National Broadband Network

[yibbida]

http://www.zdnet.com/au/revealed-nbn-co-scales-back-fibre-rollout-7000028381/

NBN Co has informed customers that only around 20 percent of its network is now expected to be fibre to the premises.

According to the document, 20 percent of premises will receive fibre to the premises, while 46 percent will receive fibre to the node or basement, with 28 percent using the existing hybrid-fibre coaxial networks and 6 percent will use the satellite and fixed-wireless networks.

The 20 percent of premises is down from the 24 percent proposed in NBN Co's own multi-technology mix model in the NBN Strategic Review released last year, and down from 22 percent outlined in the Coalition's 2013 election policy.

What the * are they wasting $50 Billion on?

Meanwhile, despite Malcolm slowing down the roll out, it was easily on target from the last Corporate Plan:

The slideshow also reveals NBN Co will, as previously reported, easily exceed its 357,000 brownfields premises passed target for the end of June 2014. NBN Co is currently tracking to pass around 400,000 brownfields premises by the end of June, and around 102,214 greenfields premises, with a total of around 596,000 premises covered by the network, including fixed wireless.

 

[telsor]

Not even joking, Turnbull better ****ing not block TPG's cable network expansion.

If enterprise is willing to fund fibre networks to premises, stuff the government and their crappy 20th century tech monopoly, that they will just flog it to Telstra at a loss anyways.

I hope iinet, Singtel, TPG and whoever else wants to, decide to build and expand fibre networks in direct competition with the Libs fttn/DLS2+ hybrid network.

Consumers will get faster speeds, lower prices and more competitive plans.

In part I agree. The monopoly was always a crap idea.

The trouble with leaving it purely to the private sector though is that, sure, it'll get put into your house, so long as you live in a major urban area...Rural, no hope, and even regional would be a matter of 'case by case'. We'd also want to hope that they all use the same tech in case people want to change and so we don't have half a dozen sets of wires (of course, the prospect of doing it wirelessly is another significant question).

Government should have funded the backbone service...Link up all the phone exchanges, and after adding a few subsidies for regional areas, left it to the private sector.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

In part I agree. The monopoly was always a crap idea.

It wasn't a ******* monopoly at least not as far as affecting competition was concerned.

You only need one network, competition in network building just drives up end user pricing as the companies have to get a return on their investment or results in mini-monopolies where areas are at the mercy of a single retail operator.

Having a one company building a single wholesale open access network is the best solution, with competition in the retail sector where it belongs.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

In part I agree. The monopoly was always a crap idea.

The trouble with leaving it purely to the private sector though is that, sure, it'll get put into your house, so long as you live in a major urban area...Rural, no hope, and even regional would be a matter of 'case by case'. We'd also want to hope that they all use the same tech in case people want to change and so we don't have half a dozen sets of wires (of course, the prospect of doing it wirelessly is another significant question).

Government should have funded the backbone service...Link up all the phone exchanges, and after adding a few subsidies for regional areas, left it to the private sector.

I agree, government needed to build it. There has been little growth in the industry due to the bungled Telstra privatization. If they had seperated the retail and wholesale arm things would be different.

It wasn't a ******* monopoly at least not as far as affecting competition was concerned.

You only need one network, competition in network building just drives up end user pricing as the companies have to get a return on their investment or results in mini-monopolies where areas are at the mercy of a single retail operator.

Having a one company building a single wholesale open access network is the best solution, with competition in the retail sector where it belongs.

It should have been both.

A government build, without provisions that forbid industry competition. The danger has always been a future lib government would flog the network, at least piecemeal. Likely we would then be back to the early Telstra days, where they extort all and sundry.

The Japanese did it right. They allowed both private and public investment, thus have competitive pricing and fibre dominated networks, but at the turn of the century. The game at the mo is sabotage though, so who knows where it will end up .

 

[Pessimistic]

There were signs the alp, likwe the kennet govt before that was gettin it, costello supporting infrastrcuture australia.

