actual demand for FTTP? When I say demand, I mean people willing to pay for it if they have a choice, as opposed to people being tricked into thinking that forcing it on everybody will make it a free lunch.
Nice goalpost move….. Since your “choices” claim has been debunked, you’ve changes tack, huh?
The number of people taking up cable connections increases all the time, which is an indicator of what everyone already knows: The internet -fast internet- is becoming more of a focus every day. Look at the ABS stats, and you’ll see that despite the HFC footprint not growing, the number of subscribers is.
In the same way, the demand for high-end NBN speeds will also increase over time. It is expected that most people will initially only take up the 12 or 25Mbps NBN plans. Since these plans typically cost less than (or the same as) ADSL, people are no worse off.
As time goes on though, and the need for speed follows the same growth pattern as it has for 20 years, the takeup of faster NBN tiers will continue to increase.