NBN vs Abbott's broadband - What is the difference?

[Ice-Wolf]

In fairness, to a lot of people, 'Government should spend tens of billions of dollars on NBN because last huge gov monopoly didn't work out' is poor reasoning as well. Piss-poor.

The last government telco monopoly actually worked quite well, the wholesale part of it at least. Selling the whole thing was the problem.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

The last government telco monopoly actually worked quite well, the wholesale part of it at least. Selling the whole thing was the problem.

Good thing they don't intend to sell the NBN.

Oh wait

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Good thing they don't intend to sell the NBN.

Oh wait

Requires senate approval to sell (which may never happen nor should it) and it will still be a wholesale only network.

 

[yibbida]

http://www.zdnet.com/one-week-two-corporate-plans-three-strained-nbn-co-execs-7000036032/

Nowhere was this more obvious than in the Corporate Plan 2014-17, released this week.

At 60 pages, this long-awaited plan is not only one-third the size of the last corporate plan prepared by NBN Co — version 13, a long-hidden revision whose contents were revealed by ZDNet this week — but it is as long on vision as it is short on detail from the beginning to the end. Its pages are filled with supposition, tired rehashing of statements about what broadband really means, and more qualifiers than you would expect from a groom trying to explain to his bride why his buck's night got out of hand.

Nowhere in recent memory has a major policy document been filled with so many warnings that we should not and cannot believe most of what it contains.

Turnbulls Fraudband so bad they had to write a fictional corporate plan to try to paper over the stupidity!

After three years in opposition and almost 15 months as communications minister, all that Malcolm Turnbull's ministry has been able to create is a sorely overstressed NBN Co; a recipe for massive infrastructure change that is still missing half of its ingredients; a series of questionable procedural reviews set up from the beginning to deliver the desired result; and a corporate plan that leaves everything to the imagination.

If you haven't read the new corporate plan, I encourage you to download it and scroll to page 45, where NBN Co has been kind enough to categorise the 28 different major assumptions it has made in creating rollout and financial projections that paint a pallid and uninspiring future of Australia's broadband — at nearly the same cost as the previous all-fibre model.

28 different major assumptions?

Yes, 28 major assumptions. That's more than twice the number of discrete challenges NBN Co identified last year as potentially impeding the transition to a fibre-to-the-node (FttN) model. In other words, after more than a year of getting to understand the Coalition's broadband plan better, NBN Co now argues that it is more than twice as complicated as it feared when it was just an election-time sound bite.

http://www.zdnet.com/nbn-co-historical-curiosity-plan-shows-improved-fttp-rollout-7000035943/

NBN Co scaled back its fibre-to-the-premises (FttP) rollout projections for the National Broadband Network (NBN) twice, but was still confident that a predominantly FttP rollout could be completed on budget by the end of calendar 2021, a previously unreleased draft of the company's Corporate Plan 2013-16 has revealed.

NBN Co's new Corporate Plan 2014-17 has projected that 1.03 million properties will be serviceable by that point, and 481,000 services activated by the end of FY2015, although the government has heavily qualified its forecasts by saying that it cannot forecast with "a reasonable level of confidence" beyond the next 12 months.

hmm that not's what Real Solutions said.

http://www.liberal.org.au/fast-affordable-sooner-coalitions-plan-better-nbn

Under the Coalition’s NBN all premises will have access to download speeds 25mbps to 100mbps by the end of 2016.

More lies exposed.

 

[pokerspiv]

Email from Australian Science Media Centre with a few comments:

Australian Science Media Centre - 4 September 2013
​

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ROUND-UP: The major political parties’ broadband policies – experts respond

NBN, FTTN, FTTP…OMG!? How do experts in information technology and academics who rely on the internet feel about the political parties’ plans for the future of broadband? Below several experts offer up their views.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Any further comments will be posted on our website at smc.org.au. if you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

-----------

Dr Philip Dobson is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Business, Edith Cowan University

“Much of the benefit of the NBN is achievable only via universal adoption; anything that discourages universal adoption will ultimately reduce potential overall benefits.

The Coalition NBN proposals will lead to inconsistent infrastructure, particularly for rural regions. Under their model the high capability to be delivered by Labor's Fibre to the Premises plan can no longer be universally assumed by service providers. Thus, for example, remote education or medical diagnostics will be more difficult to implement and thus not drive adoption to the same extent as under the Labor plan. The more complex infrastructure and varied capabilities will discourage easy and universal adoption, particularly for those who are uncertain and confused as to technology possibilities. The power of the NBN to reduce rural inequality will also be severely hampered under the Coalition plan, with less powerful technologies being made available in rural regions. The Greens, with their focus on rural advantage would be expected to support the Labor proposals, particularly where rural advantage is obvious.

