News & Discussion: National Broadband Network

[claybro]

Then I must admit to being mistaken, along with alot of others, as it quite clearly stated in the proposal that a connection to NBN if required will cost $5000? . per connection, have I missed something??...nothing about paying for an entire street worth of cable for the first installer in the street.I would be surprised if they would could get away with such an omission given the scrutiny this has been given. Also as for telstra giving up its copper....well there is a requirement in the proposal for Telstra to surrender the copper, which is about to be rendered useless under the NBN anyway (it is about to be scrap value only under NBN). Telstra will make money under the coalition proposal by servicing the remaining copper network so I would imagine they will be happier with the coalition proposal. That is my understanding, and clearly there is a lot of miss information out there about the coalition proposal.

[monotonehell]

Then I must admit to being mistaken, along with alot of others, as it quite clearly stated in the proposal that a connection to NBN if required will cost $5000? . per connection, have I missed something??...nothing about paying for an entire street worth of cable for the first installer in the street.I would be surprised if they would could get away with such an omission given the scrutiny this has been given. Also as for telstra giving up its copper....well there is a requirement in the proposal for Telstra to surrender the copper, which is about to be rendered useless under the NBN anyway (it is about to be scrap value only under NBN). Telstra will make money under the coalition proposal by servicing the remaining copper network so I would imagine they will be happier with the coalition proposal. That is my understanding, and clearly there is a lot of miss information out there about the coalition proposal.

I suggest you go back and read what people have posted on this thread. You seem to have missed a lot of things. If you visit the links that some people have posted you will see the costing holes in the Coalition's policy. You will see the problems with its execution. You will see how it's completely unworkable and how it will end up costing us twice while still not delivering what is required.

[Hooligan]

Ok, I admit, I must be really missing something here? (snip) Dont people who need, have the oppotunity to connect fibre to their premises from the node at their cost?Is there some alarmaing issue with connecting a cable from an existing node? Surely the worst that can happen is that the final copper connection proves inadequate for most households and a decision is then made to complete the fibre network? How is the original outlay wasted?

Yes there is an alarming issue with connecting a cable from an existing node.

How is it paid for? The do not lay individual cables to service each house, they lay bundled cable - not individual fibres in individual sheaths. So only one cable per street is laid, and that contains enough fibres to serve the street. Otherwise it does not fit in the existing copper ducts. So, once the fibre is laid to remote premises, it is laid for ALL the customers in the street. So how does anyone pay for extending the fibre to their place unless they pay the full amount for connecting the whole street from the Node to their place? The 'alarming issue' is that paying the whole cost of connecting the street is beyond most small businesses. The 'alarming issue' is that most other people living in the street will wait until some poor sucker business person gets the fibre extended at the cost to the business, and then pay nothing themselves - since the fibre will run past their houses already paid for by the business person. Either that, or the business will have to relocate to somewhere near a node. If it wasn't so stupid, I would almost like to have the fibre to the node system in place, and then laugh myself silly when all those small business people who think the Coalition is their friend, suddenly discover that they cannot get fibre to their premises even if they are willing to pay, unless they pay for the whole street.

The original outlay is wasted because when they do continue to the home, they have to junk the cabinets. Every.Single.One.
The original outlay is wasted because when they do continue to the home, they have to junk the copper, which they will have paid Telstra for. If anyone thinks that Telstra will give the copper away well, I have a bridge in Sydney Harbor for sale at a very reasonable price to sell them.

I have a similar example.
My parents wanted a gas connection to their home but gas didn't run down their street so they paid the total amount to get the gas line extended down their street to connect to it. After that the people across the road connected to it for no cost at all to them. This is how I imagine the liberals NBN plan would work.

[rhino]

Our interstate highways and many ports are third world standard ...

Having travelled through a reasonable amount of the Third World, I was astounded when I read this . How long since you've been to the third world?

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm

Arguments like this would suggest you haven't been there, and are either talking without knowledge, or making things up to support your case. Which makes one wonder about your arguments for FTTN ...

[rubberman]

Then I must admit to being mistaken, along with alot of others, as it quite clearly stated in the proposal that a connection to NBN if required will cost $5000? . per connection, have I missed something??...nothing about paying for an entire street worth of cable for the first installer in the street.I would be surprised if they would could get away with such an omission given the scrutiny this has been given. Also as for telstra giving up its copper....well there is a requirement in the proposal for Telstra to surrender the copper, which is about to be rendered useless under the NBN anyway (it is about to be scrap value only under NBN). Telstra will make money under the coalition proposal by servicing the remaining copper network so I would imagine they will be happier with the coalition proposal. That is my understanding, and clearly there is a lot of miss information out there about the coalition proposal.

