NBN 3.0: Our reply to the Alliance for Affordable Broadband
- 01 September, 2010 09:43
- Comments 96
Yesterday, a group of telecommunications CEOs put out an open letter that described an alternative broadband infrastructure. The letter received plenty of coverage in the media but in our view creates more questions than it provides answers. So we thought we’d give them a quick reply.
Dear Alliance for Affordable Broadband signatories,
We are grateful for your letter and suggestions. Indeed it is pleasing to see individuals of your repute publicly join the broadband infrastructure discussion and to provide alternative suggestions. We would encourage this from more people in the ICT industry.
To help kick the conversation along we thought we’d give you a quick response with some (but not all) of our questions. To get to the point, though, we really wish you were already at release 3.7, because the NBN 3.0 plan, like a lot of first releases, leaves a lot to be desired and really doesn’t use the good parts of 2.0 or even 1.0.
At first read it sounds grand: Give 4G wireless to almost everyone through a public/private national wholesale-only network, fibre to the hospitals/schools and “most” businesses, and encourage investment through market competition. All for a bucket load cheaper than Labor’s $43 billion national broadband network (NBN).
And I think we can all agree right now that everyone wants “a competitive National Fibre Backhaul Network (NFBN) platform”, and it is something all parties have put forward plans on.
At second glance, however, the plan seems to fall into the same Conroy/Rudd mistake of being hastily pulled together, missing some key elements and arguably introducing a contradiction or two - although perhaps the points just weren't explained in enough detail. So we have a few questions:
1. Do you have any suggestions as part of your plan for changing the current fixed line market structure, which is dominated by a vertically integrated Telstra as is sought by many players in the industry? Would you agree this needs to be addressed as part of any broadband infrastructure plan?
2. Are you suggesting the history of the rollout along with the current circumstances with the HFC networks – high prices, limited coverage and no open access - are good examples of infrastructure-based competition?
3. How is creating a national wholesale-only 4G wireless network where you will have to choose between competing technologies – WiMAX and LTE – while at the same time introducing tough competition to 3G players and potentially forcing them to give up on their considerable investments to migrate to your network, any different from the NBN Co situation with fibre? Isn’t this also “crowding out” other wireless infrastructure (i.e. if you choose LTE, what happens to WiMAX?) and existing competition (i.e. between the Optus and Telstra wireless networks)?
4. What spectrum will you use for the 4G network and why? When is it available? Have you done an analysis of the opportunity cost of using this spectrum for other purposes?
5. How did you come to the 98 per cent figure for the 4G network? Have you worked out how many towers will be needed and whether you will connect them by fibre or microwave?
6. Please explain how you came to the $3 billion figure. Is this the total cost of your plan or just the 4G wireless portion?
7. Can you really guarantee a “ubiquitous” service with this plan when it is next to impossible to provide a committed level of service (both in terms of bandwidth and geographic coverage) with existing broadband infrastructure and the wireless technologies you suggest? You mention “up to 100Mbps” but what is the minimum download speed all Australian organisations and individuals should receive? Shouldn’t we all get at least the same level if any tax payer money is going to be spent?
8. The Coalition's alternative broadband plan sees the majority of action enacted after the first term of government, yet you mention that the solution could provide deliverables within one term. What exact deliverables would this be?
9. How long do you expect the “serious investigation and independent cost estimations, cost-benefit analysis, genuine industry and public consultation as well as a review of its impact on the Australian competitive telecommunications landscape” to take to complete? What assumptions will you use in this?
10. You say in the short- to medium-term there is no demand for up to 1Gbps - and that is entirely accurate with qualifications – but how do you define these time frames? And in the long term? If you do forecast more than the 4G networks can provide, why not aim higher then your plan and get the competitive advantage by investing early in a technology we know will support that, thereby encouraging participation in the digital economy and leap-frogging competitor nations?
11. If schools, hospitals and “most” businesses need the better speeds, why wouldn’t others, including SOHO and consumers? Doesn’t suggesting they won’t go against the history of technology adoption and internet usage?
12. What kind of plans and data caps would be reasonably expected for both businesses/organisations and consumers as part of your plan?
13. What about Defence and government agencies? Will they continue to pay more to private companies for connectivity as a result of this plan?
14. What upstream speeds will you guarantee to incentivise businesses and individuals to become participants in the digital economy?
15. How does your plan support other areas of economic activity and how exactly will it be integrated? What impact would it have on our competitive edge in the global economy as opposed to alternatives?
16. Why settle for 12Mbps for the satellite portion of your plan?
17. What about Greenfield estates? Do you suggest continuing with mandating they roll out fibre?
18. On R&D – do you recommend rolling out existing technologies or investing in the development of new varieties as is being pursued by the CSIRO?
19. Have you considered that some people may not want to have a 4G wireless network in their area, but would prefer fibre services? Is there scope to let communities or councils choose on a case by case basis what they want?
20. What provisions would you recommend for improving our international links and the price paid by ISPs for IP transit?
These are just some of the questions we seek answers and clarification on. We have plenty more (including your motivations as individuals for putting this letter out now) but figure it is best to stop here as this might take a bit of time to respond to.
In your letter you mentioned that the Labor NBN plan has "failed to convince". That may be the case for some who hold similar views as yourselves, but until you are able to answer the above questions (and those we haven't included) the same accusation can and should be levelled against your suggested plan. Your plan may simply be a proof of concept to show that an alternative to the NBN is possible, but we look forward to seeing mature, formulated business plan that can replace Labor's current rollout as it stands from day one.
Thank you in advance AAB and we look forward to your detailed response.
Computerworld Australia
(Let us know what you think of the plan in our poll)
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- Prepare Your Enterprise for the Mobile Revolution: Boost the Bottom Line with Mobile UC
- Magic Quadrant for Managed Print Services, Worldwide
- Case Study: Svenska Kraftnät safeguards web and ensures communication security with Clearswift
- IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Business Process Platforms 2011 Vendor Analysis
- Virtual Certainty - Best Practices for Gaining Monitoring Clarity in VMware Environments
-
Amazon Web Services personalizes CloudFront web hosting service
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
Professional Pen Testing for Web Applications
-
SQL Bible, Second Edition
-
Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 (70-604) International Student Edition + WileyPlus Registration Card (Standard Edition)
-
The Internet for Dummies, 11th Edition
-
Practical Steps for Aligning Information Technology with Business Strategies
-
Visual Basic .Net
-
XML
-
C Programming Study Guide
-
The Data Model Resource Book, Revised Edition, Volume 1
Comments
Kenneth
This plan and the coalition plan have the same flaw. we need symetrical low latency links. Wireless can not provide it. the NBN is the only plan that will allow the digital economy.
michaelanthony
sorry guys I abused you b4 it was meant for the Alliance idiots! Your response to them is excellent! UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T THINK YOU WILL BE GETTING AN ANSWER TO ANY OF THE ISSUES YOU RAISED.
D Newman
Good reply to the lacklustre NBN3.0 AAB letter, all ideas floated about advancing Australian digital infrastructure leave me more and more convinced that the private sector ARE NOT the best way to secure the best result for the Australian public.
Waiting with a good deal of impatiance for the NBN.Co costings to be made public from the meeting the 3 indie's had today.
Brian Hancock
I think t he Alliance for Affordable Broadband's ideas are reasonable. I think the cost of fibre to each home and a country wide 100M/1G bandwidth is an unaffordable luxury.
