National Broadband Network

[pokerspiv]

So it's FTTN, which is fibre optic cable. It doesn't have to be FTTH to qualify as fibre, try again.

HFC was used because FTTH was correctly identified years ago by private ISPs as being too expensive and surplus to requirements. Then the NBN came along and forced everyone to pay for it anyway.

Note that the other guys who previously claimed I was making it up have slunk away. It's now only you trying to claim that nobody laid cable because FTTN isn't the NBN. A complete non-sequitur.

Private ISPs were laying fibre in Australia in the 1990's, nearly a decade before the announcement of the NBN. That is a fact.

The rest of the world has fibre optic internet without it all being owned by the government. That is also a fact.

Nobody has ever attempted to show why Australia needs their entire internet infrastructure to be government funded when no other country has. Another unarguable fact.

The rest is just your opinion.

 

[Elroo]

So it's FTTN, which is fibre optic cable. It doesn't have to be FTTH to qualify as fibre, try again.

HFC was used because FTTH was correctly identified years ago by private ISPs as being too expensive and surplus to requirements. Then the NBN came along and forced everyone to pay for it anyway.

Note that the other guys who previously claimed I was making it up have slunk away. It's now only you trying to claim that nobody laid cable because FTTN isn't the NBN. A complete non-sequitur.

Private ISPs were laying fibre in Australia in the 1990's, nearly a decade before the announcement of the NBN. That is a fact.

The rest of the world has fibre optic internet without it all being owned by the government. That is also a fact.

Nobody has ever attempted to show why Australia needs their entire internet infrastructure to be government funded when no other country has. Another unarguable fact.

The rest is just your opinion.

HFC is not a optical fibre network, that is fact.

Others have probably not responded as its the weekend and they might be a bit busy to respond to a poster who is fabricating things as he goes; me on the other hand I enjoy laughing at posters like you.

Private ISP were not laying FTTH networks in the 90's as you claimed, they were laying HFC networks which even under MT plan are to eventually be replaced due to their obsolescence. Also you claimed ISP's were laying FTTH in the 90's, and that's wrong. The first full FTTH was constructed in WA by the Western Power subsidiary Bright Telecommunications in 2001.

There are multiple countries with either government owned, or government financed/supported optical fibre networks constructed or being constructed.

The NBN was never going to be entirely funded by the government, that's a fail.

 

[Admiral Byng]

So it's FTTN, which is fibre optic cable. It doesn't have to be FTTH to qualify as fibre, try again.

HFC was used because FTTH was correctly identified years ago by private ISPs as being too expensive and surplus to requirements. Then the NBN came along and forced everyone to pay for it anyway.

Note that the other guys who previously claimed I was making it up have slunk away. It's now only you trying to claim that nobody laid cable because FTTN isn't the NBN. A complete non-sequitur.

Private ISPs were laying fibre in Australia in the 1990's, nearly a decade before the announcement of the NBN. That is a fact.

The rest of the world has fibre optic internet without it all being owned by the government. That is also a fact.

Nobody has ever attempted to show why Australia needs their entire internet infrastructure to be government funded when no other country has. Another unarguable fact.

The rest is just your opinion.

You should probably quote people if you're after a reply from them. I haven't read this thread for a few days.

You're trying to win on semantics, picking an exception to general rule and then trying to argue the exception as the new rule.

Building connections in a few selected greenfield sites doesn't qualify as a national network. We are never going to get the private sector to retro-fit the existing national network with upgraded connections to something better than ADSL. Which is what the discussion was all about in the first place; that the government doesn't need to get involved with building the infrastructure because they private sector could provide it. The private sector can't, except in a few cherry-picked new housing sub-divisions. But that doesn't translate to the private sector being able to build anything further than that little piece of it. The private sector still cannot deliver, we need Federal investment to build it. We need that becuase the industry has been left in such a mess by the privatisation of Telstra that the only realistic solution is to start again from scratch. It's probably true that no other country has done so, but then no other country made such a complete mess of it as Australia did. We have a deeper hole to get out of.

 

[pokerspiv]

You should probably quote people if you're after a reply from them. I haven't read this thread for a few days.