That is an excellent question, and important to provide the facts for, and which I am pleased to do.

If you look at the official Liberal Party document, you cannot see any reference to paying $5000, or having any right to extend.

http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default ... Policy.pdf

If you look at Malcolm Turnbull's document, which is NOT an official Liberal Party document relating specifically to their Broadband, you will see that he uses words like "... NBN Co will provide for fibre on demand at individual premises as soon as possible where fibre does not extend to the premise and this is technically feasible and commercially viable." (My emboldment).

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/wp-co ... adband.pdf

So, the official Liberal Party document does not even mention the possibility of someone being able to pay to get it extended, and Malcolm Turnbull's document (Not a Liberal Party document) says it will happen if it is technically feasible and commercially viable.

Well, an extension is only technically feasible and commercially viable if someone pays for the whole extension - and even then, since the possibility is not mentioned in an official Coalition document, it is not Coalition policy. So, yes, you are absolutely right. There is a lot of misinformation about the Coalition policy. Mainly that misinformation relates to people saying that the Coalition will provide services, which clearly their own documents do not support.

I have quoted the official Coalition documents in support of my position. There is no misrepresentation of the Coalition's proposal on my part. What they have said is quite clear and cannot be misunderstood.

You used the word 'mistaken' in your comment. I would suggest that many people have actually been misled. If you have another official Liberal Party document in which in your words "...it quite clearly stated in the proposal that a connection to NBN if required will cost $5000..." I should be quite interested to hear an explanation of how that can possibly line up with the statements in other official Liberal Party documentation.

[muzzamo]

You guys need to read up on the BT Fibre on Demand rollout. Its what the coalitions fibre on demand is based on.

The idea is that everyone who takes on the fibre-on-demand pays a reasonable cost, based on distance to the node. Whether you are the first in the street to order it or the last, you pay an amount based on distance from the node, and not on the basis of whether or not the fibre already runs past your premises or not. The first person to order it *does not* pay the entire cost of rolling the fibre out.

The "based on distance from the node" bit is interesting. If you are 50m from the node your cost will indeed be a lot less than someone who is 1000m from the node.

[monotonehell]

You guys need to read up on the BT Fibre on Demand rollout. Its what the coalitions fibre on demand is based on.

The idea is that everyone who takes on the fibre-on-demand pays a reasonable cost, based on distance to the node. Whether you are the first in the street to order it or the last, you pay an amount based on distance from the node, and not on the basis of whether or not the fibre already runs past your premises or not. The first person to order it *does not* pay the entire cost of rolling the fibre out.

The "based on distance from the node" bit is interesting. If you are 50m from the node your cost will indeed be a lot less than someone who is 1000m from the node.

Add to that; the UK's experience is not a completely useful comparison. The longest distance you can travel between to points in the UK is 1,350km. Australia on the other hand, Brisbane to Perth for example, is 4,450km. How far away is that node again?

[rubberman]

You guys need to read up on the BT Fibre on Demand rollout. Its what the coalitions fibre on demand is based on.

The idea is that everyone who takes on the fibre-on-demand pays a reasonable cost, based on distance to the node. Whether you are the first in the street to order it or the last, you pay an amount based on distance from the node, and not on the basis of whether or not the fibre already runs past your premises or not. The first person to order it *does not* pay the entire cost of rolling the fibre out.

The "based on distance from the node" bit is interesting. If you are 50m from the node your cost will indeed be a lot less than someone who is 1000m from the node.

I have.

I have also read the opinion of a former Chief Technical Officer of BT on Fibre to the node while making comments to a Parliamentary Committee in the UK. The opinion of a senior person in BT is that FTTN is a dog, a "huge mistake". Just like I am trying to point out. The CTO of BT hardly has an interest in the politics of Australia.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn ... ex-bt-cto/

You might also be interested in the opinion of Optus Director of Government and Corporate Affairs that Fibre to the Node would become "a litigator's picnic". Why? Because a Coalition Government could not constitutionally acquire the Telstra copper without paying for it. ie The Coalition will have to add the cost of the copper to its proposal. Just like I am trying to point out. A director of Optus is hardly likely to be making such statements as a Labor supporter surely?

http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/25/fttn ... ays-optus/

[monotonehell]

You might also be interested in the opinion of Optus Director of Government and Corporate Affairs that Fibre to the Node would become "a litigator's picnic". Why? Because a Coalition Government could not constitutionally acquire the Telstra copper without paying for it. ie The Coalition will have to add the cost of the copper to its proposal. Just like I am trying to point out. A director of Optus is hardly likely to be making such statements as a Labor supporter surely?

