Consensus evaporates on NBN model

 

Are we back to Square One?

The National Broadband Network faced an "uphill battle" in coming days and weeks as the lack of research undertaken to justify its rollout caused the already fragile industry consensus on the project to further fragment, analyst Ovum said.

Research director David Kennedy told iTnews that although there was still a "lot of interest" in the network, "governments need to understand that to support a project of this magnitude of the time necessary to complete it requires some pretty substantial policy support".

"We don't know [NBN's] a bad idea but we can't prove it's a good idea, either," Kennedy said.

"That's why we're in the position we're in."

He said that during the election campaign the "telecommunications industry seemed firmly behind Labor's plan" and that "doubts about the cost of the project had been put to one side".

But the lack of result from last month's election saw many doubts resurface.

The Coalition drew "roughly level" with Labor following the poll, lending credence to its vastly cheaper proposal.

The industry had begun to publicly fragment, with dark-fibre owners and wireless operators banding together under the Alliance for Affordable Broadband to suggest an alternative model to the fibre-to-the-home network.

And network architect NBN Co called a halt to its rollout while it waited for an election outcome that would determine its future.

The doubts were having a destabilising effect on the NBN project, he suggested.

"If Labor is able to form a government with the help of the Greens and rural independents then the NBN will proceed, most likely with a strong focus on rural areas in the initial phase. But there is no guarantee that such a government will last a full term," Kennedy noted.

"The political differences between Labor and the Coalition parties mean that any change of government would mean the end of the NBN, so the project is overshadowed by political uncertainty for the foreseeable future."

Cost-benefit analysis

The Coalition - under former opposition communications minister Nick Minchin - repeatedly called on the Government to do a cost-benefit analysis for the NBN.

Its absence was a key reason why the NBN faced its "uphill battle", Kennedy said.

"In the rush to implement the project, the government refused to perform any cost-benefit analysis," he said.

"Instead, they commissioned a $20 million implementation study that didn't provide a clear business or economic case.

"The supporters of the NBN now lack ammunition, and the project finds itself exposed."

Kennedy told iTnews he was "a little surprised that the independents haven't been calling for that [analysis] with any real vigour" - although he acknowledged it indicated the level of priority for the project in the independents' electorates.

"I'm not completely convinced the NBN will be the boon to rural areas that other people think it will be," Kennedy said.

"There's no guarantee that it would deliver some greater good for rural Australia."

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Consensus evaporates on NBN model
"@epimetheus Nice psuedonym... makes perfect sense that you would lay claim to being 'the fool with no foresight'. Bags me being Prometheus, because I'm NOT looking backward? You've got a ..."
By Mike_Sadler
 
 
 
Comments: 36
brownbear
Sep 6, 2010 8:40 AM
It seems clear that this "Alliance for Affordable Broadband Coalition" is purely a self interest group that doesn't care about improving infrastructure for rural areas or Australia. The only answer they have is Wireless, unless of course you are one of the very few who live in either Sydney or Melbourne and can get cable tv. This "mob" are proposing a maximum speed of 100Mbs (which will never be reach by the majority of users) compared to 1Gb on fibre.
Does Ovum has any relationship financial or otherwise, to members of the Alliance?


Francis
Sep 6, 2010 9:01 AM
I can only see the opposition by this group of people as being self-serving. Lets face it they are part of the problem with the fragmentation of the communications industry in Australia. They are wastefully duplicating existing services resulting in unused capacity which must drive up costs.
As for a cost benefit study, I do not know what it would prove.
Did we do a cost benefit analysis when we built our railways?
Did we do a cost benefit analysis when the PMG set up the telephone network?
Did we do a cost benefit analysis when we set up a sanitary
cart services followed by a sewage Network of pipes?
Did we do a cost benefit analysis for the Internet when it was proposed?
No there was a need for these vital pieces of infrastructure so we built them. At the time these pieces of infrastructure were built, a cost benefit analysis may well have proved them uneconomic.
The only problem we now have is that the NBN be built to a common standard (unlike the different gauges used by the railways) and that the cables are placed out of harms way underground protected from Bush Fires as we have recently witnessed in Victoria and Storms such as we have seen this weekend.
What good is a communications system if it fails at a time of crisis when it is needed MOST?
funkyg
Sep 6, 2010 9:20 AM
You have to ask, if NBN Co can not provide a convincing case for the building of a new network, having been paid extremely well over the last 3 years, what have they been doing!?
umbria
Sep 6, 2010 10:18 AM
"Build it once, build it right, build fibre" said Tony Windsor, yesterday. The coalition would probably have won a couple of regional seats, and government, had it supported the NBN model instead of two jam tins and a piece of dirty string.

There is no loss of consensus on the best long-term technology infrastructure to address the tyranny of distance in Australia, with the exception of Messrs Linton, Smith and last week's disaffected gang of seven telco execs wanting their cushy, high profit, variable quality wireless empire to be expanded by taxpayers.