The fibre backbone is the important part. The final delivery can use whatever technologies are current available or that will be available in the future. There should not be any technology mandated for this, it should be whatever is commercially viable. I think public hospitals should be included as part of the fibre rollout, but private hospitals and schools should make commercial decisions about it.
We are one of the most highly urbanised countries in the world, where more than 70% of our population already have reasonable access to broadband (and yet many of those still choose not to buy it). and with vast spaces to traverse for the balance of the population, I do not think we can afford to flood it with expensive broadband technology in the world, while our schools, hospitals, roads, public transport, climate change mitigation and adaptation etc etc etc will be starved of funding.
Raymond
Trevor, I guess unlike Conroy and Rudd these guys are putting it out there before going ahead! A great reply, however,
where was your similar letter to Conroy and Rudd, or did I miss that one, or like most got caught up in all the spin!
@ 3 Newman last time I looked you worked in ISP private enterprise? any contradiction there!
My understanding is that a similar if not the same network has been built in Sweden, and the United States are proposing to build a 4G with 100% cover for $7 billion, makes NBN a bit dear!
Brian Hancock
... and one more point.
Why do we need more tethered connections to the internet? Technology is moving outside the 4 walls. Just look at the rush to get iPad competition into the market.
With more pervasive subsidised tethering, untethered access will become more expensive and less available.
Brad
Can we get over this idea that the NBN is an "unaffordable luxury"? Less will be spent on the NBN over the entire build than is spent on welfare each and every year. Around the same amount of money per year will be spent on Tony Abbott's parental leave scheme! Yet the NBN will also earn government revenue.
People need to get it into their thick skulls that this is an INVESTMENT. Labor's NBN policy is like building a house, costs a lot but you have a valuable asset at the end. This plan and Abbott's plan is like renting, throw money at a third party so you have somewhere to stay, yet at the end you own nothing.
D Newman
@Raymond sweden is adding to 100% fibre coverage, its to meet the growing "gadget" demand.
Amercia is so broke it cant afford to fix falling down bridges but scrapped some cash together for broadband coverage, I,m not impressed with either claim in the context of "WOW 4G is great", because it isnt.
I work for an ISP, but even if speaking for the company I work for, which I,m not what has that got to do with this, companies feelings are well known on this issue, and mine are well known, I would like to think.
Wireless should be a supporting role not the sole provider, because even the much lauded 4G, still sucks badly on latency and speed claims are laughable in population hubs.
Oh and least we forget, some of the biggest changes in the way we all use the internet is going to involve upload speed, where is the scope for meeting future demands in that.
There needs to be a layered approach, but as per usual in anything left to Australia to decide for itself, it gets so polarised, the end result is bugger all gets done, and even that is done slowly.
Richard Ure
Too much "belief" and not enough evidence. Too much of the debate is wasted on how the project pays for itself.
The ABC costs, we all pay for it and use it as we see fit for no cost at the point of use. The NBN should be the same as there is minimal marginal cost as each person uses it.
D Newman
@Brad that has got to be one of the better ways of explaining the NBN i,ve heard, (laugh) nice one.
Raymond
@ 7 & 10, it is only an investment if there is a return, and some of us might be dead by the time that happens!
What I would rather see is NBN Co report to a consortium of these commercial guys, then you might see something decent happen!
Example, Docklands in Melbourne, Jeff Kennet appointed nine CEO's of different Org's and said go build it, use commercial enterprise to do it, in it came on budget on time! Cannot happen under Government!
Brad
I don't agree Raymond.
Lets assume a very low port cost of 10 dollars a month. There are around 10 million households in Australia, let's assume we can get 80% of them onto an active NBN port, which I think is fairly conservative. 8 mill * $10 * 12 months... That's nearly a billion a year from residential port costs alone. Add onto that business connections as well.
Furthermore, studies have suggested that national fibre infrastructure adds around 1% to GDP. With a trillion dollar economy this is around 10 billion a year in indirect economic benefits.
IMO building the NBN is a no-brainer.
Nathan
Fibre is the only technology currently available that can deliver a guaranteed fixed bandwidth (both upstream and downstream) to the general public.
That's not to say that the international connection pipleline bottlenecks won't still exist (they will), but this is the only bottleneck to contend with in the fibre option.
The wireless option will also have this international bottleneck. In addition, the wireless option will not be able to guarantee a fixed bandwidth to each user as everyone in a given area shares the same tower. Furthermore, the wireless option suffers from increased latency (flashback to 2004 buffering youtube video) due to interference, congestion and the increased number of steps between the user and the internet backbone.
Finally and perhaps most importantly the wireless option poses a competitive barrier to would be Australian internet entrepreneurs as it is not feasable to run a business from ones residence using the unstable wireless connection. For Australia to stay ahead of the game we need to be a net web commerce and service supplier rather than a country of web consumers. Fibre will provide us with the opportunity to do this.
I suspect this group of telco CEOs is primarily concerned about the increased competition they'll have to contend with if the current NBN is implemented.
Stephen Parker
One question - how fast the NBN with Controy's filter in place?
david
The problem with NBN like climate change, is the failure for robust discussion, debate and allowing people to challange something without being called stupid. Many apartment blocks in cities cannot take fibre as fibreoptics cannot bend like copper to fit through the risers. Many people do not have access to cable TV for the same reason. The other issue is that there is more flexability for wireless than fibre. Wireless technology is ramping ahead as it is the solution for third world countries. When India, China, South America and Africa are developing solutions it is all wireless. Innovation is occuring in the wireless world. I really question how fibre to the home is an investment for the future.
Raymond
@12 Brad, your scenario is only relevant after the thing is built and all who have gotten off their contracts, and remember all major companies are tied up for five year telco contracts, so your scenario may not have full earning potential for fifteen years.
Now the kicker, your scenario does not even go anywhere near the interest repayments of $2.8 bill PA.
So seven years ago we never had broadband!
What are you prepared to guarantee in a further seven years the technology will be! What do you think wireless will look like in seven years, I have 100mbs now! not from Newman...Optus
Loddington
Point 20. Is really important. With any of the proposed plans we will flood our current international links and miss much of the benefit of a fast connection to our homes/businesses.
David Shears
@Brian Hancock
Some things to consider. Back-haul is not an issue. There are many companies (Optus, Telstra and Pipe just to name a few) that already have significant and inexpensive wholesale back-haul to much of the country. It is mainly regional areas that have back-haul issues, and these areas will have significant back-haul upgrades if the Original NBN proposal goes through. Most telco's love laying back-haul, it is the communications equivalent to buying in bulk and the returns on investment are quite agreeable.
What the private sector have not been able to do is figure out a way of rolling out last mile infrastructure on a mass scale. It has been tried but it almost bankrupted one company and the other suffered significant losses to the point where they gave up on the project and delivered their products using satellites
The one thing that the Government has with this proposal is buying power. If they connect every home to the network (which they can do by killing the old copper network) they can do it with a far better return than any company (even one with a monopoly) can do, you simply cannot make it worth your while connecting every other house to your network. We know this because the private sector way has already been tried and it failed (for those scratching their heads, I refer to the Cable roll outs of the 90's)
As for wireless being the way of the future. It is a simple fact that you will never, ever, ever, ever... EVER! get the kind of low latency, fast, secure and reliable network offered by any wired network using wireless tech. IT JUST WONT EVER HAPPEN! The laws that govern the universe will not allow it.