You're trying to win on semantics, picking an exception to general rule and then trying to argue the exception as the new rule..

Err, no I am not. I am producing evidence to back my assertion that private ISPs were laying fibre before the government muscled in. I have produced proof that not only Optus, but also Austar and iiNet were doing exactly that.

You have so far tried to handwave this away and pretend it never happened, but it did.

It's a fact that private ISPs were in the process of building fibre infrastructure before the government crowded them out. Fact.

We are never going to get the private sector to retro-fit the existing national network with upgraded connections to something better than ADSL.

That's because most people in Australia at the time did not (and still don't) really demand anything better than ADSL. But the NBN is going to force it on them anyway. In no universe is that a good thing.

The private sector has showed that it can deliver, and it was, in test markets. The issue is that nobody really wanted it. And they still don't, apart from heavy internet users. But even those heavy internet users have been completely unable to make a case why it should be taxpayer funded.

 

[Power Raid]

Err, no I am not. I am producing evidence to back my assertion that private ISPs were laying fibre before the government muscled in. I have produced proof that not only Optus, but also Austar and iiNet were doing exactly that.

You have so far tried to handwave this away and pretend it never happened, but it did.

It's a fact that private ISPs were in the process of building fibre infrastructure before the government crowded them out. Fact.



That's because most people in Australia at the time did not (and still don't) really demand anything better than ADSL. But the NBN is going to force it on them anyway. In no universe is that a good thing.

The private sector has showed that it can deliver, and it was, in test markets. The issue is that nobody really wanted it. And they still don't, apart from heavy internet users. But even those heavy internet users have been completely unable to make a case why it should be taxpayer funded.

Yeah but other than facts that don't marry big govt fanbois ideology.......

 

[Admiral Byng]

Err, no I am not. I am producing evidence to back my assertion that private ISPs were laying fibre before the government muscled in. I have produced proof that not only Optus, but also Austar and iiNet were doing exactly that.

You have so far tried to handwave this away and pretend it never happened, but it did.

It's a fact that private ISPs were in the process of building fibre infrastructure before the government crowded them out. Fact.



That's because most people in Australia at the time did not (and still don't) really demand anything better than ADSL. But the NBN is going to force it on them anyway. In no universe is that a good thing.

The private sector has showed that it can deliver, and it was, in test markets. The issue is that nobody really wanted it. And they still don't, apart from heavy internet users. But even those heavy internet users have been completely unable to make a case why it should be taxpayer funded.

The example you quoted is not a proof that private investment can deliver, because it is not transferrable from limited applications in certain specific circumstances up to ubiquitous and universal national network.

The difficulty is in the legislative framework which required open access to any network upgrades of the existing copper. Putting cables in the ground in greenfield sites where different legal requirements exist is not proof that they can deliver universally under unfavourable legal conditions.

As stated previously, there have been two attempts, by Telstra and by a consortium led by Optus to upgrade the network to something similar to Turnbull's revised NBN plan. Both failed because of the legal requirement for open access. both parties determined it was not economically viable/too big a commercial risk for them if they had to invest the money building it but then allow the competition to access it at prices out of their control and set by the regulator. So they pulled out. It is a legal stalemate, not a technical one. The physical ability to lay cables in a new housing estate does not overcome this legal obstacle in building a new national network.

Sorry if that's a bit long-winded, but that's where we're at. No private company is willing to make the investment decision to build it under those conditions, otherwise we'd already have it - they were proposed under the Howard government which was voted out of office 7 years ago. The lack of willingness by private investment to do it, even though they may have the technical skills, is what requires government investment to start over again and this time get the access model right.

 

[pokerspiv]

The example you quoted is not a proof that private investment can deliver, because it is not transferrable from limited applications in certain specific circumstances up to ubiquitous and universal national network.

The difficulty is in the legislative framework which required open access to any network upgrades of the existing copper. Putting cables in the ground in greenfield sites where different legal requirements exist is not proof that they can deliver universally under unfavourable legal conditions.

So change the legislation rather than wasting $100 billion. Seems almost common sense.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Err, no I am not. I am producing evidence to back my assertion that private ISPs were laying fibre before the government muscled in.