Our population will baloon and dont think you can slow that down. We just cant afford this " not designed here" mentality if our infrastructure is to keep up.

As voters we shouldnt be thinking " i like this project so ill vote for x" they should be thinking which party has taken over with a minimum of fuss and kept the program going. Boring i know but until we do well get the crap we deserve

 

[Ice-Wolf]

It should have been both.

A government build, without provisions that forbid industry competition. The danger has always been a future lib government would flog the network, at least piecemeal. Likely we would then be back to the early Telstra days, where they extort all and sundry.

It was both, privates could build it under the same conditions as NBNco, they had to wholesale it open access.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It was both, privates could build it under the same conditions as NBNco, they had to wholesale it open access.

There were provisions preventing future wholesale competition, or competing network builds. These should not exist.

 

[mellowyellow]

The Liberal Party. The party of the 20th century.

Every new policy comes with a complimentary white picket fence.

 

[sherb]

The Liberal Party. The party of the 20th century.

That can't be true.

Dinosaurs weren't around in the 20th century.

 

[Pessimistic]

So turnbulls slowly working his way through what the last government found. Convinced that because his name is turnbull and the flyers say liberal that they will magically be " better " even though its the same nbn, the same laws of physics and economics, the same telstra, the same govt departments.

Theres a word for that

 

[Admiral Byng]

There were provisions preventing future wholesale competition, or competing network builds. These should not exist.

Disagree profoundly. It's a natural monopoly situation, like just about every other industry that relies on a network delivery model, be it electricity, gas, water, communications through pipes or cables. The cheapest and most effective model is one universal network with a standardised connection, all using the same technical specifications. It's an exception to the usual market rule about competition driving prices down; where competition actually leads to a worse outcome overall through higher fixed costs and duplication.

I'm not against tendering the actual construction work out to private firms to build and install it, don't want a bloated workforce of NBN shovel-leaners to do all the work in-house. But the overall network design, operation, engineering and architecture should all be a universal, standardised connection for maxiumum efficiency on a macro scale.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Disagree profoundly. It's a natural monopoly situation, like just about every other industry that relies on a network delivery model, be it electricity, gas, water, communications through pipes or cables. The cheapest and most effective model is one universal network with a standardised connection, all using the same technical specifications. It's an exception to the usual market rule about competition driving prices down; where competition actually leads to a worse outcome overall through higher fixed costs and duplication.

I'm not against tendering the actual construction work out to private firms to build and install it, don't want a bloated workforce of NBN shovel-leaners to do all the work in-house. But the overall network design, operation, engineering and architecture should all be a universal, standardised connection for maxiumum efficiency on a macro scale.

The first paragraph is only true when the infrastructure is in public hands.

However, as we have seen previous this will not be the case. It will be sold at a discount, and we will end up with the same problems we have now. High cost, inefficient private monopolies.

We should look to the Japanese experience, which balanced public and private investment, with a more open approach to regulation, allowing great speeds and low prices over half a decade before fibre became common place elsewhere.

EDIT: I have no opposition to the NBN being a public works project, but I disagree strongly with the idea we should prevent market based competition. Especially given the libs and their hybrid, so complete dogs breakfast model.

If we want decent speeds and reasonable infrastructure, we need to allow TPG and iinet to build their own. Otherwise in half a decade, Telstra are going to end up with a cut price, sub standard fibre network and consumers are going to be the losers, as competitors will have been squeezed out.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The first paragraph is only true when the infrastructure is in public hands.

However, as we have seen previous this will not be the case. It will be sold at a discount, and we will end up with the same problems we have now. High cost, inefficient private monopolies.

We should look to the Japanese experience, which balanced public and private investment, with a more open approach to regulation, allowing great speeds and low prices over half a decade before fibre became common place elsewhere.

