Sensational-Adelaide.com

zippySA wrote: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

Cable tv works in Australia? Sure, if you happen to live in one of the pockets in some suburbs that Telstra/Foxtel/Whomever felt like running their cable along the existing stobie poles.
Otherwise your shit out of luck and have to have a satellite installed.

If the Coalition wins the election, we will be shit out of luck as well if they go through with their NBN plan.
In the mid to long term it will end up costing tax payers tens of billions more to eventually go fiber all the way like the current government NBN plan is rolling out.
The Coalition are banking on people being ignorant and not thinking ahead, which often happens.
Sure we are going to spend $44 billion now, to setup the network properly the first time.
The Coalition will spend $20 billion or there abouts, setting up half a fiber network at best. At a later time another government will have to spend tens of billions more rolling out the other half of the fiber.
Assuming the cost of living keeps rising, materials and services keep getting more expensive etc, then it wouldn't surprise me if under the Coalitions plan, including upgrades at a later time to go full fiber, it will end up costing more then the governments $44 billion NBN.
The Coalitions plan isn't about the best outcome for Australia, it's about winning an election in September.

The Coalitions plan is basically the equivalent of rolling out copper telephone lines to exchanges only, and relying on carrier pigeons to do the rest.
Or building roads in Adelaide and Port Augusta, and ignoring everything in between. We can walk the rest of the way until there's 2 million people on either side and there is enough demand for new highways in between.

In another ten years, let alone twenty and beyond, our lives will be even more electronically connected and we will be doing even more online that we wouldn't imagine we would be doing today.
No proper fiber network, and Australia will be left behind.

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)

Why do we have cars, trucks, buses, trains, aircraft and ships? Why didn't we just stick to horse drawn carts, riding horses and walking? Why do we need container ports and airports?
If you can figure out the answer to that, and there is a very very logical answer, then you should be able to understand why we need a fiber network.

And we aren't getting a one size fits all approach.
Fiber isn't going to be rolled out to a place like Border Village on the border of WA-SA. Other high speed options will be made available to such remote places.

And if you doubt that technology and being online aren't going to become bigger parts of our daily lives, then go back lets say the year 2000. We had some pretty basic mobile phones in our hands.
Today we are carrying around mobile computers in our hands that can do everything our desktop computers could in the year 2000 and more.
So imagine how far technology will progress in ten or twenty years.
I don't know about you but I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully we have a proper high speed fiber network to be able to take advantage of all the new technologies that will be available in the near future.

This website has been shared extensively today across social media.
How fast is the NBN?
It compares the broadband plans under the Govt and Coalition.

Try the simulations to get an idea of download and upload speeds for different scenarios for FTTH/P vs FTTN.
http://howfastisthenbn.com.au/

In my opinion, NBN is the most strategic important piece of infrastructure that Australia will build in the next 20 years. There are massive productivity benefits to be obtained by all Australians by its full and complete rollout, and the benefits for communities outside of the major cities cannot be underestimated.

Although I am a Liberal voter, the Coalition plan is akin to the one-way Southern Expressway ... half ars*d and will cost us many billions more to fix in the future.

You don't have to be Nostradamus to realise that demand for super fast upload and download speeds are increasing at an exponential rate. "Cloud" storage is only going to increase this rate.

rhino wrote:

claybro wrote: 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 ...

Thats a bit rough Rhino, I travel the world extensively both with work and the occaisional holiday. Our roads are no better than roads in many developing nations (third world was an incorrect statement by me), and in fact some developing nations have better roads than ours. Our ports are not coping with export/import pressures, (ships routinely line up off the coast) and our rail system is a bit of a joke. These are all things that greatly impact on our ability to compete, and I was merely making the point that many of us think that this transport infastructure is of more immediate importance to the economy , than a gold plated NBN system. Clearly many here think fibre to home is essential, regardless of cost, and that is thier right, but as much as I research this subject, it seems the NBN is being pushed by many with vested intellectial and political interests. The rest of us really dont care that much and may well be happy with the coalition outcome. The question is, will the coalition spend the savings wisely? Only time will tell.