A simple analogy: "What will fill a bucket with water faster? a light shower, or a fire hose?"
Both sources of water are plentiful, but if you break one stream into a billion little droplets you will never get wet.
BTW. To describe a inferior technology as a 2.0 or 3.0 release really grinds my gears. That's like upgrading your computer to chalk and footpath.
Simmo
@11 - Maybe, but you forgot to mention that Docklands is a lemon that won't grow any grass; a fundamental requirement of a football playing field I would have thought... This broadband option may get by too, but it's much more difficult to replace the grass on a lame, premature "4G" network that offers little more than we have now and runs at a fraction of the speed of fibre. WiMax is going up everywhere and have you seen any press saying how wonderful it is and how much of the problem it's resolved? No. And you never will. Oh, and how fast was Telstra's 3G supposed to run at when it was released? Anyone achieved that? Wireless will always lag (no pun intended) behind fibre. Time to start thinking about what could be done with higher bandwidfth, not being stuck in the same paradigms we have now. Sell your shares in your local video store now.
David Shears
@Loddington
The theory that we do not have enough international bandwidth is simply a myth. Currently Australia has well over 5 Terabits per second of international bandwidth available. We currently (at peak times) sit around the 300 Gigabits per second mark. Meaning that a 10 fold increase in usage would only allow us to reach 3 Terabits per second.
Even if this happens, the 5 Tbps is not the ceiling. Pipe, XYZ and the telstra one all have the ability to increase their network capacity 100 fold if needed
The reason us Aussies get such a raw deal when it comes to surfing internationally is not a bandwidth issue, rather a latency one. With current packet transmission rates it is difficult to sustain a super fast connection to the USA (which is where much of our traffic ends up) despite the fact that they too have plenty of capacity.
Ken
The reality I see is that we should have the NBN (fibre is the technology of the digital age - 21st century, copper belongs to the analog age - 20th century) and we also need the mobility offered by the various wireless solutions proposed. It should not be an argument about one or the other - we must have both
Raymond
@19 Simmo, now let me take you slowly, when you mention Docklands and Grass, I assume not what your on but the stuff that gows in the football ground that has not been called Docklands for several years now!
Simmo outside of the MCG THERE IS NOT A MORE SUCCESSFUL STADIUM IN AUSTRALIA! THE ARTIFICIAL GRASS IS BY DESIGN!
People from Melbourne know Docklands as a massive complex for both business and residential, so the point still remains private enterprise builds better...fact!
So as usual Simmo....wrong!
Vic Whiteley
BRAVO! BRILLIANT!
D Newman
Simmo is hardly wrong, private enterprise builds reluctantly and to the min required standard, I hold up Telstra as example A.... Next I hold up small patches of private fibre and HFC only in high density areas as example B...
Your example is far far worse than Simmo,s.
How are you by the way ;-)
Simmo
@22, yes, you're correct that I'm not from Melbourne, but I religiously listen to the footy on ABC radio, which always refers to it as Docklands to this day. So I am wrong, but I'm not quite sure how a housing/business development compares to the NBN. I'm also probably wrong in assuming that because you're in Melbourne you already have some pretty good broadband - maybe even cable - which is a pipe dream where I live. I've been a corporate IT professional for more than 25 years and I would confidently say that not one day has passed where the constraints of communication (mainly not financial) have not impacted operations or decisions and this 4G proposal doesn't look like the answer to me. Anyhow, I wonder how the inland telegraph, the current copper network or the Snowy Mountains scheme would have got on in private hands. You may well be right on that too, but I have my doubts, so we'll just agree to disagree.
Annabella B.
From a female perspective: I don't believe Australia can afford $43 billion plus for broadband while the interest on our debt is $100,000,000 per day. If I want it, I can have high speed broadband now. I just don't choose to pay for it and from the trials in Tasmania so far, people are not signing up for the the higher cost packages.
Surely there's an alternative that will be adequate for remote areas that's not going create a debt that will be hanging around our kids' and grandkids' necks for decades? Technology is racing at the speed of light - I don't think it's a good idea to be so indebted to a system that involves digging up the ground and laying cable.
Question: where's the business plan for the NBN? If the Govt are so sure of themselves - let's have a look at the plan so we can make informed decisions.
Answer: There's no business plan - it's all based on trust. And I don't trust this Govt to do anything right.
David Shears
@ Simmo
I had WiMAX. It was very unreliable. Not to mention, the provider could only have a maximum of 200 users on a tower (50 per panel) before you start sacrificing speed (12Mbps)... And the service had to be subsidised by the Government in order to make it worth while.
Simmo
@26 - 36.5 Billion dollars in interest per year alone? Better re-check your figures...
john
Simmo outside of the MCG THERE IS NOT A MORE SUCCESSFUL STADIUM IN AUSTRALIA! THE ARTIFICIAL GRASS IS BY DESIGN!
People from Melbourne know Docklands as a massive complex for both business and residential, so the point still remains private enterprise builds better...fact!
So as usual Simmo....wrong!
and why was it built at the docklands and not baccus marsh?
cherry picking thats why it is profitable simple fact ,if private enterprise tries to build the NBN it will fail to deliver anywhere near the coverage of the governments proposal, hence private enterprise will FAIL (disclaimer: for anyone outside of toorak,heidelburg,carlton,
st kilda,brighton,glenelg,burnside,prospect,manly,bondi you get my point)
Simmo
@Raymond - your comments about the stadium didn't ring quite true to me. Built at a cost of $460M in 1997, sold in 2006 for $330M; not a good start. I don't think you'll find that the "artificial grass" (which is not artificial) was ever supposed to be replaced. The incredibly expensive lower tier seats that can be moved to make it a rectangular shaped stadium are not used because they apparently damage the turf. If reports are correct, sounds like the AFL have regularly threatened to build their own stadium because of the ongoing issues. True that the taxpayer didn't wear the risk and I know you were referring to a different development and I accept that, but here we see an example of a private investment that failed to meet the fundamental requirements it was built for - the paying surface to actually play the game of football. I say there is a strong parallel in that and the NBN - what is being suggested with 4G and the Coalition plan is a playing surface that we know will not work medium-long term, so why are going there?
Raymond
@29 John, It was built there for three main reasons,1..Rail yards no longer in use 2...because of the bay, it,s built around water..3..That's where Jeff wanted it! oh and the massive transport complex that takes the Punters to within 100 metres of the place, Simmo, I will give you this point, Docklands is the suburb, the Staium is Etihad, and yes I am from Toorak Melb and Kirribilli Sydney.
@24 Newman, Telstra is not exactly private enterprise in their infrastructure? they were a government body for a long time, and as you know, they used JCI's to scam money from the likes of your company and put your schedules back, an that is the very reason Samuels from ACCC did the only decent thing in his tenure! Private enterprise builds to standards, you know that! Thanks for asking, I have a headache, it is ten days, and I am going nuts!
@28 Simmo, I think I can come to the defence of Annabella B. Her figures are right, the time scale is wrong interest alone on NBN is $2.8 Billion pa. the rest of the joint has borrowed $175 billion and counting!
David Shears
@Annabella B.
Actually, what we cant afford it to have our kids and grandkids stuck in the digital dark ages. This technology is as important as electricity was 100 years ago. Back then, it was though of as a frivolous technology that had no apparent existence other than replacing an already well established oil burning technology.