Muscled in? I'm surprised more people aren't defending your position if they are already on these privately-installed fibre networks that from the sounds of your posts most of us should have.

Or maybe these limited coaxial connections aren't considered 'fibre'. Due to the obvious fact that the current govt doesn't claim they are.

Yep, you are more of an ideologue than this government. And from their long list of unpopular/un-passed/illogical policy ideas that they've suggested, you can be assured that they are a highly ideological government.

 

[pokerspiv]

Or maybe these limited coaxial connections aren't considered 'fibre'. Due to the obvious fact that the current govt doesn't claim they are.

That's strange since the fibre that iiNet laid in Ellenbrook now belongs to Telstra and is being sold as fibre under Telstra smart network. I guess Telstra are lying. Either that or you also don't know what you're talking about.

Fibre wasn't invented by the Labor government. It was being laid in Australia, by private ISPs, years before the NBN was proposed. The NBN is making use of that existing HFC infrastructure in its new implementation. Infrastructure that was rolled out by private ISPs.

That is a fact and you make yourself look stupider every time you try to deny that fact. You made a false claim and were proved wrong, it's time to own up to that, and perhaps address some of your preconceived ideas that were based on false beliefs.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

That is a fact and you make yourself look stupider every time you try to deny that fact. You made a false claim and were proved wrong, it's time to own up to that, and perhaps address some of your preconceived ideas that were based on false beliefs.

This from the person who pays such close attention that they don't even realise they're talking to a different person than earlier?

As for all the stuff you ignored... no-one is claiming that Labor invented fibre, they are just saying that private ISPs weren't doing the job as required. Which is fairly obvious, because if they started laying fibre in the 90s and 99.9% of people don't have fibre, it suggests that they are doing it in an extremely limited capacity. And it isn't actually news to say that private ISPs would've delivered it eventually to high density areas. That's called the free market. The free market would also have consistently ignored providing it to anything that isn't economically viable. That's called inequality.

 

[pokerspiv]

As for all the stuff you ignored... no-one is claiming that Labor invented fibre, they are just saying that private ISPs weren't doing the job as required.

No, they were saying they weren't doing the job at all. A somewhat different claim. I stated that ISPs were laying fibre before the NBN, they said I was lying. I was not lying.

Please acknowledge this so we can move on.

And it isn't actually news to say that private ISPs would've delivered it eventually to high density areas. That's called the free market.

Err, no. I think you'll find the reason that we are having this argument is because that actually is big news to people in this thread, particularly to the ones who claimed the free market would never have delivered it, and used their false belief that they had never laid any fibre to back up that claim.

The free market would also have consistently ignored providing it to anything that isn't economically viable. That's called inequality.

Me not having a BMW is also inequality. Also not something that taxpayers should be expected to rectify.

You want super-fast internet? Feel free to pay for it yourself. Personally I would rather stick with ADSL than pay a $20,000 installation fee for fibre (which is about what the NBN will cost per net taxpayer. $20,000 each. Not including the monthly fees. Just installing it).

ADSL is fine for my purposes, and for the purposes of 98% of the rest of the population. If you want 20ms ping times and terabytes/second download times then feel free to put your paycheck to good use. That is a massive overinvestment for most people, just as buying everyone in Australia a BMW would be.

 

[Elroo]

No, they were saying they weren't doing the job at all. A somewhat different claim. I stated that ISPs were laying fibre before the NBN, they said I was lying. I was not lying.

Please acknowledge this so we can move on.

You got caught out fabricating by myself and other posters.

You claimed that private ISP's were laying FTTH in the 90's and has been proven that's wrong.

The first full FTTH network was laid by the Western Power subsidiary Bright Telecommunications around 2001.

You claimed HFC was a fibre network, it's not, it's FTTN and then coaxial to up to 2000 homes.

Iinet did not lay FTTH in the 90's, they laid a HFC network.

HFC under even MT's alternative NBN will have significant remediation work to keep it operating and will eventually be replaced by a FTTH.

 

[pokerspiv]

You got caught out fabricating by myself and other posters.

You claimed that private ISP's were laying FTTH in the 90's and has been proven that's wrong.