claybro wrote: Thats a bit rough Rhino, I travel the world extensively both with work and the occaisional holiday. Our roads are no better than roads in many developing nations (third world was an incorrect statement by me), and in fact some developing nations have better roads than ours. Our ports are not coping with export/import pressures, (ships routinely line up off the coast) and our rail system is a bit of a joke. These are all things that greatly impact on our ability to compete, and I was merely making the point that many of us think that this transport infastructure is of more immediate importance to the economy , than a gold plated NBN system. Clearly many here think fibre to home is essential, regardless of cost, and that is thier right, but as much as I research this subject, it seems the NBN is being pushed by many with vested intellectial and political interests. The rest of us really dont care that much and may well be happy with the coalition outcome. The question is, will the coalition spend the savings wisely? Only time will tell.

One of the reasons that these pieces of infrastructure you mention are as poor as they are is that throughout our history, rather than doing it right the first time, we always have to do it on the cheap and nasty. Think changes of gauge as a prime example, and ports far too small and with no provision for expansion, no plan for South Road, just bits and pieces tacked on to get us over the line at the next election whenever. You should read the book by Reece Jennings on the short sightedness of SA politicians when they built most of the country lines as cheaply as possible (patting themselves on the back as they did it), and then when Commissioner Webb came along and had to relay large portions of the system at massive cost, did they acknowledge that they were stupid in building crap in the first place? Nope, these fools then accused Webb of overspending. He wouldn't have had to do it if the lines had been built properly in the first place.

The upshot of all this meanness up front is that eventually we end up paying much much more because we are always scrambling to catch up and do things on a short term basis. Frankly, if we built the very items of infrastructure you mention right the first time, it would have ended up costing us far less, and we would have the money in hand to build anything we wanted. But no, we just do it every time. Build it cheap, then have to pay double to fix it up later.

I suppose if the Coalition wins in September, and this half baked fibre to the node is installed, we can always kick them out and build it properly after the next election, just like is happening with the southern expressway. However, I suggest that the cost of it will be much higher by that time, and we will have to throw away the cabinets. But what a waste when we could have done it properly in the first place. FTTH is the southern expressway and different rail gauges all rolled into one.

And no, I don't think fibre to the home is essential regardless of cost as you put it. I prefer fibre to the home because it is CHEAPER than fibre to the node in the medium to long term. That is, I want to pay LESS overall. That fibre to the home is cheaper in the medium to long term is the material point. I am curious to know where you get the notion that when you eventually end up with both schemes going to the home (which will happen sooner or later as the copper deteriorates), then the scheme which has extra cabinets, extra maintenance of copper costs, and purchase of copper costs is somehow cheaper. How can you pay for all those extras and yet say that it is cheaper? Sorry. I humbly suggest on the evidence, that it is the FTTN set of vested interests that wants to pay for their scheme regardless of cost.

Do it once, do it right is always the cheapest way.

Interesting you compare the NBN, to commissioner Webb upgrading the delapidated SAR early last century. Commissioner Webb introduced modern American up to the minute standards to our rail system, by spending huge amounts of borrowed public money, prior to the depression. It was at the same time a source of pride for the state,and made the railways far more efficient and profitable, but left a huge financial rope around the states neck as conversion of the lines, new rolling stock and the Adelaide station itself, nearly sent the state insolvent at a time of decreasing revenues leading into the great depression. The amount of public debt greatly increased the symptoms and length of the depression here in SA. Sound familiar?

claybro wrote:third world was an incorrect statement by me

Accepted. That was the statement that rang false.

claybro wrote:Interesting you compare the NBN, to commissioner Webb upgrading the delapidated SAR early last century. Commissioner Webb introduced modern American up to the minute standards to our rail system, by spending huge amounts of borrowed public money, prior to the depression. It was at the same time a source of pride for the state,and made the railways far more efficient and profitable, but left a huge financial rope around the states neck as conversion of the lines, new rolling stock and the Adelaide station itself, nearly sent the state insolvent at a time of decreasing revenues leading into the great depression. The amount of public debt greatly increased the symptoms and length of the depression here in SA. Sound familiar?

