Tasmanian NBN 10 percent under budget: Conroy

By Ry Crozier on Aug 19, 2010 7:26 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Comms Ministers duke it out in TV debate.

The Tasmanian leg of the National Broadband Network has commenced rollout at 10 percent under budget, according to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

Conroy revealed the figure in a debate with his opposite Tony Smith on ABC Lateline last night in an attempt to stymie an argument over cost blowouts on the project.

"We have delivered the Tasmanian project where we've got live services to people in Tasmania now on time and 10 percent under budget," Conroy told the program.

Conroy said other parts of the network spend were on budget, and the Government stlll expected to spend less than $43 billion courtesy of its agreement with Telstra.

Smith remained unapologetic over the Coalition's own $6.3 billion broadband plan, despite again facing tough questions over its technical feasibility.

He branded "ridiculous" suggestions by Conroy that there wasn't enough wireless spectrum to make good on Coalition plans, saying there was "spectrum today that is suitable for wireless".

"It's in a number of bands and there are existing players using that spectrum," Smith said.

Those with 3G spectrum may also wish to "trade it to another player" who could bid for project work under the Coalition plan, Smith said, or wait for the digital dividend - spectrum vacated by analogue TV that could be used for next-generation mobile services.

Smith also faced questions over whether the number of people accessing the Coalition's wireless services would mean slower speeds for users.

"Well, wireless is contended, but the speeds and the technology is getting better all the time," Smith said.

"And we are not only promising wireless."

Tasmanian NBN 10 percent under budget: Conroy

17 comments in this discussion

"Sorry about the typo. The frequencies on fibre would be about 200-1000THz Either way that is very high. Any hardware/cost limitations restricting us to 100Mb will be pushed back by Moore's Law. If ..."