EDIT: I have no opposition to the NBN being a public works project, but I disagree strongly with the idea we should prevent market based competition. Especially given the libs and their hybrid, so complete dogs breakfast model.

If we want decent speeds and reasonable infrastructure, we need to allow TPG and iinet to build their own. Otherwise in half a decade, Telstra are going to end up with a cut price, sub standard fibre network and consumers are going to be the losers, as competitors will have been squeezed out.

No.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

No.

So, you disagree with what exactly. The failure of Australian privatisation?

How private monopolies are hurting consumers?

That the NBN will be sold off, likely to Telstra if they get the chance?

That they are making a mess of it?

That Japan's model is one we should follow?

That they have the best cost/performance ratio in the world?

NTT the government telecom pre-privatisation was responsible for the first fibre rollout. They did so with industry help. Then cable (TV)providers were given regulatory approval to expand their fibre networks. Post the success of other industry players in the standard copper ADSL market, the decision was made to sell NTT's network piecemeal, privatise the retail arm and eventually forbid them from competing in the wholesale market. This is what should have happened to Telstra.

Government investment and public competition led to Japan's fibre network being the most extensive and cheapest in the world, when most countries were yet to fully embrace standard broadband. Even to this day our standard plans are often treble or quadruple the price of Japanese high speed fibre. Heck some providers offer a connection free with home phone plans.

The market is voluntarily regulated on the operational and consumer side. However, the big companies especially are heavily scrutinised when it comes to cross access and standardisation.

This is quite literally the most effective rollout of high speed internet in human history, be that in terms of cost, until recently performance and consumer prices.

My position is based on past history, when it comes to the management of Australian public assets. Consumers are usually the losers, taxpayers are usually the losers, costs are high, performance and efficiency is low and the only winners are at the top end of a new often mismanaged private monopoly. With the libs in charge it is guaranteed to be the same. So, we should cut our losses, allow competition, so at least it makes the inevitable less uncomfortable.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Simple. There should be a hard distinction between service provider and network operator. Companies do one or the other but not both. Telstra, iinet or others restricted to providing retail services only and locked out of the infrastructure side of it. The infrastructure side of it being one regulated monopoly with access guarantees, but locked out of providing direct retail services. Whether that regulated monopoly is best public or privately owned is a separate question.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Simple. There should be a hard distinction between service provider and network operator. Companies do one or the other but not both. Telstra, iinet or others restricted to providing retail services only and locked out of the infrastructure side of it. The infrastructure side of it being one regulated monopoly with access guarantees, but locked out of providing direct retail services. Whether that regulated monopoly is best public or privately owned is a separate question.

This I can agree with, but it will never, ever happen.

It would be my first choice preference. Force a split between Telstra's retail and wholesale arm via legislative change, buy what infrastructure we can off the wholesale arm. Build Labors NBN and let a state run monopoly wholesale access to providers.

That can and will never happen now though.

Firstly, neither government ever wanted to take on the Telstra problem. Secondly, the libs aren't building labors network. Instead a hybrid mess, that may or may not eventuate. Thirdly, it won't stay in public hands for long. Costs will be high, problems will abound, upgrades and maintenance will be expensive and it will be sold on the cheap.

The only chance Australia has for future cost effective fibre is to let industry players go it alone, whilst the current government mess unravels. If and when they sell it to Telstra with favorable regulatory provisions, the only relief consumers will have is if other providers have competing infrastructure already built.

 

[Admiral Byng]

This I can agree with, but it will never, ever happen.

It would be my first choice preference. Force a split between Telstra's retail and wholesale arm via legislative change, buy what infrastructure we can off the wholesale arm. Build Labors NBN and let a state run monopoly wholesale access to providers.

That can and will never happen now though.

Firstly, neither government ever wanted to take on the Telstra problem. Secondly, the libs aren't building labors network. Instead a hybrid mess, that may or may not eventuate. Thirdly, it won't stay in public hands for long. Costs will be high, problems will abound, upgrades and maintenance will be expensive and it will be sold on the cheap.