Even the coalition-dominated NBN Senate Committee concluded that a cost-benefit study would be expensive but inconclusive, because the major benefits are either social or take the form of unquantifiable likely savings across diverse budget areas such as health, education and transport. What the Implementation Study delivered instead was valuable detailed analysis for every cluster of premises showing that fibre was cheaper than wireless or satellite for 93% of premises.

A review of Ovum's client list and track record on this subject could be revealing.

I agree with @Francis that this is critical infrastructure, and we have never been scared off delivering it for our big country. We had the Overland Telegraph, Cobb and Co, the copper rollout and now it's time for fibre as a publicly owned asset just like our highways. This is what we do in Australia. Let's get on with it.
anonymous
Sep 6, 2010 11:35 AM

@funkyg, NBNCo haven't been there for three years, and it's their job to build the network, after the decision was made elsewhere.

And tech sites like this are brimming with details and debate about the relative merits of the different proposals, so it's not exactly an information vacuum, is it?

@brownbear, Francis & umbria above have said a lot of the relevant details about the issue.
midspace
Sep 6, 2010 11:36 AM
My father who lives in a suburban metropolitan area of Melbourne would like his phone line AND internet connection to not drop out everytime there is a reasonable amount of rain.
This is due to the flodding of the telecommunications pit at the end of the road where he lives, and the owner of said pits (Telstra) does not appear even remotely interested in either fixing, upgrading, spending money, or correcting any faults which ALWAYS and REGULARY happens and they know it.
Bring on the reform, and split Telstra. If the NBN is the ONLY way to do this, then so be it.
RB
Sep 6, 2010 12:02 PM
Those that criticise the AAB seem to be missing the point. It is an "affordable" alternative. Let's not complain about NBN Co, they were done what they were told to do but the reality is that Labor were elected in 2007 on platform of NBN and 3 years later we don't even have legislation through to pay for it. In fact, it has been a 2010 election issue.

In contrast, the AAB is a programme that could be delivered at 7% the cost and in just one term of government.

Sure I want FTTH but how long to I have to wait for it and how much do I have to pay for it? Apparently $2.4 billion in INTEREST only just over the next 4 years.

In contrast, AAB will give "suburban Melbourne" an upgrade now, and at an affordable level (in fact, not much more than the interest on NBN2).
Tom Brown
Sep 6, 2010 12:21 PM
Thanks Ry for reporting the views of Ovums director.

I notice the vacuum of critics, maybe they no longer have a target.

2 things I would like to see addressed in an article.

1:The cost benefit analysis: Would it be able to give an accurate result or would it be a vehicle for criticism and nitpicking. The NBN initially will have implementation issues and the cost benefit will only be shown several years in the future also re point 2 how would such an analysis take that into account. If we do a cost of loss of benefits if we do not proceed with new infrastructure, for example will exchanges have to have the DSlams replaced to cater for IPV6 not compatible with fibre, also the majority of ISP's routers need upgrading.

2:What will happen when IP4 addresses run out next year* (sure there will be some room to move allocations around), what will Telstra, other Telco's and ISP's do, burry their heads in the sand, no can do.
A whole lot of existing infrastructure needs upgrading, and with an adhoc approach what structural problems will arise as the systems being designed to be compatible with the existing aging infrastructure.

*http://www.itnews.com.au/News/231050,analysis-whats-holding-back-ipv6.aspx

(edit- to remove your email address from public view :) )



Edited by rycrozier: 6/9/2010 12:31:33 PM
advocate
Sep 6, 2010 12:27 PM
umbria wrote ....

The coalition would probably have won a couple of regional seats, and government, had it supported the NBN model instead of two jam tins and a piece of dirty string.

... or Labor would not have lost more seats if they had adopted a Coalition type BB policy, any analysis can go both ways

There is no loss of consensus on the best long-term technology infrastructure to address the tyranny of distance in Australia,

There is no consensus at all actually, a hung Parliament is the direct opposite of consensus.

with the exception of Messrs Linton, Smith and last week's disaffected gang of seven telco execs wanting their cushy, high profit, variable quality wireless empire to be expanded by taxpayers.

... as distinct from the cushy high profit NBN totally paid for by the taxpayer wanted by fixed line ISP's you mean?

What the Implementation Study delivered instead was valuable detailed analysis for every cluster of premises showing that fibre was cheaper than wireless or satellite for 93% of premises.

It is always amazing when the term 'cheaper' is used about a project with a unknown cost - lol!

A review of Ovum's client list and track record on this subject could be revealing.

So what does it reveal umbria? we all await your research with bated breath, I guess it will be long wait eh?

I agree with @Francis that this is critical infrastructure,

It is? - well if you say so.

and we have never been scared off delivering it for our big country. We had the Overland Telegraph, Cobb and Co, the copper rollout and now it's time for fibre as a publicly owned asset just like our highways. This is what we do in Australia. Let's get on with it.