The prospect of the NBN providing a platform for unification and social enhancement will be reduced by the Coalition plan as the potential for rapid universal adoption will falter markedly.”

-----------

Tom Worthington is an Adjunct Lecturer at the College of Engineering and Computer Science, Australian National University

“Political commentators in Australia are struggling to explain the difference between ALP and Collation broadband proposals to the voters in nontechnical language. The ALP proposes continued roll-out of Fibre To The Premises (FTTP) for the National Broadband Network (NBN), whereas the Collation wants to use mostly Fibre To The Node (FTTN). My suggested analogy is: Should you buy a new car or fix up the old one, or "The Lexus and the Broadband Network".
The Lexus and the Broadband Network:
“The ALP FTTP proposal is like the car salesman offering you a new Lexus: sure it is expensive but it will be fast and reliable and last a long time. The Collation's custom auto centre says your ten year old Toyota Camry (copper cable) is mechanically sound, it just needs some new parts (FTTN) and will be much cheaper. Your kids say they don't want an uncool Lexus, or an old Camry, they want a cool Italian Scooter (Wireless Internet). You tell them they will grow out of the scooter in a few years and then want a real car, to which they reply "Whatever". ;-)

In my view, if the government, whoever they are, want to save money, they could prioritise fibre roll-out in greenfield sites and areas with no, or poor broadband.

We have had FTTN in Canberra for just over a decade, with the Transact system. If you have power poles handy, and the citizens don't mind more overhead wires, it is a cost effective system. Also it works okay in new buildings. My apartment building has a fibre optic node in the basement and twisted pair copper to each unit. But if you are going to the trouble of putting new cables underground, then they might as well be fiber-optic, as most of the cost is in digging the trenches.

The areas with copper phone and Pay TV cable could be left for last, where it is working okay. This would be a slight change to the current government's NBN FTTP to achieve cost savings proposed by the opposition. Installing new FTTN should only be done on a limited scale, where the copper cable is new enough to be kept, but so far from the exchange that higher broadband speeds are not possible. The FTTN should be done so it can be upgraded to FTTP later.”

-----------

Dr John Lenarcic is a Lecturer in Business IT and Logistics at RMIT

“If connectivity is deemed to be a basic human right then neither of the major parties address this trenchant issue in their broadband policies.

Mark Zuckerberg believes the former to be true as witnessed by the recently announced Internet.org initiative, where Facebook and other IT partner companies are set to provide the digital have-nots of the planet with low-cost, low-data connectivity. Their aim is not to worry about speed or fibre per se but to provide equity of access through clever design (e.g. more efficient compression algorithms.)

Indeed, the "freemium" model of Internet delivery seems to be at a tipping pint. Look at Google's Project Loon: broadband servers launched into the sub-stratosphere via balloon to provide free access to those who have none or little due to geographic remoteness or socio-economic conditions.

Both Internet.org and Google's Project Loon are the moral equivalents of putting a library into every community on this world. Now, that's something that could stimulate accidental innovation of true worth. And these are also examples of justice as fairness, something sorely lacking in local political policies on the matter. The Internet is more than just a technological artefact. It's become part of life itself, for better or worse.”

-----------

Professor David Jamieson is Head of the School of Physics at the University of Melbourne

“As a researcher in physics and frequent lecturer on topics that include references to the sort of internet we will need in the future, I have the following comments:

Present trends suggest our complex society is becoming more and more dependent on the fast and frequent exchange of data. Major multinationals have announced various plans for a supercharged internet of the near future:

· From IBM: “The planet will be instrumented, interconnected, intelligent: Traffic, Energy, Intelligence, Infrastructure, Healthcare, Banking, Cloud Computing, Water, Cities, Government”.

· From Hewlett Packard labs there are plans to: “Create the mathematical and physical foundations for the technologies that will form a new information ecosystem, the Central Nervous System of the Earth (CeNSE)”.

In the press this week, plans to make Australia more creative by accelerating the use of cloud computing and have citizens interacting with the government via digital mailboxes were announced by the Coalition.

And, one day, the effects of dementia could be mitigated by “SenseCam” technology that could stimulate memory and record significant events that would otherwise be forgotten.