Our country would have failed had we not adopted a strategy of delivering cheap, reliable electricity to the country, which at the time of its roll out was thought to be a huge waste of the tax payers money.
As for your 34 Billion Dollar Debt, it simply does not exist. This project has been completely and interdependently costed (and yes, these costs include the all too typical building cost blow outs). It will end up costing around 3 billion a year to the taxpayer build and is expected to be cash positive before it is completed.
If we were to base all infrastructure decisions on your "what have the Romans ever done for us" mentality then we would have none of the public services that make this country so great.
As for the business plan of NBNco. Go to their website and look it up. I personally have gone through their documentation regarding tenders, business plan/corporate values, current wholesale pricing and technical specifications.
I have listened to the podcasts that have been posted on their website outlying their strategy and I have seen umpteen news articles regarding their business practices. Mike Quigley (The CEO of NBNco) has a proven track record in the corporate world being the former CEO of Alcatel/Lucient. Do you really think someone who has dedicated a large part of their career to the Communications Industry would jump on board with an ill-conceived business design?
As for your answer. You are wrong and its not because you are misinformed, its because you simply did not bother looking before you posted to this website
NBNco Website:
http://nbnco.com.au
Awarded Tenders:
http://nbnco.com.au/partners-tenders/tenders/awarded
NBNco Board Members:
http://nbnco.com.au/publications-and-announcements/images/board-members
Publications and Notices:
http://nbnco.com.au/publications-and-announcements/publications
NBNco Annual reports:
http://nbnco.com.au/publications-and-announcements/annual-reports
NBNco Values:
http://nbnco.com.au/jobs/jobs-values
Raymond
@ 30 Simmo, the grass I will grant it is specially grown up the Hume, and yes they do replace, what you are not aware of is they sold Waverly for about $750mill to build Docklands/Etihad and it is a business profit centre in it's own right, so lets get of the sports factor, we are boring people!
Comrade
The NBN fibre model is nothing but fodder for the p0rn & copyright pirates. Please stop wasting my taxes on this $43-80bn NBN nonsense.
Simmo
@33 - Sorry about that. So they turned $750M into a $330M dud - I thought only governments do that! ;-)
Peter
The 43B/60B/80B NBN postulated by Conroy is a walking nightmare. consider:
1. No business case! Spending that amount of money without any assessment of the business case is sheer madness.
2. We are not South Korea, Singapore or Japan whose 170 million people all fit into an area less than the state of NSW.
3. Betting the house on old technology like fibre in the fastest moving industry in the world is the height of technological determinism. Labor loves trying to pick winners; and their track record is appalling.
4. The people want wireless. Fibre to the home is last century. We have all moved on. Move on grandpa.
5. Digital dark age - please, cry me a river. You want it, you pay for it.
6. Comparison with electricity - what arrant nonsense! Cook me some food with broadband. Heat my house with broadband. Get me some hot water with broadband. Deal with teh real world, please.
7. Who let you guys out of your mom's spare room?
.
Raymond
@32 Shears, not only are you wrong in your interpretations of what you think you heard, and what you thought you read....you are bloody rude! how dare you, you pompous twit!
May I remind you, tenders are not a business plan you imbecile, this $43 billion plus is not costed! don't tell lies it is off the balance sheet, nobody knows out side of Conroy and that dud Quigley......you certainly don't!
The $3 billion a year is interst you moron, and if you don't think this country does not owe more that $150+ billion conservative right now! anyway you don't know that you are an imbecile...and a rude one at that!
Peter
David Shears, nowhere in that guff you linked (including the *values* statement) is there a business case. Because. There.Isn't.One.
And you may be impressed with Quigley - but throwing $43B of taxpayers hard earned at someone *because* you are impressed with them is juvenile at best.
Raymond
@35 Simmo give up!..750+33=1080-450=630 + what channel seven pay+what Etihad pay +all of the memberships from the several clubs that call it their home ground+ the cricket+++++ give up it is way off topic, except Private builds better!!!! game over!
Wendy Lohse
Annabel, I'm really sad that you find this such an expensive waste of money. This is investment equal to the point made above - equal to the installation of electricity and all the infrastructure required. I'm almost 61 and am desperate to get on the NBN. It can't possibly be more expensive than the $50 plan + $30 line-rental-for-no-service-to-telstra that I've had till now.
I need faster. I need more download and upload options. I am a disability pensioner and the NBN will enable me to undertake the research necessary for the writing that I do. Right now it's history and biography. If NBN is $50/month that will be an instant saving of $30. For a pensioner that is 5 days food money saved.
I am sad that my grandchildren may not access this during their education. Australia has maintained itself as a 1st world country. We're about to slip right down to disadvantaged-world-status with some people still trying to use dial-up. Come on Australia. We're better than this.
Raymond
@35 Simmo, you can apologise whenever you feel free, as usual you look at a figure and believe it means something.
Last word Simmo
$460 mill to build the sold THE LEASE for $330 they still own the building you moron, and yes I did make a typo above of 33 and not 330.
So go back and read learn and apologise!
Peter
Wendy, I'm sorry, but all you offer is self-interest.
And saying it can't be more than what you currently pay is an act of blind hope, nothing more. The company will have to repay the likely 80B to build the white elephant, interest on vast loans, service costs when the lines are dug up daily, etc. Don't count on it being cheap. And don't count on it happening quickly.
The reason why you don't know what it will cost is that NBN or the government haven't done a business case, which is appalling.
RS
@41 stick to the topic. No one cares about you or your dopey ground!
Also, since you expect of others and speaking of morons (and big mouthed morons) who need to apologise, just when are you going to apologise to D Newman about your stupid and incorrect 17.5%, claim and admit your foolishness and apologise regarding Dr. Phil BURGESS, LOL!
You have been summoned, cya soon...!!!!!!!!
Kevin Cobley
Who has heard of any of these "Telcos" all of them put together are only a fraction of a percent of the total market, what are Telstra, Optus, iiNet, internode,TPG saying as they are the market.
These alleged "Telco's" are bit like Warming Skeptic's the crank journalists posing as scientists, or are they "onetels".
noob
My blood boils when this 'Alliance' mentions HFC. Have they ever used it before? Maybe if you're in a good area and you have a perfect connection it is good, but in my experience HFC is downright pathetic. At times I've had an unusable connection (dropouts for hours at a time) for weeks, and multiple tech visits only fix the problem until the next year and sometimes don't fix it at all. Speeds are hopeless, a few months ago I was getting 1-5mbits on a service that was supposed to be 20mbits. Now with the 100mbit service I've never actually reached 100mbits, the closest I got was 99.6 but once it got down to 66. It's useless anyway because it's completely choked by the slow upload speed. With all these problems you would think I would go to ADSL2+ instead, but my exchange sucks and the most anyone gets is 5mbits. I've also tried Optus wireless on my sister's phone, but that stuff is so congested that it's slower than dial-up. Completely unusable.
Another issue I have is with the people and companies in this anti-NBN brigade and their obvious conflict of interest, along with the fact that many of them are not very successful in their businesses.
Let's look at who these 'Alliance' people are:
David Waldie, CEO – Allegro Networks - Wireless ISP
Bevan Slattery, Founder – PIPE Networks Ltd - Sold out to TPG. Got to make a whole heap of noise just for building a giant underwater cable. Crying because no one cares about her anymore now that NBN is coming and other companies are building better underwater cables.