Wow impressive - all that is missing is a sound link to Advance Australia Fair complete with a moving graphic of the Australian Flag blowing in the wind - what complete and utter jingoistic rubbish!



Edited by advocate: 6/9/2010 12:31:09 PM

Edited by advocate: 6/9/2010 12:32:09 PM
listohan
Sep 6, 2010 12:59 PM
Ask Nick Minchin if John Howard did a cost benefit analysis before he dashed off to war with George Bush into Iraq.
RobertT
Sep 6, 2010 1:57 PM
What I find fascinating about this whole NBN debate is the extent to which most of the Australian population is incredibly misinformed about the whole NBN project and the data rates that are being talked about.

I don't live in Australia, but I was recently there on vacation and traveled extensively staying in many rural areas. When I asked Rural dwellers about NBN most expressed strong support and were even aware of the different speed levels that were possible for different Fiber and WDM vs PON options. Frankly I was amazed, however when further pressed on what they believed they were currently getting I got told numbers like 10Mbps.

I actually ran some links tests and concluded they were getting "end-to end" BW of about 100Kbps and often less for overseas sources. In some cases links were sub 10kbps it was a pitiful experience. So when they tell me they absolutely want 1gpbs I have to conclude that are saying they absolutely need Links that are 100 times faster than is currently offered.

A 100 fold increase in link BW from 100kbps would be 10Mbps. I think 10Mpsb is a VERY good link for all Internet as it exists today and is even adequate for streaming Video plus simultaneous browsing.

I feel that a dedicated 1Gbps link to 95% of Australia is just craziness, even 100Mbps (real) is future proofed for every application that I can ever imagine. (BTW I have been working in Fiber optics for over 15 years)

So it seems to me that NBN's biggest supporters really don't understand the cost / benefit equation properly. IMHO there are so many other options to dedicated fiber links that much better suit rural Australia. I'm not just talking wireless 4G but rather things like FSO links combined with flexible microwave end point meshes.

Frankly I'm really scared that NBN will only ever be deployed close to the major cities at which time the public's appetite for this gov't expense will evaporate leaving the rural areas with nothing more than they currently have. In my mind there is a big danger that in seeking excellence they will end up with nothing, and that would be a huge pity.


Maxxi2
Sep 6, 2010 2:03 PM
Ry, this is not the consensus evaporating at all, it is simply a group of those who did not want the NBN for commercial reasons now getting vocal.

Ovum quote:

** "We don't know [NBN's] a bad idea but we can't prove it's a good idea, either," Kennedy said. **

This is not an analysis but a comment that Ry probably got in a phone call. Media headlines during an election are also not confirmed positions from the telecoms industry whether they support the NBN, they simply reflect the political uncertainty at this time.

Broad at AAPT was always against the NBN, but then again his business has been under immense pressures and he fears increased competition if everyone can access the same level of fibre infrastructure he can. The rest of the group perceive commercial pressures uner an NBN for their companies.

funkyg.... It is a reality that if someone or a group has vested interests against your initiative, all the facts, truth, analysis, accuracy and expertise on the planet will not get them to agree with your proposal.

The AAB has clear vested interests against the NBN, this is what brought them together. They demonstrate zero national interests, their assertions are all based on what services and market share they can offer at an "affordable" rate.

Any costs/benefits analysis delivered by the govt or the NBN will become, as pointed out by Tom, simply a vehicle for a continual and fracturing nitpicking & criticism exercise. This standard practice in politics and in industry.

Again, if you do not want something to happen, then anything the originators produce must be relentlessly attacked, belittled,

BTW, did the Liberal Party ever do a cost/benefits analysis to support retaining the Telstra monopoly for their 11 years of government? Did they do a costs/benefits analysis of Work Choices? Yeah, in Costello's office together with Hockey and Robb...
advocate
Sep 6, 2010 2:46 PM
Maxxi2, I don't consider a hung Parliament where broadly speaking if you consider that each major party had totally opposing views on the NBN build as consensus by the voters or the elected MP's of anything.
Ice
Sep 6, 2010 4:16 PM
To all these people that are asking for a cost benefit analysis. I would like to know over what term the analysis is going to be over. Over 5 yrs the numbers will never add up but over 50 the benefit will be enormous. 5 years being the norm in business. So if we take the purely businees point of view both sides of politics versions of the NBN will never see the light of day because neither can generate the returns that are required of businesses. Just look at the mess the US coms industry is in because the costs outweigh what the private companys can make .
meski
Sep 6, 2010 4:59 PM
Expecting to get the bandwidth figures thrown around for wireless is like expecting to get the figures quoted for ADSL2+ - A tiny percentage of the total people connected will get it, the rest will be gulled by the bait-and-switch that ADSL2+ offers, all in the name of affordable 'broadband'. Affordable it may be, broadband it definitely is not.
umbria
Sep 6, 2010 5:02 PM
@advocate: "It is always amazing when the term 'cheaper' is used about a project with a unknown cost - lol!"