The Great Depression, although started by a bank collapse, was made worse by governments panicking and having knee jerk reactions, which one would hope they have learned from and will not repeat. It happened very quickly, and Commissioner Webb could never have forseen it. Are you saying that there is another Great Depression around the corner that we shoul;d be aware of, or are you advocating that we act as if there is one around the corner, just in case?

All the proponents of "build it once, build it right" appear to ignore the time cost associated with money. Borrowing massively now may well be more expensive than paying overall more (in today's dollar terms) to stage an NBN roll-out that firstly goes to a node and then goes all the way to the premises at a later date. Balanced investment decisions are required - it is obviously a very fine line between borrowing to achieve positive outcomes, and not over-extending yourself in the event things go to crap - and yes, we may well still be on the cusp of a deep global recession and as you say, these things can happen very fast like dominoes when something major hits. It would be a foolish government that doesn't consider the risk of major recession in the near future - and fast broad band won't be a priority if we cannot pay the bills (take a look at Greece / Cyprus and a bunch of other economies right now).

claybro wrote:Interesting you compare the NBN, to commissioner Webb upgrading the delapidated SAR early last century. Commissioner Webb introduced modern American up to the minute standards to our rail system, by spending huge amounts of borrowed public money, prior to the depression. It was at the same time a source of pride for the state,and made the railways far more efficient and profitable, but left a huge financial rope around the states neck as conversion of the lines, new rolling stock and the Adelaide station itself, nearly sent the state insolvent at a time of decreasing revenues leading into the great depression. The amount of public debt greatly increased the symptoms and length of the depression here in SA. Sound familiar?

Claybro. The point I was making, had you taken the trouble to read it, was that because the railways were previously underfunded and build shoddily, that Webb needed to upgrade or go out of business. Had the job been done properly before Webb had arrived he would not have needed to spend the money. That money could have been used then to upgrade the tramways infrastructure in the thirties, for example. In which case Adelaide might still have a tram system. Or a better road system, or lower debt levels, whatever.

Another point I made in a previous post, had you taken the trouble to read it, was that levels of debt were much much higher during the second world war - and we recovered from that debt quite nicely - even though a large part of that debt was involved in unproductive things that went bang. So suggestions that the levels of debt both at the beginning of the Depression and now are too high just do not stand up to examination of the facts.

Might I suggest that if you want to respond to someone else's post, you at least do them the courtesy of reading what they have to say, rather than skimming and then replying to what you imagine they said, based on not quite getting their point. Skimming may work for despatch dockets most of the time, but does not work for intelligent discussion. This is an important issue that could well determine the fate of your job and that of many South Australians if we get it wrong. It deserves thought and debate on the facts, rather than what you thought someone might have meant while doing a quick skim of their arguments.

Zippy, at present discount rates, which are relatively low due to low interest rates, that time value of money effect is reduced. So that $1bn per year maintaining copper is still quite significant, and the purchase price of the copper will have to come up front, so there is no discounting of that whatever. Furthermore, given that the expansion of the last mile of the system under the FTTN plan (whenever bits of copper have to be abandoned because of corrosion etc) is piecemeal, it is going to be grossly more expensive than a one off project simply because of economies of scale. Next, even if most of that piecemeal expansion were paid for by business or private subscription, it is still a cost to the project which will manifest itself as increased business costs, just as real as increased taxes, or reduced money in an individual's bank account. Finally, given the increase in demand for data services over the past five years, I simply don't believe that anything more than a five year delay before there will be public pressure to extend FTTN to the home. Just step back a minute and think of data usage five years ago compared to now, and then ask yourself what it will be like when FTTN is rolled out. So it is not going to be a twenty year period over which we need to take cognisance of the time value of money, more like five. As you know, the shorter the time period, the less important is the time value of money. Taken all together, I cannot see how at today's low discount rates, and at the rate of growth of data usage, there would be much change in the argument.

it is still a cost to the project which will manifest itself as increased business costs, just as real as increased taxes, or reduced money in an individual's bank account.

Good points - and hence why I would love it if our public debates could have some transparency - think what we could focus on if all parties were required to provide data (presented in an agreed, consistent format by say Infrastructure Australia) to enable us all to assess the pros and cons of either up-front or staged delivery.