Jason Ashton, CEO – BigAir Ltd (ASX: BGL) - Wireless ISP
James Spenceley, CEO - Vocus Communications Ltd (ASX: VOC) - Was previously CEO of Unwired for a long time
Paul Broad, CEO – AAPT - Sold out retail business to iiNet because they were losing heaps of money for many years.
Paul Wallace, CEO – Polyfone - Wireless ISP
John Lane, CEO – EFTel (ASX: EFT) - Who cares about EFTel? I don't know anyone who uses them.
These people are so lacking in credibility, they have even less credibility than someone who knows nothing about the subject. You even say they have negative credibility. Almost all anti-NBN people from the telecommunications industry are the same. They're always from wireless companies, or from companies that sold out or otherwise failed, or companies that are taking advantage of the current situation to rip off people, or they're just an 'analyst' who doesn't actually do anything.
Bob
What a bunch of losers and big losers is what they'll be if the NBN goes ahead. so suck it up.
Simmo
@Raymond. No problems, you're clearly always right, and I'm always wrong, so I'll just crawl back down my 24k dial up on my pair gain and thank God that everyone living at Docklands in Melbourne has a state of the art broadband system. I don't know what I was thinking!
Hellfire
1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25
years when installed in conduit. Over time, it actually degrades (long story), and eventually it cant do it`s bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia's houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind,temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation. The glass in thiscase will last no more than 15 years. So then you will have to replace it. Whereas the copper network will last for many decades tocome. Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile. That`s why no other country has done this.
2) You can not give every house 100Mbps. If you give several
million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet. In reality, there is a thing called contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers). That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people. There will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth. Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution. The "Core" can not and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth. The 100Mbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange. From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds as now. The "Core" of Australia's network is already fibre (many times over). And even so, we still have high contention ratios. Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up. You will not get better download speeds.
3) new DSL technologies will emerge. 15 years ago we had 56k
dial-up. Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+. There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now. $zero cost to the tax payer
4) 4G wireless is being standardised now. The current 3G
wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia. There are problems with it, but it was developed for voice. The 4G standard is
specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps
bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier). $zero cost to the tax payer
5) The "NBN" will be one of the largest single networks ever
built on earth. There are only a few companies who could do it -
Japan's Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc. Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this scale. Yet we are led to believe that the same people who cant build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do it ?When it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2
complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces !
PleaseStopTheWirelessFallacy
To make wireless, for any type of wireless technology, work with acceptable bandwidth speed and acceptable latency with a large number of concurrent users they will have to build an awful lot of towers. Like, a tower every few streets. How expensive is that going to be for what in essence will be a second-rate system.
4G at a maximum of 100Mbits will drop down to much lower than that if you have more than a small number of concurrent users in a given area. Wireless can only be an add-on to the NBN, never a "last mile" replacement for fibre.
David Shears
@Peter
Juvenile... Are you crazy? My statement was that that the man we are entrusting to run this company is more than qualified to make a cost-benefit judgement on this. Alcatel is one of the, if not the worlds largest builder of communications infrastructure. If he says that 43B is more than enough, its a fair call to say he knows what he is talking about.
But yeah, ill admit it. The dude is a freakin' legend. He is a CEO that knows the technology, intimately...
Also I think you are confusing a business case with detailed cost analysis. Go ask any company for a detailed cost analysis and they will tell you to go jump. A business case outlines the following:
1. Does the investment have value and importance?
Yes, The investment will deliver the nations greatest and most important infrastructure. The product has a high demand in both commercial and residential markets.
2. Do the people you are investing in have the capability to deliver?
The CEO was a former CEO of one of the leading company's in the sector. Under his management the company had positive growth
3. Is the investment properly managed?
The investment is being financed by a Financially secure Nation with a stable system of government in addition to an A+ credit rating from the world bank. The work is being managed by an 3rd party corporation that is answerable to the government investing in the project. The project is under way and is so far 10% below estimated budget
4. Is the investment being delivered in the proper sequence?
Yes, the project is being release in stages where appropriate testing can be done in areas where existing infrastructure can best facilitate roll out
There you go... Business case... You wont get detailed costing on this kind of project because you put yourself in a weak position when you go to tender to put your budget out for the world to see. Its the same reason you don't tell a contractor how much your budget is at least until you get a quote.
Rest assured, the math has been worked out by an independent accounting firm who have agreed that the 43 Billion build cost (not tax payer cost) is expected to be well under 43 Billion Dollars
RS
Kudos David Shears, very informative and succinct comments. Kudos also noob, nice take on the pigs at the trough!
Two of the best posters I have read comments from in over 5 years of reading and 1.5 years of replying... nice job indeed.
Then at the other end, we have Peter (well Peter today) there's an incessant generic Peter, Bob, Bill, obviuously the one person who comes here to quote the "always $80b", NBN?...And Comrade...
All I can say is, I pity you both...!
David Shears
@hellfire
1) Whats your point? Copper degrades much faster than that, and is replaced by a fleet of staff that maintain the network. These costs are ongoing and can be applied to anything that exists in the physical universe. Your home or car for instance.
2) Welcome to the world of managed networks. Data sent across a network does not occupy all areas of the network at the same time. In addition, the structure of the internet allows for the problem areas of any network to be routed around. In instances where one particular part of the network is experiencing heavy load, data is slowed but this does not mean that data stops. Of course new links are brought online almost every day, and with a few exceptions (e.g the fail whale) the network goes on.
4. The DSL technologies that you speak of have some serious drawbacks. Firstly, the drop off in speed is quite dramatic past the 1Km mark.
Second of all, many of these new dsl technologies require 2 pairs of twisted copper cable which a vast majority of people (almost everyone) do not have, if this was to be done, you would still have to lay new cables, so why not make them fibre?
5. As you said, 4g tech (even with its data only mantra) are far from being a reliable stable technology. Concentration issues are a nightmare for any telco to overcome without installing new towers. Ask Oatley park how they feel about putting up a few dozen new towers, my tip is to wear something that you can run in.
6. We actually had a Government Owned and Operated Communications company that rolled out a similar (not same) network of this size. They were called Telecom Australia
To say that this kind of network is a new thing is utterly wrong. This country already has huge fibre assets that have been built by a series of company's, they work really well.
When it comes down to it, copper and fibre networks are similar (not the same) in deployment. In recent history I can think of 2 company's that have rolled out hybrid fibre networks (which are fibre that convert into coax networks), again the similarity's in the architecture is enough for NBNco to claim that they have a reasonably good idea of how these things go together
The NBN architecture is not a single heaping entity that is all going in at the same time. It will be a series of networks built by contractors that interconnect, much like the rest of the internet
David Shears
Thanks RS :)
(I think this is my shortest post ever)
D Newman
@RS you forgot John, who forgot he was JOHN and made the same insults to Simmo as he did only a few posts earlier....
Must be some political pressure building somewhere for Comrade to leave his usual higher profile same post many sites daily plan and wander back here.
RS
Without ****ing in your pocket David, short or long, keep 'em coming!
Most enjoyable and informative...
David Shears
@ David 15
See section 11.2.1 of the "Product Technical Specification. Fibre Access Services" Document at NBNco's website. It explains how the service will be installed into Multi-Dwelling-Units.