The only chance Australia has for future cost effective fibre is to let industry players go it alone, whilst the current government mess unravels. If and when they sell it to Telstra with favorable regulatory provisions, the only relief consumers will have is if other providers have competing infrastructure already built.

I still think it should be tried. The original Turnbull plan was for the Government to buy Telstra's copper.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I still think it should be tried. The original Turnbull plan was for the Government to buy Telstra's copper.

Which I like, however the plan changes from day to day. Some half complete version of the network will also probably be sold back to Telstra in the not distant future.

Damage control, it needs to start now. Let those who are willing foot the bill and when the time comes, at least prices will be competitive even if speeds are mediocre.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Wait, so when one party was going to waste untold billions on a NBN, certain posters here championed the policy. Now that the other party is going to do the same thing, it is suddenly a big issue?

You guys are being played for chumps.

 

[medusala]

Actually FB, the ALP went to an election saying their policy was going to cost a few billion. It seems some lies matter and some don't.

Still economic considerations have never mattered re NBN. Brilliant political strategy to get Gen Y attention from the fact they are about to get shafted in a prolonged and painful manner due to demographic change. Who needs pensions and a health care system when you have downloaded the latest version of Game of Thrones for free?

NTT the government telecom pre-privatisation was responsible for the first fibre rollout. They did so with industry help. Then cable (TV)providers were given regulatory approval to expand their fibre networks. Post the success of other industry players in the standard copper ADSL market, the decision was made to sell NTT's network piecemeal, privatise the retail arm and eventually forbid them from competing in the wholesale market. This is what should have happened to Telstra.

Why did the PC say not to go for separation? Were they wrong?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Wait, so when one party was going to waste untold billions on a NBN, certain posters here championed the policy. Now that the other party is going to do the same thing, it is suddenly a big issue?

You guys are being played for chumps.

No one party was going to spend tens of billions on a future proof telecommunications network, the other is spending tens of billions on a network to much less people that is already out of date and wont be finished any quicker.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Actually FB, the ALP went to an election saying their policy was going to cost a few billion. It seems some lies matter and some don't.

Still economic considerations have never mattered re NBN. Brilliant political strategy to get Gen Y attention from the fact they are about to get shafted in a prolonged and painful manner due to demographic change. Who needs pensions and a health care system when you have downloaded the latest version of Game of Thrones for free?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

No one party was going to spend tens of billions on a future proof telecommunications network, the other is spending tens of billions on a network to much less people that is already out of date and wont be finished any quicker.

It seems the guaranteed speeds were another non-core promise.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/382817,nbn-co-drops-speed-guarantees-for-fttn-service.aspx

NBN Co drops speed guarantees for FTTN service
Australia's national broadband network will come with substantially lower speed guarantees than expected, as part of the Coalition mandated fibre-to-the-node redesign.

However, users of the FTTN network will not receive speed guarantees beyond 25 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up, the report states - similar to the maximum performance under ideal line conditions of today's ADSL2+ service.

Fibre customers hoping to receive the fast service they ordered may also end up being disappointed under NBN Co's proposals.

NBN Co reportedly said it will not take responsibility for individual line speeds, leaving the selection of the correct speed tier to end users and providers.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/382817,nbn-co-drops-speed-guarantees-for-fttn-service.aspx

We get an absolute shambles, but for a similar price and at constantly looser and more remote time frames. What a con.

 

[yibbida]

I predicted this over 12 months ago, just didn't think it could cost $40+ Billion to construct it.

Then add in the $20+ Billion Telstra will get for the Copper and the $5 Billion per year to maintain it.

Stop the Waste.

 

[yibbida]

Actually FB, the ALP went to an election saying their policy was going to cost a few billion. It seems some lies matter and some don't.

The 2007 election..... Where the National senator called the FTTN proposal Fraudband....

It's still 2006 to the Liberals Party cheerleaders.