Unfortunately we will always be caught in a politically driven discussion based around getting 8 second TV news bites or a catchy point scoring headline in print.

zippySA wrote:All the proponents of "build it once, build it right" appear to ignore the time cost associated with money. Borrowing massively now may well be more expensive than paying overall more (in today's dollar terms) to stage an NBN roll-out that firstly goes to a node and then goes all the way to the premises at a later date. Balanced investment decisions are required - it is obviously a very fine line between borrowing to achieve positive outcomes, and not over-extending yourself in the event things go to crap - and yes, we may well still be on the cusp of a deep global recession and as you say, these things can happen very fast like dominoes when something major hits. It would be a foolish government that doesn't consider the risk of major recession in the near future - and fast broad band won't be a priority if we cannot pay the bills (take a look at Greece / Cyprus and a bunch of other economies right now).

What a load of horse poo.
Take the Southern Expressway as an example of how not to build infrastructure, and the huge cost associated with fixing it later on.

Greece and Cyprus and Portugal and Spain and Italy and the rest have absa-fucking-lutely nothing to do with this.
Stop clutching at straws to justify your argument.

A friend of mine just showed me this, I don't know how accurate it is but just for lols: http://howfastisthenbn.com.au

zippySA wrote:All the proponents of "build it once, build it right" appear to ignore the time cost associated with money. Borrowing massively now may well be more expensive than paying overall more (in today's dollar terms) to stage an NBN roll-out that firstly goes to a node and then goes all the way to the premises at a later date. Balanced investment decisions are required - it is obviously a very fine line between borrowing to achieve positive outcomes, and not over-extending yourself in the event things go to crap - and yes, we may well still be on the cusp of a deep global recession and as you say, these things can happen very fast like dominoes when something major hits. It would be a foolish government that doesn't consider the risk of major recession in the near future - and fast broad band won't be a priority if we cannot pay the bills (take a look at Greece / Cyprus and a bunch of other economies right now).

You seem to think that only building to the node is a staging strategy that will save money. I think this is where you're misinformed.

Going fibre to the node and then the 'extra mile' with existing copper requires the establishment of some 70,000 cabinets to house the equipment. These cabinets need several car batteries in the bottom, a rack of expensive networking equipment, a rack of expensive DSL modems, and a rack of expensive switching gear, and power and cooling equipment. Add to that the power required to run the cabinets and the maintenance costs of replacing batteries when the local crims realise that they can score free batteries by cracking the cabinets open. Not to mention the cost of the secure cabinets themselves and the concrete footing. Each of these 70,000 cabinets are basically mini-telephone exchanges.

All of those expensive cabinets would have to be scrapped when upgrading to FTTP.


Contrast with a FTTP cabinet - they don't exist. FTTP only requires GPON nodes, they are passive (no power required) and can fit in a small box in a pit.


Simon Hackett talks about the challenges here:
http://simonhackett.com/2013/04/09/cd-s ... /#more-955

It seems, beacuse I do not subscribe to the theory that we need fibre to every home etc,that I get accused of not reading posts, or I am stupid or live in the 1800's or something. I read all the posts, discuss with IT poeple at work, do my own research.This arguement is not new in the world. This same issue has been discussed even in my own company overseas. Suffice to say,within my company the areas without FTTH have not collapsed or vanished overnight, they work with the same system at the same speed as everyone else. All are surviving even in France and UK and US, with no direct cable. See the thing is, most people I speak to are of the same mindset. We just dont see the big picture, the need for the expense, and the apparent dire consequenses of not going full fibre to home immediately. When the apparent pending disaster of the Liberals system is up and running, I may well change my attitude, get a job disposing of all those cabinets, and you can all throw me in the new Victoria Square fountain!

Claybro, you have obviously made up your mind, so there is no point in pointing to facts or figures to persuade you otherwise.

Fair enough. We shall have to agree to disagree.

As for putting you in a fountain, hardly, old chap. If you are wrong, the economy will do worse than that to you, and others here will be too busy trying to make ends meet to bother.

If you are right, then we will probably save about .05% of GDP annually. If you are sure that maybe saving .05% of GDP vs the advantages of FTTH are worth the risk, that's your call.