The cost is known in bleeding detail (if you care to look at the May 2010 Implementation Report), but the benefits have not been quantified in dollar terms because, as the coalition Senators agreed, they could not be.

@RobertT, it's good to see an experienced fibre-monger here. Yes, of course gigabit speeds are overkill for practically everyone, today at least. But the NBN would deliver speed-agnostic fibre to the 93% of premises for which it is CHEAPER to do so than to deliver a 12 Mbps fixed-rooftop-mast wireless service. The cost of McKinsey's working this out was $25 million (1% of the total NBN taxpayer cost), and money well-spent to have the solid facts about it. Two percent of premises cannot get either and would have to settle for satellite.

As @Ice says, $500 million per year of economic benefits would pay for the NBN over fifty years. The OECD says we would actually see an annual saving of 1-1.5% of our health, education and transport budgets, so you actually recover it within the decade you build it. It's a no-brainer to do it, seriously, folks.
Maxxi2
Sep 6, 2010 9:04 PM
Hi advocate... Ry Crozier was referring to the consensus that did exist between quite a number of industry players and related interst groups in the community and government. Consensus does not and never did refer to a unanimous decision, but to an agreemnent between parties.

That consensus existed prior to the election and exists today. It is the most natural development that some will join the consensus and some will leave it, and has been so since mankind first started making decisions mate.

The folks who made up the majority of that consensus have not dissapated at all, it is the opponents who have become vocal and are trying to exploit the current political circumstances to impede the NBN and work against it.

That is their right. Even if several of their statements and inferences lack somewhat in accuracy or veracity.

But Ry is not accurate to headline that the consensus has evaporated.

When I put a plate of water in the sun in January and come back later, there is a good chance that the water is not there anymore, as it has evaporated.

Is someone here suggesting that all the support for the NBN is no more? That it is fully gone?

Evaporated?

Not likely my good Sirs, not realistic at all.

Ovum was not involved in the consensus as far as I know, nor are they somehow key to that consensus. Their comments are going to have some value, but this is limited.

The Libs get more airspace for their ideas at the moment, but as they were NEVER even in the slightest a part of the *consensus*, their many statements now have little or no bearing on the consensus.

It will be a different story should they actually be sworn in as govt.

Minbchin only EVER wanted a costs/benefits analysis so that he could cherry pick the sections and items in order to attack the govt. He or most of the Libs would not be swayed by a positive result and would only rubbish it anyway.

They will NEVER be happy or contented to accept an analysis that advocates the NBN.

A successful NBN leaves the Coalition in the political wilderniss of opposition for years to come, and this they fear.

Fear... (That is fear with a capital F...)

Nation Australia be damned, as long as they get back in power...

So there was and there is a consensus. Ovum who sell costs benefits analysis suggest we fix it by buying a costs benefits analysis, which Minchin et al would nitpick until 2022...

In the meantime Minchin and his associates somehow missed a $7bill to $11bill black hole in their own economic costings, perhaps he should be paying Ovum to do a costs benefits analysis on his own projections and numbers first of all...?

Ry, I see where you are coming from, however the headline is somewhat misleading and Mr Kennedy states somewhat the obvious to underlay his analysis of uncertainty:

Nothing is guaranteed..

Except perhaps death and taxes?
rycrozier
Sep 6, 2010 11:05 PM
I think Ovum has a point that it took remarkably little for what seemed a general industry consensus on NBN to start to unravel - or at least for doubts to re-surface after it looked, for all intents and purposes, that the industry had finally achieved a consensus and we could move forward with building an internet network.

In saying that, I sat through a lot of industry forums on NBN in the past three years. They started to blur after a while - and I can't say whether or not that was because a consensus view was formed and perpetuated, or whether the NBN view dominated and those who didn't hold it just went quiet and took their views elsewhere.

A bit of political uncertainty and voila, those views are back out in the open, for better or worse.

In some ways I think worse because it undermines the progress of the network and the confidence the project had inspired among people (who of the people who are stuck on RIMs or too far from exchanges wasn't excited at the prospect of FTTH?).

At times like this I can't help but look rather enviously at countries that got on with the job of building a network rather than spending years arguing about it and undermining each other's arguments for and against.

Fingers crossed that we get something workable and not something that ends up chronically underfunded and unfinished 20 years from now, like other infrastructure projects.
RB
Sep 6, 2010 11:26 PM
Bravo Ry. What we want is something workable and something delivered. In 2007 we had OPEL contract underway but now, 3 years later, those homes that were to be connected by OPEL still have nothing.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we really need action, not policy.

Also, on the consensus issue, most in the industry would love a fully funded NBN2 but remember that the initial policy was "built and funded by the private sector". That's now looking unlikely with the Greens only lending support if it's a government asset.