The summary is that the building will have x2 options. Either one will have a UNI (User Network Interface) located at the MDF or Multiple Distrabution Frame (this is where all the lines in the unit are collected before they go out onto the street). From here the building can run new CAT6 cable to each unit allowing for services between 100Mbps and 1Gbpw (retail teiring will allow an entry grade speed of 20Mbps) or if the building chooses to retain its existing wiring, users can connect to VDSL ports located on the UNI that will provide a 25Mbps connection to the internet and/or legacy telephone if wanted/needed.
In addition. Fibre, unlike coax can safely bend at 8x the diameter of the duct which allows for 90 degree bends to be performed without damaging the cable
I hope that this clears it up for you
More information can be found in section 3.1 of the "Guidelines for fibre to the Premisis Underground Deployment" document found non NBNco's website
Also, think about the countries you are championing for the development of 4G technologies. China has a well developed fibre network in addition to 4G, South America Has mountainous regions that make cable based deployment difficult and costly, India and Africa use wireless technologies, not because they are better but because they are cheaper. We are the lucky nation we deserve better and we can do better than a cheap network.
Peter
I'm sorry, but you fool David Shears. Your talking points are not a business case. There is no business case. Please do not continue to spread this falsehood.
By the way, a business case is a detailed plan to get revenue to repay the project cost and a market rate of return. Costing is just one component - the most critical point is - is it likely to make money! There is no case. Your juvenile proposition is that you like Messiah Quigley so here's a bag of least $43B! This is appalling. Do you have any idea of public or private finance; of loans and investment?
A bank would not loan money for a fish and chip shop without a business case being submitted. ASIC would be down a corporation's throat for trying to raise a dollar without a detailed prospectus and a business case. The 4 talking points/FAQs you list are not a business case.
miketaxpayer
the alternative proposal sounds good to me.
some fibre to some cell towers and its done.
40b left to do lots of other things as well.
want fibre and dedicated, it it has a business or social purpose then plently of room and money.
And its ready for all and off whats there.
Want some spectrum, plently left, ABC and SBS can go as well as most of the rest of AM, airservices and plenty of others.
want some cable connect, go pay for it.
even the little guys and no names can do it for next to zip.
wait until the big guys wade in and now tear apart the partisian puffery nonsense quigley and conroy made of it all.
what is really funny here... is how the 'questions to alliance' is has put more effort in a day on 20 questions - than the entire NBN fraud ever did in answering any questions of them.
it has costs billions already in sunk and unwind costs. Doubt that then go read the spend rate, the helicoptering of money just prior to the failed gillard demise and the contracts awarded on stuff never needed.
what about some questions as to why the Conroy/Quigley NBN failed the voter and business sniff test.
the fact are the NBN (dead old design) failed its trials. almost all of them. Half of tasmania actively DID NOT want it.
GPON only uses a fraction of the capacity. The data from the POI is visible and cant be secured. The design is wrong and never once was a stakeholder or an actual user consulted about what they actually wanted and it was obsolete day 1 in using outmoded design and usage models. It would be non viable commercially. It would be high impact and visually polluting. It would be an emergency response and communications soveriegn and even location or access risk.
It monopolised carriage and created a stazi monitoring post that no govt could resist in collating and inspecting citizen and business behaviour. After 2 years. 3 versions, a 10X blowout in scope and cost and endless waste all the NBN team actually did was some bandaid stringup's to literally less people than live in a large apartment block and then spun and politized their blantant porkbarrell. No one in the real world bought it.
How about asking questions as to why the NBN as it was under labour/quigley was a complete fiasco, and when is the enquiry and investigation into the waste and debacle it had become. When will the cost to date, the opportunity loss and unwind costs of the Conroy/Quigley debacle be revealed ?
RS
Ooh Peter, just because the new guy has made you look, well, simplistic and non-effectual, there's no need to get all stroppy!
So while you are wiping the drivel and slober from your gob... please point us to the "coalitions detailed business plan" for their hotch-potch, broadband joke!
The clock is ticking!
Raymond
Shears, you are clearly a moron, if that is your understanding of a businessc ase you have therefore never contributed to one.
You do not have the very first perception of what a business case is based on.I guess I am supported by the fact that you seem to have a cheer squad of Imbeciles and moronic people who support you.
Anyways, it will be all over soon! and you can twaddle off and make comment on Daffy Duck or such!
And Shears, why not put up your business case, just in bullet form will do! you can have a couple of days to do the outline, start, with the Exec Statement and then your premise, would make great business case 101 reading. Perhaps you could insult a few women along the way............you fool
RS
@miketaxpayer you are a scream...
Conroy/Quigley failed the voter sniff test and half of Tasmania didn't want the NBN, you say...
One could also say, Abbott/Smith failed the sniff test too and half of Tasmainia wanted the NBN...
Nice logic...NOT!
The you say the NBN was a complete fiasco/debacle... how so? Please explain (ooh and with facts, not with because...I said)!
RS
@60 hey stupid, read #59 and feel free to point us towards the "coalitions detailed broadband business plan", since your idiot twin isn't able...
Raymond
Hey conceived by a stray drop on a seat somewhere by gods knows who! how much of the taxpayers money have the coalition spent! when the plan becomes policy then the numbers are rolled out...thats the way it happens, but you don't know that.......you Imbecile.
Answer this fool how much of taxpayer money has been spent by the coalition!
Answer this Imbecile, how much of taxpayer money has been spent on NBN
Until you cant answer both of these questions go LOL yourself and take a flying F... you fool.
you are the laughing stock on here!
Raymond
Even that fine fellow Newman disowned you, yet you still grovel and fawn, just like the fat bald tartan dressing gown unemployed dirty old perve you are! go away! No wonder you don't want filters would spoil your miserable day, just after Dr Phil, I can but imagine what you get up too, sitting on the edge of the box, eyes wide open at what you are perving at! you dirty old faul pervert!
RS
LOL, yippee here we go again...love it! I hit a nerve with the ignorant inbred... How's aunty mum, stupid? Anyway...
Where's the coalition's plan...?????
Also stupid, here's a few MORE names for you use, when you are cleverly [sic] spreading your idiocy incognito (you're so sneaky, no one can tell, LOL)!!!...
Zoran
Dru
Damir
Greigor
Mary
Liz
And of course - Dick (most apt)
Don’t thank me, because I like to help those with obvious cerebral disabilities and thought you might be running out of names!
Raymond
Gotcha Imbecile, Done with you now! going to have a nice red with the group watching this, i won the bet!
Night
RS
@64 It's foul, not faul, Mr Illiterate board fellow, LOL!!!!!
Or in your case fowl, as in goose...!
Yes whimper off tail between legs, until I whisltle for you to come back again...
Say no more..!
David Shears
@ Peter & Raymond
Your views on my "insult" are as antiquated as your views on national infrastructure. I would have have made the same jest regardless of Annabella.B's gender, so I don't get your point?
If Annabella.B feels that the comments I made were derogatory towards women in any way, I sincerely apologise. I still do not agree with you views but I certainly have nothing but respect that you have an opinion.
Peter & Raymond, I don't agree with you either, I have also made jest at you. Does that mean I have committed some other social faux pas
As for the insults, you are both obviously no stranger to good old fashioned name calling. Why don't you take your own advise when it comes to writing in a public forum
or at the very least come up with some newer insults (version 3.0 insults perhaps)
As for my statements on a business case. 3000 characters is not nearly enough to make a thorough in depth analysis. Nor is it my job to do so. Despite you objections the 2009/2010 senate committee audit is online and available for you to read. Not to mention the countless study s done on the benefits of broadband infrastructure on developed nations.