No, I did not get caught out at all. I did not claim they were laying FTTH in the 90s. I claimed they were laying fibre before the NBN. Feel free to link my post that says otherwise. You were shocked to find out you were wrong and have spent the time since backpedalling.

You were wrong. You had no idea that private ISPs were laying fibre in Australia until I told you. Now you feel stupid, but that's still no excuse for lying.

 

[pokerspiv]

You claimed HFC was a fibre network, it's not, it's FTTN and then coaxial to up to 2000 homes.

FTTN is a fibre network, genius. Not the one you wanted perhaps, but a fibre network all the same. And there were actual FTTH networks laid too. Internode has one that they built themselves, for example, with no help from the NBN. The Ellenbrook example was just 1 example to show how far back it had been going on for. I also gave an example of a FTTH network that iiNet had constructed. An example that you ignored.

Again, you are completely wrong on all counts. Private ISPs have built both FTTN and FTTH networks in Australia without government assistance. Those networks are still in operation today. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and pig-headed to boot.

 

[pokerspiv]

Let me quote again:

Private ISPs were never rolling out fibre. Every major initiative in private investment in upgrading from copper, even to fibre to the node failed.

Bzzt.

And Byng goes even further in his next post, writing a long and convoluted paragraph to explain why it never happened, when in fact it did:

This is simply not true.

During the Howard era both Telstra and and a big consortium lead by Optus came up with a broadband plan. Both plans relied on them having exclusive control over the new network they wanted to build. Both plans were knocked on the head by the competition authorities unless there was open access for all players to the new network. They lobbied Howard to overturn the ruling but his government knocked it back too. Both plans were called off by the respective parties. They failed to get up because of the open access policy, basically they had to let the competition use their network to compete with them. It was a complete policy stalemate, no self-respecting ISP or telecoms business was seriously looking at laying their own cable. That's why the Rudd election campaign committed to the government building the network on an open access basis, to get around the stalemate.

But they were, and they did. The two most respected ISPs in Australia - iiNet and Internode - were both laying their own fibre networks. Byng was just completely making s**t up. Now you are defending the s**t that he made up, and embarrassing yourself.

Private ISPs were laying fibre, and they would have continued to do so if demand continued to increase and they weren't crowded out by a government monopoly. How do I know for sure? Because that's how every other country in the world got their fibre.

 

[Elroo]

No, I did not get caught out at all. I did not claim they were laying FTTH in the 90s. I claimed they were laying fibre before the NBN. Feel free to link my post that says otherwise. You were shocked to find out you were wrong and have spent the time since backpedalling.

You were wrong. You had no idea that private ISPs were laying fibre in Australia until I told you. Now you feel stupid, but that's still no excuse for lying.

Yes you did;

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/national-broadband-network.965939/page-114#post-34411860

Both iinet and austar that I know of were both rolling out FTTH in trial stages at new housing estates well before the NBN was ever announced.

Once again HFC is not a fibre network, it is a FTTN and then Coaxial from the node to the home.

The first full FTTH was once again laid by Bright Telecommunications around 2001;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country#Australia

The first FTTH network deployed in Australia was delivered in 2001 by Bright Telecommunications – a subsidiary of Western Power, the state power company owned by the Government of Western Australia. Bright Telecommunications initially deployed Fibre to the Curb by Marconi and a point-to-point FTTH solution from Entrasys, but later progressed to a GEPON product from Alloptic.

 

[Elroo]

FTTN is a fibre network, genius. Not the one you wanted perhaps, but a fibre network all the same. And there were actual FTTH networks laid too. Internode has one that they built themselves, for example, with no help from the NBN. The Ellenbrook example was just 1 example to show how far back it had been going on for. I also gave an example of a FTTH network that iiNet had constructed. An example that you ignored.

Again, you are completely wrong on all counts. Private ISPs have built both FTTN and FTTH networks in Australia without government assistance. Those networks are still in operation today. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and pig-headed to boot.