By Pilotyoda

Tags

tasmania, nbn, budget, conroy, abc, lateline, tony, smith

Conroy, Turnbull joust over NBN equity numbers

NBN Co logs 1.35m premises in three-year plan

Coalition takes NBN back to the drawing board

Missing data in Turnbull's second-best NBN

Breaking Stories

Alacer Gold turns ERP refit project to Australia

NSW Govt bids for self-service analytics

NSW Police take aim at 3D-printable guns

Google faces new federal antitrust probe

US ISP to rip out Huawei equipment

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 17

johnpro2 Aug 19, 2010 8:52 AM	Good news for the Minister ....the timing could not have been better. Jp
johnpro2 Aug 19, 2010 12:34 PM	....and another thought ..major IT projects rarely come in on budget and only about 30% meet the clients expectations, many failing completely. Google SAP for more data... Jp
frances Aug 19, 2010 4:18 PM	This Labor lot doesn't seem to be able to speak of anything unless it's in the billions. You'd think there was an inexhaustible supply of money pouring in from somewhere. They'll need $2000 from every man, woman and child to pay for fibre installation, and even then they'll muck it up unless they get a miraculous injection of project management competence from somewhere. Gawd these guys are so bad at managing [your] money.
Jovial Monk Aug 19, 2010 4:36 PM	This is a visionary, nation-building project that all Australians should applaud. The things it will make possible are endless. Wireless will always be the low bandwidth poor cousin of fibre, suitable for quick checking of emails etc on the road and that’s it.
Yertle Aug 19, 2010 4:41 PM	I'd rather them spend the money on worth while projects. The libs plan is shite, it still leaves it in Telstra's court and wireless??
msniper Aug 19, 2010 4:57 PM	Why does everyone keep honking on about wireless. It is but one of many strategies for the last mile. Backhaul is still the major problem in this country. Yes the NBN sorts that but so does the coalition's plan. There is nothing 'visionary' about the NBN at all. People comparing it to the first Overland Telegraph are nuts. Many things have evolved in that time!
btone Aug 19, 2010 5:30 PM	@frances: 'You'd think there was an inexhaustible supply of money pouring in from somewhere.' There is, its called China and they're here to help! ;)
listohan Aug 19, 2010 6:18 PM	@francis A more realistic calculation is $40/head, the annual deprecation over 50 year life of the fibre.
hobartguy Aug 19, 2010 9:18 PM	10% under what budget - did they budget $2000 per household, $5000, $10k or what. 10% under some unknown figure does not fill me with confidence - frankly it looks like a smokescreen. Surely someone can get a straight answer from the guy. They have built a (admittedly small) network here in Tas - they must know how much it cost them. So - how much did it cost per customer?
Paul K Aug 20, 2010 5:22 AM	Your figure of $2000 with 7% return is 40c a day. Still cant afford fiber?
johnpro2 Aug 20, 2010 8:26 AM	@hobartguy So - how much did it cost per customer? Don't worry about that ..when everyone chips in, the cost makes no difference to your life.The enhanced infrastructure will. Jp
MerariSchroeder Aug 20, 2010 9:18 AM	@Paul K "Still cant afford fiber?" The point is, you can achieve as-good benefits with much less money. And there's no point quoting 100Mbps, because most people won't be able to afford those plans (not that they really need them). The typical entry level will be 25Mbps. Another problem with saying $2000 per household, is that assumes 100% subscription. The more it will cost per month, the less people will take it up and the more it will cost per month. What we need is affordable internet. @Jovial Monk "The things it will make possible are endless." The only thing it will make possible which isn't already possible with the first 10Mbps, is HD video on demand. sarcasticly What a great reason to spend $43bn! How about all of the other problems in Australia. An increasing population will need more food and water, not more James Bond. Don't get me wrong, faster internet would have economical benefits. But not enough to warrent $43bn, especially when there are more affordable options.
franko12345 Aug 20, 2010 11:15 AM	The people who say wireless will do are crazy. You already have wireless!!! Are you happy with it? Try and run voip over it. Try and play a first person shooter game over it. Try to run your own web server over it. No way can you run HD video over wireless unless only one computer is connected. Wireless is good for what it is used for today, consuming content via phones and pads. Ask the people who are stuck on it.
deteego Aug 20, 2010 4:55 PM	franko12345 wrote: The people who say wireless will do are crazy. You already have wireless!!! Are you happy with it? Try and run voip over it. Try and play a first person shooter game over it. Try to run your own web server over it. No way can you run HD video over wireless unless only one computer is connected. Wireless is good for what it is used for today, consuming content via phones and pads. Ask the people who are stuck on it. And if you would read all of the coalitions plan, you would realize that wireless isn't the only thing they are releasing
HubertCumberdale Aug 20, 2010 8:40 PM	The coalitions broadband plan sucks, that's all there is to it, it's just as bad as the OPEL plan and that was 4 years ago it's 2010 now.
Pilotyoda Aug 28, 2010 8:32 PM	Fascinating. Wireless: assuming maximum data capacity = 1/2 frequency of carrier then 2GHz carrier = max 1 Gbit -- before check-sum bits, before headers, etc. Say about 300Mbit flat-out. Now divide that by the number of channels (users/processes) so 100 users per node = 3Mb max. Add contention, uploads, large file streaming, consider about 1.5Mb. For the Analogue TV frequencies to be released soon (about 100MHz-800Mh) we will have around 10% of the above data capacity So with multiple RF channels, again, say, 100, then with overheads you could service maybe a couple of thousand people with about 3Mb service. mmmmmm That's what we have now (and it is inadequate) and the only way to boost speeds is to increase frequency, which reduces range and requires different hardware and more towers.... Already this service is sagging under mobile loads and will be useless for modern, high data sites or HD video. Fibre: Since fibre wont transmit long-wavelength infra red then the minimum frequency that will pass through fibre would be about 200THz and this will extend up to about 100THz. Using the above calculations we would get a potential of a Million users operating at up to a couple of Gb PER FIBRE! Certainly enough potential for future high-bandwidth applications. Even with severe contention and signal loss issues, there would be no problem for IPTV, or any other HD video streaming as well as all the other applications and a house full of kids file sharing and using social media concurrently. Seems to me Fibre is a lay-down-mizere. And no towers every few hundred metres. As I say to the kids: it all comes down to basic physics. Tell me again how the Abbott/Smith policy will do this sort of work.
Pilotyoda Aug 28, 2010 8:43 PM	Sorry about the typo. The frequencies on fibre would be about 200-1000THz Either way that is very high. Any hardware/cost limitations restricting us to 100Mb will be pushed back by Moore's Law. If the average punter can get about 25Mb now they will be able to get up to 250Mb within 10 years (only end-point hardware needs upgrading). Don't forget the applications and data requirements will ramp up in line with capacity.