Both Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley have discussed in depth the need for and the benefits associated with the network. Information on costs so far for the network (currently running at around 250million, I think) are in public record (and are 10% under budget)
I will leave you with this. If it is so important for you to see the CBA on the NBN, why are you not screaming "bloody murder" over the coalitions refusal to send their budget to be audited?
Jason
It's haunting to see the national broadband be privatised. It may be the best way for the government to get revenue BUT it'll rip a whole lot of families off if it is successful. Remember the government trying to sell off Telstra's shares.
Building more mobile towers isn't really a form of R&D. It's like asking a person to build his home with more sticks when bricks are already available.
I know Raymond's being a troll around here for some time.
david.shears
I actually have submitted a business case before. Albeit it was rather simplistic and it was used simply as a study tool. I am thankful that in my professional career I have not had to write one myself. So I gladly submit to your obvious superiority in this case.
So, I am aware of what goes into one. I also know that when you develop a Detailed Business Case you don't go showing everyone its contents, especially the likes of clients and contractors. This is investor information only and should be left confidential.
Of course if you are happy to send me one that you have written, I would be happy to show it to your competitors.
Raymond
@70 Shears, please just accept one item in this whole debate!
NBN Co has not presented to anybody the financial modelling or business plan!
If this were private enterprise, your Quigley would be in the clink!
And this pretty well sums up this whole government inspired fiasco!
Peter
Re: Comment 68.
The only case for NBN was Conroy's talk to Rudd on an interstate flight. On those ramblings, at least 43B was wasted; it will likely be closer to 80B. Like I have said; a bank would turn away a prospective fish and chip shop owner if he/she did not present a business case. Shears posting links to the values statement of NBN and talking points as being the business case vividly highlights the shameful foundation that is NBN. There is no business case establishing NBN. Shears would rather talk about anything than projected revenue.
Shears - I did not make any comment with regard to Annabelle, or your treatment of her. Check the record. I think you complain too much.
D Newman
@71 Raymond, err NBN.co has sent out a sort of business model to people who have agreed to invest, I have told you this before even hinted at the 4 companies that recieved it for sure.
NBN.co isnt a government department its Business case is now being treated like any other company, rightly or wrongly, but thats the fact, and as such the business case is eyes only for investors.
However there is an agreement for a public released document, that was agreed apon I think 9 months ago, that apon completion of the Telstra deal and review they would release.
All this is public knowledge apart from the investor part.
I myself agree its backwards way of doing it, but the thinking was to stop waiting apon Telstra and start the job, hence why things got all arse about face...Yet again that has been stated, not in those words publicly by Conroy in 2 interviews that I am aware of.
Do troll up something refreshingly new and juicy, that one is a bit stale now.
Hutch
Why not create a nationwide 4G network as the first approach??
Unless you only need/use the internet at Home, why not go fast to market with a reasonable solution that can be used almost ANYWHERE for XYZ p/month vs paying the same or more for a static solution to your home, wherein 7 out of 10 are going to use a WI-FI router anyway to connect their laptop to the fibre interface, and experience the same "slow" speeds as 4G customers, lol.
If the forward thinking argument is to be valid, the tardlings who use it need to be honest and not yarn on only about Up-To 1 Gb....but also talk about the Mobility aspect of the future.
Raymond
@72 Peter, you are dead right, Conroy flew to Brisbane to get on the KEV 737 to Perth! this abortion of NBN was cooked up in four hours.
@73 Newman you are sounding a bit like Simmo, what you think you see and hear are not neccessarily so!
Whether you like it or not! there has never been any modelling or Business Plan put together for NBN, NBN is not even on the balance sheet, don't you understand what that means!
And, until NBN goes on the balance sheet, and until there is a business plan produced, every statement by me and others are correct!
By the way watch your spelling, or your "boyfriend" will put you in my catergory! haha.
Although I dispatched the little cockroach dropping last night, he may do you a favor and drop off (not)
Raymond
PS: Newman, saw you dancing on the Tele the other night with the Choir, nice moves!
D Newman
@raymond, your going to have to explain that one, watch TV very rarely , last time I danced, was TV invented then?
And what I see and hear, and hint at normaly has a good reason, but sadly you missed on 2 occasions to get the cryptic meaning, which explains the what and the how and indeed the why of my being here.
Subtle not being your strongest hand as is evident by your rough shod transparent clod hopping through these forums at times, maybe its time for one of those large hats that Kattar likes so much? (wink).
Raymond
@ 68 Shears you are just ill mannered with no breeding whatsoever,you don't see the insult because you have no grace or manners!
Your stupid thoughts on what you think are the criteria for a business case are childish at best.
The coalition did send their poicies to the treasury, and look what happened! in the first instance there was a criminal leak, and in the second, that labor moronic Henry, decided to use different assumptions to come up with a "hole" that suits labor, when asked what interest rate levels he used to come up with figures, he said! I cannot tell you, they are a secret!!
Just get this through your head! there is NO modelling and there is NO business plan!
Raymond
@ 77 Bob and the Choir isn't that you!
D Newman
(laugh) no I leave the bathroom light on all night, I would be shot as a green, oh and have 2 PC,s with 1200watt PSU,s running 24 hours, so no I would be a terrible green.
Raymond
@80, NOOOOOOO! the bloody iiNet adv, with Bob and the Choir, that is on every channel over here!
Psychaotix
Personally, I would prefer the FttP NBN, as currently proposed by the (caretaker now) Labor Govt.
Simple reasons are:
1) I live about 6km by copper from the local exchange. This made me getting ADSL a difficult task, and only the fact that I am on rural grade copper, which is thicker (or so is my understanding) got me ADSL. Fibre, on the other hand, would still be very capable of reaching these distances and quite possibly further, before it's unable to be effective.
2) Because of my distance, my speed is barely what you can call ADSL at times. Recently, Although I had a 7,000Kbit/s sync speed, I would drop out, on average, every couple of hours. Dropping the speed to 1500Kbit/s has kept the line active. However, at times, I'm lucky to actually download at about 5KByte/s, so variable is my line, predominately due to the weather. Fibre would overcome this issue.
3) Currently, I am on a 30Gb plan, and im getting royally ripped off for it, compared to areas where my ISP has it's own architecture in place. This is due to Telstra having a monopoly on the backhaul to my area, and as such, no mainstream ISP, be it TPG, Internode, iiNet, or even Optus has their DSLAM in my exchange, so Telstra Wholesale plans are my only option. Fibre will allow ISP's to charge a fair, not artificially inflated, price for net access.
There's 3 arguments for a FttP NBN from a semi-rural user. I'd be happy to see $43 billion spent on a full scale NBN, and not $6Billion on a plan that will benefit mostly city users.
Oh, and 4). I'm a gamer, so Latency is an issue for me. I get 600ms to the US servers now (no aus server,) and so I shudder to think what it would be like on wireless, which is what I'll probably be forced onto if Mr Abbot has his way.
Ads
OK I'll bite.
1. Do you have any suggestions as part of your plan for changing the current fixed line market structure
No need. Introduce competition by providing a viable alternative (wireless) to fixed lines.
2. Are you suggesting the history of the rollout along with the current circumstances with the HFC networks – high prices, limited coverage and no open access - are good examples of infrastructure-based competition?
No. How will wireless have limited coverage? Open access can be regulated easily.