This is where the problems creep in. Exactly what is the policy? I sat in front of Senator Conroy telling us one story in Perth while Mike Quigley told a different story on the opposite side of the country.
advocate
Sep 7, 2010 9:56 AM
rycrozier wrote:


At times like this I can't help but look rather enviously at countries that got on with the job of building a network rather than spending years arguing about it and undermining each other's arguments for and against.



Which particular countries have you in mind where a FTTH project on the scale of Australia was undertaken totally paid for by the taxpayer and as is looked at 'enviously' by you?

advocate
Sep 7, 2010 10:16 AM
Maxxi2 wrote:


That consensus existed prior to the election and exists today. It is the most natural development that some will join the consensus and some will leave it, and has been so since mankind first started making decisions mate.

There was no consensus' prior to the election and exists today', industry consensus is totally based on self-interest depending on what product line you want to flog, obviously fixed line BB retailers love the NBN because they don't have to build it or maintain it and they are hoping for bargain basement taxpayer subsidised wholesale pricing.

If it's not 'cheap' enough in their view they still have recourse to the ACCC, just they like they did and still do with Telstra Wholesale access pricing on ULL, LSS, ADSL1 and backhaul pricing for the last 13 years, some ISP's have made a submission to the ACCC on TW ADSL2+ pricing, even though the ACC in the past said it would not force TW to market ADSL2+, it's worth a try though you never know your luck.

If you look at voting public consensus about the NBN there is none, there were two policies re the NBN prior to the election Labor build it and Coalition not build it.

The election result indicated there was no clear mandate for Labor to build the NBN.

RobertT
Sep 7, 2010 10:47 AM
@umbria
I think the point that is being missed by most here is that LAN throughput is not the same as WAN throughput.

So it is easy to locally build out some rural town to have 1Gbps WDM or 100mbps PON links to the local exchange BUT this does not mean that the backhaul is anywhere near capable of of even 1/10 this local throughput.

It seems to me that the global throughput will need to be builtup gradually and will radiate out from the major metropolitan areas. This means that there is NO WAY to get real gbps (or even 10Mpbs) in Rural Australia until it exists within the cities. The problem that this introduces is that once say 80% (the city dwellers have their 100mbps broadband) why should they continue the builtout? the economics of connecting these distant rural hubs will always mean that 80% of the cost will be for 20% of the people.

As I said in my first post, (accepting this cost reality) I feel that the rural people should be pushing for a solution that, while not perfect, is economically doable.

If a 100mbps fiber to the home policy is attempted for the remote 80% to 95% sector, than it is likely that all they will get is a 100mbps LAN. I don't think that this is whats wanted, because it is only really useful for video distribution.

So IMHO if rural Australia wants a serious local Internet solution with real global throughput then they must focus on a cost effective implementations, otherwise politicians will be happy to declare the JOB-DONE when only the local (LAN) section achieves this speed.








RobertT
Sep 7, 2010 10:48 AM
@umbria
I think the point that is being missed by most here is that LAN throughput is not the same as WAN throughput.

So it is easy to locally build out some rural town to have 1Gbps WDM or 100mbps PON links to the local exchange BUT this does not mean that the backhaul is anywhere near capable of of even 1/10 this local throughput.

It seems to me that the global throughput will need to be builtup gradually and will radiate out from the major metropolitan areas. This means that there is NO WAY to get real gbps (or even 10Mpbs) in Rural Australia until it exists within the cities. The problem that this introduces is that once say 80% (the city dwellers have their 100mbps broadband) why should they continue the builtout? the economics of connecting these distant rural hubs will always mean that 80% of the cost will be for 20% of the people.

As I said in my first post, (accepting this cost reality) I feel that the rural people should be pushing for a solution that, while not perfect, is economically doable.

If a 100mbps fiber to the home policy is attempted for the remote 80% to 95% sector, than it is likely that all they will get is a 100mbps LAN. I don't think that this is whats wanted, because it is only really useful for video distribution.

So IMHO if rural Australia wants a serious local Internet solution with real global throughput then they must focus on a cost effective implementations, otherwise politicians will be happy to declare the JOB-DONE when only the local (LAN) section achieves this speed.








Mike_Sadler
Sep 7, 2010 2:45 PM
Will somebody, anybody, who's against NBN and pro some form of the private/public partnership Coalition FTTN, AAB FTTN , or indeed ANY of the FTTN plans, PLEASE point me to the business case for those plans. "It's cheaper than FTTP", whilst a great soundbite for the Mad Monk, isn't anything remotely like a business case. So where is it?