The HFC network is not a fibre network, or FTTH as you claimed. HFC is not fibre, it is fibre to the node then coaxial from the node to up to 2000 homes and is due to be replaced under even MT's alternative NBN. HFC networks and FTTN are being replaced by full FTTH around the world due to their obsolescence.

http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/the-end-of-hfc-and-fttn-networks-is-approaching/

Also you were wrong in regards to government involvement around the world and constructing FTTH networks.

 

[pokerspiv]

Yes you did;

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/national-broadband-network.965939/page-114#post-34411860

Both iinet and austar that I know of were both rolling out FTTH in trial stages at new housing estates well before the NBN was ever announced.

Once again HFC is not a fibre network, it is a FTTN and then Coaxial from the node to the home.

The first full FTTH was once again laid by Bright Telecommunications around 2001;

And the NBN was not announced until 2009, at which time many other ISPs had also built FTTH networks of their own.

Again, you're just 100% wrong.

 

[Elroo]

Let me quote again:




Bzzt.

And Byng goes even further in his next post, writing a long and convoluted paragraph to explain why it never happened, when in fact it did:




But they were, and they did. The two most respected ISPs in Australia - iiNet and Internode - were both laying their own fibre networks. Byng was just completely making s**t up. Now you are defending the s**t that he made up, and embarrassing yourself.

Private ISPs were laying fibre, and they would have continued to do so if demand continued to increase and they weren't crowded out by a government monopoly. How do I know for sure? Because that's how every other country in the world got their fibre.

Actually various governments around the world are involved in laying FTTH networks, you claimed Australia was the only country with a government building a fibre network and that's wrong again; something you seem to do a lot.

 

[Elroo]

And the NBN was not announced until 2009.

So you now admit you lied in regards to denying you'd said FTTH was being laid in the 90's by private ISP's?

The first FTTH was laid by a the WA government.

 

[pokerspiv]

So you now admit you lied in regards to denying you'd said FTTH was being laid in the 90's?

The first FTTH was laid by a the WA government.

I said FTTH was laid before the NBN, which is true. I never said FTTH was laid in the 1990s. I used an example of Ellenbrook but I did not say that particular network was FTTH. On the very next line I provided a link to a FTTH installation by iiNet that was rolled out before the NBN. You ignored it.

You also continue to ignore the fact that the people I was replying to claim that there was no fibre of any kind laid prior to the NBN. And you refuse to acknowledge that is what this discussion is addressing.

Why can't you just be honest and admit that the people who claimed no private ISPs laid fibre are wrong? It's an unarguable fact. You aren't doing your credibility any good by trying to argue semantics.

 

[Elroo]

I said FTTH was laid before the NBN, which is true. I never said FTTH was laid in the 1990s. I used an example of Ellenbrook but I did not say that particular network was FTTH.

Ellenbrook is not a fibre network, it is HFC which is not a fibre network, it is FTTN and then coaxial from the node to up to 2000 homes and will be replaced under even MT NBN plan.

As I have told numerous times the first ever FTTH was constructed by the WA government, not private ISP's.

 

[pokerspiv]

As I have told numerous times the first ever FTTH was constructed by the WA government, not private ISP's.

What's your point? The fact is that private ISPs also contructed FTTH, which gives lie to the assertion that they never did so before the NBN, which is the assertion that I was arguing with in the first place.

 

[pokerspiv]

Ellenbrook is not a fibre network, it is HFC which is not a fibre network, it is FTTN.

So what does the "F" in "FTTN" stand for?

Again, I also linked to actual FTTH networks laid by iiNet before the NBN on the very next line after I mentioned the Ellenbrook HFC. You have continued to ignore that and are still ignoring it now. You are simply arguing in bad faith and have covered yourself in the opposite of glory in this thread by trying to defend people who made blatantly false claims.

 

[pokerspiv]

Actually various governments around the world are involved in laying FTTH networks, you claimed Australia was the only country with a government building a fibre network and that's wrong again; something you seem to do a lot.

No, I claimed Australia was the only country where the government has created a monopoly on fibre, and the only country whose people seem convinced that a government monopoly is the only way to provide fibre. Feel free to list other countries where the government has decided to take monopoly control over fibre internet. I fully accept there might be one, since I do not know what all 250 odd countries do with their internet.