Also add another four years of negotiations with Telstra to settle any arrangement.

[muzzamo]

Add to that; the UK's experience is not a completely useful comparison. The longest distance you can travel between to points in the UK is 1,350km. Australia on the other hand, Brisbane to Perth for example, is 4,450km. How far away is that node again?

I'm not sure what your point is? Nodes are the cabinets at the end of the street. What does the distance between Brisbane and Perth have to do with it?

In both the BT FTTN network and the Coalition FTTN network, we are dealing with urbanized areas.

[zippySA]

So why does Cable TV work in Australia? Private companies take the risk in providing a core / back-bone infrastructure, and individual house-holds decide if they wish to purchase the connection from the street and satellite makes up the areas that are not commercial?

It's great seeing the debate rage to-and-fro, but nothing is going to convince me that a Government (Labour or Liberal) are the best (dis)organisation to deliver an NBN (or anything that relies on commercial business aspects). Bloody hell - we have just read today that the potential budget revised forecast loss of $12B could become $17B within 2 weeks, and the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates again today is not a good sign for the economy......we're all doomed so internet speeds are not much of a priority for me at the moment

[monotonehell]

Add to that; the UK's experience is not a completely useful comparison. The longest distance you can travel between to points in the UK is 1,350km. Australia on the other hand, Brisbane to Perth for example, is 4,450km. How far away is that node again?

I'm not sure what your point is? Nodes are the cabinets at the end of the street. What does the distance between Brisbane and Perth have to do with it?

In both the BT FTTN network and the Coalition FTTN network, we are dealing with urbanized areas.

We have many more greatly isolated areas. Part of the NBN is the nation-wide ring, and the localised rings before you even get to the distribution nodes and local nodes. The UK experience is more compact with a higher number of users. So the parts of their experience outlined in that article is applicable, as you say at street level. But don't then try to extrapolate the lower level parts of our NBN from theirs, and expect to cover the tyranny of distance we have here.

[monotonehell]

So why does Cable TV work in Australia? Private companies take the risk in providing a core / back-bone infrastructure, and individual house-holds decide if they wish to purchase the connection from the street and satellite makes up the areas that are not commercial?

It's great seeing the debate rage to-and-fro, but nothing is going to convince me that a Government (Labour or Liberal) are the best (dis)organisation to deliver an NBN (or anything that relies on commercial business aspects). Bloody hell - we have just read today that the potential budget revised forecast loss of $12B could become $17B within 2 weeks, and the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates again today is not a good sign for the economy......we're all doomed so internet speeds are not much of a priority for me at the moment

Simple. Cable TV doesn't work across Australia. It's not available in all areas.

What you're not seeing is the dichotomy of carrier and services. It's like the roads and delivery vehicles. The Government should provide the infrastructure (the roads - the NBN) that enables the private companies to provide the services (delivery vehicles, taxis, buses - ISPs, online commerce, video on demand).

The past has shown that private investors are not interested in the capital cost of setting up a national network. If we did go that way we would have the mess of redundant networks we have in mobile, cable and copper. Can you imagine if the roads were run this way? Six roads all parallel, all going to the same places, but no roads going to remote areas.

[zippySA]

It is complete madness in a country the size of Australia to seek to have a "one size fits all" approach. The NBN seeks to roll-out at massive cost this core infrastructure for every single recognised habitation in Australia (whether you want or need it is irrelevant) - whilst we cannot even provide essential (basic) municipal services to many remote communities. I think I could guess what they would prefer - reliable (mains) water, sewer and power, waste collection and social services delivered locally - or super fast internet?

The Feds could also stimulate our economy and borrow some more by mandating that no-one should ever drive on a dirt road in Australia (please don't pass on to Labour - they may adopt this one) - that would knock a few percentage points off our jobless rate - and if we tripled the borrowings, we may even build them to be flood-proof so we get it right first time .

One thing I know for sure - reading our posts, there are those who agree and those who don't - and doubt we will either change our minds or effect any change to the outcome - the masses will determine that in September.

[monotonehell]

Massive cost, yes. Massive benefit, yes. We spend around $10 billion a year on energy subsidies, I don't hear people complaining about that.

One thing I know for sure - reading our posts, there are those who agree and those who don't - and doubt we will either change our minds or effect any change to the outcome - the masses will determine that in September.

One thing I'm sure of is that the NBN issue will have zero affect on the next election result. It's simply not on more than a few people's radar. Of those talking about it, only a small fraction understand the technology.