I get the FTTP NBN value proposition; that business case is self-evident to me. That's true of most folk who are FTTP 'evangelists'. I will happily run some costings past anyone who cares to ask mind, but essentially, personally, I just say $50B/25 years/22.5M people = $88 odd, p.a.p.p, 0.002% GDP... can I trust that my fellow citizens can, on average, save that amount (health, education, government services, etc), add that to GDP growth, or some combination? No brainer for me, not for some others. So, some bleat about business cases, as has been mentioned here, just so they can try to fuel FUD using the NBN's 'own' numbers. It wouldn't matter what you did, the answer would always be wrong, on idealogical grounds, but pinned on "economic responsiblity". But there's hopefully a bunch of folks who are *just* being 'economically prudent (at least in their eyes)' by insisting on the nitty gritty. So, again, my question is this. Where is the business case for the coalition's notNet FTTN effort, which contends that its OK to basically give away $5B of taxpayer's money with no business case?

Ry; please, why aren't the press all over this... the only folks who absolutely insist nothing can be done without a business case are opposing a loan to an entity tasked with making a modest 'market return' while creating a public asset (plus the potential social capital) AND repay the loan with interest, but giving away free money to corporations - $5B odd - is fine on the basis of... just what exactly? The assertion its 'cheaper'? That's it? Nuts!

So c'mon, business case demanders. Where's the Lib's one for notNet? Or your own, if you like.

That anyone could see Bevan Slattery and Jason Ashton's part in a consortium who reckon using lots of 'dark fibre' and 'wireless' as anything other than opportunistic, is beyond me. That Paul Broad doesn't want 'consumers' to have affordable, ubiquitous access to high speed infrastructure because they'll NEVER need it is unsurprising... unless you read previous statements from him (http://www.aapt.com.au/our-company/news/2008/One_chance_to_get_it_right). Their unconscionable behaviour most certainly doesn't indicate any lack of industry consensus, just a sad indictment of the greed of (some) people when they smell a little blood and a LOT of free taxpayer money. These folk would simply get filthy rich on the basis of their underwhelming proposal. Of course they would have to deliver something in one term... by then even Barnaby would've twigged just what a lemon they'd been saddled with. From one totally integrated monopoly to another... what could possibly go wrong?
Mike_Sadler
Sep 7, 2010 3:01 PM
@RobertT: You may have been in fiber a long time, but your post(s) demonstrate a serious lack of understanding regarding just what GPON FTTP is and its roadmap.

I'd encourage you to check out NBNCo's website or even Verizon's FiOS site (20M homes past by year's end, EPON and GPON).

Happy to talk you, or anyone, through how it works... you're most welcome to email me at m sadler at dlink dot com dot au.

Cheers,

Mike
RobertT
Sep 7, 2010 4:34 PM
@mike
I'm not sure what I could possibly learn about PON from reading NBN's website, you see, I actually designed several PON system chips and ONT's / OLT's for both BPON and GPON (biplexers and Triplexers).

Maybe you should expand on my "serious lack of understanding" comment, it is bound to be educational!

All my comments are strictly about getting a realistic affordable rural broadband system, something that can be built AND will get built. You see, I honestly want a viable Internet solution for the bush. No other agenda!




muzza2009
Sep 7, 2010 8:24 PM
@RobertT
LAN vs WAN: spot on. This is why the backbone trans-Australia capacity is the most critical. And it won't be wireless; therein lies gross stupidity: would love to see the contention ratios for stationary locations utilising AAB 4G spectrum at 100Mbps each.

@Mike_Sadler
Let the market decide in Australia is tantamount to rorts, price-gouging and don't give a rats arse about the customer - Telstra a case in point. Multiplicity in backbone infrastructure is sheer stupidity. Now, you all in Australia have to keep tabs on NBN Co to make sure they aren't just a bunch of thieving pocket-liners.
deteego
Sep 8, 2010 2:02 PM
@muzza2009

Problem is that wireless technology is expanding, wired technology isn't. The big boom for wired technology probably happened around 4-5 years ago, now its going all wireless in regards to smartphones/tablets/laptops/netbooks etc etc

Almost all rural residents would be fine with a 12 mb connection. The whole "doing doctors appointments over net" is a sham, because various medical authorities have stated that there are a massive number of diagnosis that cannot be done over camera. Furthermore this FTTH technology will only for the people who can afford it (something Gillard admitted)

Wireless was never meant to be the backbone, Coalitions policy clearly stated a Fibre bachaul. Wireless technology is being used to supplement it. If you think that our wired technology is a joke compared to other countries like America, you should see the state of our wireless network
Mike_Sadler
Sep 8, 2010 2:22 PM
@muzza2009
I know there's a point in there somewhere, I'm just not sure what it is? You 'get' that my position is pro the NBNCo's strategy/model, right? Can you give me a hint?
BTW, no part of a network is 'most' critical... it all has to work, else its a waste of money/resources. The NBNCo and major RSP's plans don't include scuttling their businesses by not dimensioning their networks appropriately I'm sure; they could have destroyed their businesses just as easily previously, albeit with less expense.

@RobertT
Oh dear... "I'm not sure what I could possibly learn about PON from reading NBN's website, you see, I actually designed blah, blah, blah". Really?