3. How is creating a national wholesale-only 4G wireless network where you will have to choose between competing technologies – WiMAX and LTE – while at the same time introducing tough competition to 3G players
What on earth makes you think the existing 3G networks won't join in?
4. What spectrum will you use for the 4G network and why?
Simple - analogue TV spectrum. That's WHY they're pushing us to digital, so they can sell that spectrum
5. How did you come to the 98 per cent figure for the 4G network?
Well Telstra can cover 98% with 3G, why not 4G? Just a question of increasing tower capacity as needed.
6. Please explain how you came to the $3 billion figure. Is this the total cost of your plan or just the 4G wireless portion?
I'm not privvy to that info
7. Can you really guarantee a “ubiquitous” service with this plan
Sure - 3G is easily prevalent enough at present to be called ubiquitous. 4G can be installed in the same places.
8. The Coalition's alternative broadband plan sees the majority of action enacted after the first term of government, yet you mention that the solution could provide deliverables within one term. What exact deliverables would this be?
Dunno, I'm not part of the consortium
9. How long do you expect the “serious investigation and independent cost estimations, cost-benefit analysis, genuine industry and public consultation as well as a review of its impact on the Australian competitive telecommunications landscape” to take to complete?
NO project should be funded with public money without a cost benefit analysis. The only ones who think otherwise are those who will be on the receiving end of public money.
10. You say in the short- to medium-term there is no demand for up to 1Gbps - and that is entirely accurate...why not aim higher...
Because as you say there is no need. In 5 years 5G wireless will be out and it will be designed to cope with the needs at the time.
Ads
...cont'd
11. If schools, hospitals and “most” businesses need the better speeds, why wouldn’t others
Perhaps because people's lives are on the line in those businesses. Pretty obvious really.
12. What kind of plans and data caps would be reasonably expected for both businesses/organisations and consumers as part of your plan?
What can we expect on the NBN??? There's no business plan. Its safe to assume that a project costing 90% less to build will be massively cheaper than the NBN
13. What about Defence and government agencies? Will they continue to pay more to private companies for connectivity as a result of this plan?
Well this will be cheaper than the NBN, so they will be paying less to a private firm.
14. What upstream speeds will you guarantee to incentivise businesses and individuals to become participants in the digital economy?
This is the same as the download argument - what speeds do you need and why?
15. How does your plan support other areas of economic activity and how exactly will it be integrated?
??? HUH - Its ubiquitous net access - its simply a medium of communication.
16. Why settle for 12Mbps for the satellite portion of your plan?
Its all the NBN is offering.
17. What about Greenfield estates? Do you suggest continuing with mandating they roll out fibre?
Of course not. Total waste of money.
18. On R&D – do you recommend rolling out existing technologies or investing in the development of new varieties as is being pursued by the CSIRO?
Not a techie...
19. Have you considered that some people may not want to have a 4G wireless network in their area, but would prefer fibre services?
Have you thought that MANY people don't want NBN cables draped all over their neighborhoods??? I certainly don't, the HFC cables are ugly enough
20. What provisions would you recommend for improving our international links and the price paid by ISPs for IP transit?
What is the NBN recommending?
Sorry, it must have been a *very* quick response if a non techie can shoot that many holes in it!
D Newman
(LAUGH) OH that BOB and choir, I have a mental block for that advert, I see it 100,s of times a day, I have sort of blanked it like a repressed memory(laugh)....
Bob_WA
Public utility infrastructure projects typically have pay-back periods like 40 or 50 years. That is a different ballgame from what is required to get funding for private projects. The two are not comparable. The whole point of public utilities is to do things that are worthwhile in terms of social utility and equity of access, but don't stack up for private enterprise.
No doubt 100 years ago there was an Alliance of Camel Drivers who put a case for their industry when they faced the threat of a national railway network.
Steve
Wireless has a costing problem I've never seen mentioned anywhere.
Years ago I help negociate a Telstra Mobile Phone tower. I knew they had to put the tower on the property, no where else could take it. We managed to secure $25,000 per year. Then Vodafone and Optus called, guess what offer they got. Again, they didn't have many options. Damm Hills getting in the way... Plus the only other property close enough told them where to go.
But I plan to do the exact same with the Wireless towers the Liberals are planning. It's not mentioned in the costings! If we take that figure and multiply it by the amount of towers needed, you get almost $1 Billion per year, just to pay to use the land for the towers. ..That will be easy to come too because no one wants a tower on their land and/or hate looking at it when its near-by.
Installation of fibre is a one off cost. You only keep paying for the exchanges, while you have that AND the tower costs with the alternative plans.
Sorry but it's the truth, there are hidden costs. NBN will create Jobs, alternative will take jobs away and the future of Australia while giving a big bill to the consumer!
david.shears
@ Peter #72
You are right. You did not question me on my comments to Annabella.B. And I thank you as such. I admit that my last post was a mash of several trains of thought I had.
I do however stand by my suggestion that you update your insults :)
RS
Mr. Shears, as you have now clearly witnessed, you are dealing with a special [sic] bunch here.
Actually to be precise, you are primarily only dealing with 1 special [sic] person. A person who is unendingly, narcissistic and biased! One who desperately posts under about 20 different names and when confronted with factual, well thought out comments (with supporting evidence, like your’s) can only respond with unsubstantiated FUD, aggression and by saying ridiculous things like – “you’re a moron, haha I win”!
What a sorry and sad excuse for existence, this person is…!
The funniest part about it all, after carrying on like a complete goose and misspelling fundamental words (that even a 3rd grader would know) he then has the audacity to claim, being a successful, educated, well-bred and wealthy businessman, who is also on the board of successful companies?
OMG...!
david.shears
@ ADS
No matter how the Pro-Wireless movement spins this matter the truth is, we are eventually going to have fibre optic networks in this country, I have no doubt about this.
I also know that we can have one or two models available to us. One is a mirror of the current system, a monopolistic, closed network that is hacked together and only available in the 3 major markets. This network will cost users a large amount of money thereby increasing the digital divide that already exists in the country.
The second, is a publicly funded, Open and Competitive Network that is robust, has world class performance, is wholesale only and available essentially everywhere. Everyone who interacts with this network is on equal footing and because of this the overall return on investment will be significantly better than any private company could do.
mo
The guys behind this plan are selling dumb pipes. Their business case for dumb pipes is long dead. They should be scared from NBN because NBN will level the playing field and those that offer relevant service on top of these dumb pipes will survive. Google, apple, Woolworths etc could easily enter and win customers as they understand what customers want.
Wireless technology is a complementary technology. it would cost lot more to build out than fibre in the long run. It is likely you will need a base station every 100meters for the technology to work for data, and this is were we are heading towards(femtocells).
jonathon
That my friends has got to be the best response..I totally loved it
Kye
Hey editor, you missed the most important point to challenge: security.
Imaging the nation relies on wireless network, if you then want to sabotage your rival, you can easily temporarily create some wireless noise at the proximity of your rival's spot at the important minutes to paralyze their communication... The police won't have any clue to that!
Building national infrastructure on wireless? That's idiot's mind.
Vaughan
Agreed Kenneth we do need high speed low latency, and wireless will not provide this. I'm 100% for the NBN fibre to home plan which is the only solution to this problem.
David Shears
To all the NBN naysayers... I say,
76 is a wonderful number :)
JP
Did you ever get a response?
Post new comment