Most uninformed comment comes, sadly, from folk who know (or once knew) part of the picture but "don't know what they don't know". Ignorant comment comes from those who don't know and don't want to know. There's a special place reserved for special people who don't know and refuse to find out and I think you've earned that special place Robert.

When you have at least looked at the NBN website, my offer to 'enlighten' you (and I will) stands. Until then, you've got some homework to do before you can even start to grasp the end-to-end simplicity of the FTTP GPON/10 GPON network we're building here. The fact that you've had some PON experience before gives you a head start.
RobertT
Sep 8, 2010 5:56 PM
@mike
snappy comeback but you failed to tell me any ways in which my understanding of GPON was flawed.

For your information I have looked at the NBN site and it contains next to no useful information on the design or optimization of PON systems. But I also fail to see what this has to do with NBN deployment costs, because trenching is by far the most expensive cost and overhead fiber is frankly a silly idea. HFC is a better solution if overhead installation is really necessary.
Mike_Sadler
Sep 8, 2010 8:58 PM
@RobertT

Valid point. I should have said your understanding of how GPON is to be rolled out - outside a laboratory - is flawed. But, you've done your homework, so I must do my bit.

I'm comfortable that the NBNCo folk - and most Tier 2 RSP's who will, after all, be providing the backhaul over which their own customers get to resources above L3 - can dimension a network. You seem to suggest that:

a) For some reason, NBNCo or those RSP's couldn't or wouldn't be able to provide capacity from regional areas to the cities and hence the 'Net (despite the fact that NBNCo/NextGen are building out backhaul/regional interconnect like crazy AND Telstra will hand over ALL its capacity, both L0 (pits, pipes, poles, trenches) and L1 (i.e. ALL its fibre assets) as NBN is deployed and;

b) Radio is 'good enough' to do the job 'the Bush'

So, GPON man, explain to me how the GPON FTTP network planned by NBNCo has some inherent inability to provide appropriately dimensioned network everywhere (well, 93%)across this wide brown land and that, given any radio network needs to have backhaul too, that the gating factor for FTTP isn't in fact local loop access.

From another thread, now you've done the homework, please explain what it is about this GPON design that limits end users to a 100Mbps 'LAN' as you call it. That's not what I see. Which diagram covered that bit, because I can't see it.

I do expect you to answer the 400MHz question too... you should specify the standards based modulation you'd use to I guess?

Final bit of homework... look up 'monopoly'. In NBN's case, its a thing where all national traffic - the stuff that's 'expensive' to deliver compared to overseas links - is 'on net'. Totally changes the economics of 'scale' when you have all (well, most) of the endpoints (and yes, I did work for uuNet/Verizon).

Finally, if we put all the fibre where the copper used to be, we're no worse off. I'd love to bury the lot, but will users pay? They won't for a single other service on poles - why this? The only reason we've got the pits we have is that Telstra saw fit to safeguard their copper CAN assets in both a physical and natural monopoly way so they could squeeze as much life out of it as possible. So, status quo is the go. If it comes to bury fibre everywhere this time round and regional areas missing out because of the expense, then I'm against that. Better fibre on a pole then some second rate rubbish instead.

PS: How do you bury Base Stations?
Francis
Sep 9, 2010 10:47 AM
I hate to spoil a good argument but for those who say burying fibre is too expensive and no one will pay for it remember this.
McNair did a poll in 2002 asking people if they were prepared to pay $80/year for 30 years to bury the power lines and 71% said yes.
Next has anyone forgotten the demonstrations and civil disobedience that occurred when Optus stuck their cable up in the air?
We are already the joke of many American and European tourists who regard our overhead wires and cables as "Quaint"
As a Swiss friend said to me; The only aerial cables you will find in Switzerland are on the ski slopes and they are not there for the cartridge of electricity.
RB
Sep 9, 2010 1:20 PM
@Mike_Sadler

The $88 papp ignores the time-value-of-money.
Cost is $2,222 up-front. The value of that in annual instalments is $173 pp for 25 years.

So, for my family of 4 we'll be paying $700 per year for the next 25 years on top of what we pay now.
So we're currently on ADSL2+ getting 16Mbps and we'll go to 25Mbps (unless we pay a lot more), hence negligible actual performance gain.
AND, indications from fibre offering at the moment suggest new plans are about 40% higher than ADSL plans (ref: iinet website).

Hence bottom line is that I get 40% speed improvement for about $1000 a year more than I pay now.

For sure I want the better speed and the chance to upgrade but not for $1000 per year!
epimetheus
Sep 9, 2010 4:29 PM
Is it not a pity that most people cannot see beyond the hype? This NBN [no broadband - never] is a abominable Labor abortion and like any policy coming from a Labor government is doomed to failure. Idealism is great but seldom, under a Socialist banner, is it every realistic. Socialism is a great idea - until they run out of other people's money! All the rubbish being spewed out by the Labor machine will be seen to be just that in a few years, after it has failed and cost a mint of money. Sure, a number of people will benefit but they will be close "friends" of Labor who are lucky to have, not just a finger but both hands, in the pie. Losers? Australia taxpayers and rural Australians to whom this NBN BS will do no good! As a rural dweller I am resigned to abysmal internet with high prices and low speeds. Neither NBN nor anyone else will want to improve on that.
Mike_Sadler
Sep 11, 2010 12:58 AM
@RB: WTF?

If you want to pay iiNet MORE for your FTTP service than you're paying for xDSL, go ahead. Eight seconds on Google found Internode's published NBN plans and they are in fact cheaper than thier own DSL ones (and cheaper than iiNet, for now at least) - 25/2 Mbps, 15GB, $29.95 pm, $0 upfront? Unreasonable?

$2222 comes from... just where exactly? You do realise that YOU won't actually pay anything extra up-front, right? Or, in fact, ever - right? Have YOU bothered to read anything (including NBNCo's site) about this? The NBNCo proposal does not contemplate taking a zac off you - or any taxpayer - to fund the NBN. It's a Government infrastructue investment; like money in the bank, but with better ROI.

The Government will borrow some money (which despite the bleatings of the Gentle Monk, Robb, Hockey, et al, they can still secure at the right price due to our top notch credit rating, courtesy Rudd, K. et al), fund NBN in concert with equity, debt (bonds?), etc, then pay all the dough back into the Government of the day's coffers with (low yield - bond rate +1) interest and have a taxpayer owned asset with a great usable life, to boot.

notNet, in contrast, contemplates giving away $5B FREE MONEY to enterprises which have failed to deliver to date, to Band-Aid the current schmozzle and further entrench Telstra's monopoly, for... just what exactly? Clue me in... because I cannot find one deliverable from the Coalition. Five years more life out of the copper CAN - at absolutely tedious speeds for most folk? Insufficient uplink speed to do any usable real-time video? Ditto 3D HD? Then what? Another $5B free money, another five years life out of the copper CAN? By the time the NBN has returned every single cent of Government/Taxpayers' money (borrowed money; hence, no impact on other budget deliverables) and provided the taxpayer with a world class asset (let's just 'park' the social capital gained, GDP growth, etc), the Libs would have GIVEN away $15-20B of YOUR money and MY money in Corporate Welfare to prop up the status quo. You won't pay 'upfront' for that either, but since its coming straight out of consolidated revenue, that'll be at least $15B of Government services that would be cut to fund free money for the likes of Slattery and Ashton.

If you are geniune when you say "For sure I want the better speed and the chance to upgrade but not for $1000 per year!" and I can show you evidence that the FTTP NBN will be on par pricewise with xDSL and at least as fast (plus much faster uplink), then will you come over to the side of goodness and niceness, puppies and kittens - and abandon the forces of lies, evil and xDSL/WiMax everywhere? If that is your honest concern and I can allieviate those concerns, will you come away from the Dark Side?

Cheers
Mike_Sadler
Sep 11, 2010 2:33 AM
@epimetheus

Nice psuedonym... makes perfect sense that you would lay claim to being 'the fool with no foresight'. Bags me being Prometheus, because I'm NOT looking backward?

You've got a 'thing' about Labor and 'Socialism' huh? Looking backward all the time; you remind me of the rants of Bob Santa-Maria I had to endure when I was a soldier in the 70's.

Well, while you were sleeping, 'God of Afterthought', the world has revolved once or twice and now we have a deregulated financial system, courtesy of PJK and the clear and present spectre of a $2B per annum (open ended) Corporate Welfare cash bonanza for poor stuggling Telco's being proposed by the newer, kinder, gentler, Monk and his Alter Boys (should they ever slink into office).

I could spend time deriding YOUR right wing 'idealism', but you provided me a neat homily which, whilst reminiscent of a McCarthy era battle call for simpletons, is certainly succinct enough for our purposes and allows me to toddle off to bed, safe in the knowledge that the underside of same is totally bereft of agents of any colour.

"Capitalism is a great idea - until they run out of other people's money and create the second biggest economic disaster of all time"

Real bloody patriot you are mate.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
NBN Co braces for secrecy probe
Opinion: Is commercial sensitivity a catch-all?
 
Exclusive: NBN Co withholds fibre upgrade price
Fears trial details could breach contractor confidentiality.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Was your 2012 IT budget...




   |   View results
Cut by less than ten percent?
  17%
 
Cut by more than ten percent?
  34%
 
Flat
  26%
 
Increased by less than ten percent?
  7%
 
Increased by more than ten percent?
  15%
TOTAL VOTES: 350

Vote
Will you still use DropBox and other cloud storage in the wake of the Megauploads saga?

   |   View results
Yes
  63%
 
No
  37%
TOTAL VOTES: 230

Vote