Later still we may see internet-based technologies that continuously monitor the mechanical condition and safety of our cars (as is now common with aircraft) or provides adaptive energy usage in our houses. See, for example, the Korean smart grid project that is a 30-year road map to retrofit the power grid with a parallel information network.

Then there is the rise of massively open online courses that promise mass education from experts in the field to everyone regardless of location, timezone or affluence.

Finally, managing our increasingly complex lives in a crowded world were resources must be efficiently and effectively managed to deal with the challenges of climate change, alternative distributed sources of power, rising expectations of education and lifestyle and global commerce will need large networks accessing big data banks.

All of this shows the relentless need for greater bandwidth in our everyday lives. This corresponds to trends from history when rising levels of literacy triggered demands for libraries, access to education and communication. But this is on a much, much bigger scale.

From a scientific point of view, to meet our foreseeable and unforeseeable future needs, greater bandwidth for the lowest energy cost is the logical way forward.”

Any quotes from people in the IT industry or just professors?

Malcolm Turnbull is probably the most qualified person in the country to assess the value of the NBN, why not include quotes from him? Do you think the opinion of people who have run large IT corporations is less relevant than lecturers?

 

[pokerspiv]

The last government telco monopoly actually worked quite well, the wholesale part of it at least. Selling the whole thing was the problem.

Spoken like someone who never had to pay a phone bill under the last telco monopoly.

Days after the monopoly ended, prices came down drastically and services improved. Thousands of unnecessary and redundant staff were laid off. When you are spending other people's money and have a captive market, there's no incentive to improve efficiency or service. That's the whole reason that most countries have laws against monopolies.

 

[Maggie5]

Spoken like someone who never had to pay a phone bill under the last telco monopoly.

Days after the monopoly ended, prices came down drastically and services improved. Thousands of unnecessary and redundant staff were laid off. When you are spending other people's money and have a captive market, there's no incentive to improve efficiency or service. That's the whole reason that most countries have laws against monopolies.

I challenge your comment that 'services' improved'. Check statistics from the Telecommunications Ombudsman for those years, I would suggest to you that services deteriorated.
Figures released for the past year (after their intervention) have only just started to improve and complaints resolved much quicker.

 

[Pessimistic]

How many people got phone bills in the hundreds or thousands in the bad old days of telstra. ?

Not sure things have progressed overall

 

[Taylor]

Once the contracts are signed it's all over. The costs go up for making a change of equal value and liquidated damages flow in for reductions in scope.

 

[pokerspiv]

How many people got phone bills in the hundreds or thousands in the bad old days of telstra. ?

Not sure things have progressed overall

People didn't have mobile phones in the bad old days. It was still possible to get a bill for thousands of dollars if you called 0055 numbers though.

 

[Gough]

People didn't have mobile phones in the bad old days. It was still possible to get a bill for thousands of dollars if you called 0055 numbers though.

So high bills had nothing to do with the old monopoly that Telstra had and everything to do with ringing bash lines.

 

[pokerspiv]

So high bills had nothing to do with the old monopoly that Telstra had and everything to do with ringing bash lines.

Well, no. Bills were much higher across the board. $35/month for line rental alone. 30c per local call. Long Distance calls around 0.50c per minute. That's what Telstra used to charge before competition was allowed.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Well, no. Bills were much higher across the board. $35/month for line rental alone. 30c per local call. Long Distance calls around 0.50c per minute. That's what Telstra used to charge before competition was allowed.

We're not talking about retail, were talking about the wholesale network which is serviced much better by being a government owned monopoly especially in a nation like Australia.

 

[pokerspiv]

We're not talking about retail, were talking about the wholesale network which is serviced much better by being a government owned monopoly especially in a nation like Australia.

You have absolutely nothing with which to back up that statement since there's never been any other system to compare it to.

 

[Maggie5]

Well, no. Bills were much higher across the board. $35/month for line rental alone. 30c per local call. Long Distance calls around 0.50c per minute. That's what Telstra used to charge before competition was allowed.

Don't know where you get your costs from but they are a fair amount out. Call now only 30 cents. But if you are trying to make a case where none exists, may as well exaggerate slightly.

 

[Play by Numbers]

One of the key reasons given for the privatisation of Telstra, was that the government lacked the capability to upgrade and maintain the current network to the same standards as industry.

Fast forward and Telstra simply allowed the network to slide into chronic disrepair and blocked access to competitors, looking to improve or buy exchanges and cabling.

Now we require the government to do, what industry wouldn't and people are still arguing that the same party who so mismanaged the privatisation, are doing what is right for consumers.

The NBN redo is not about the best model, it is about appeasing donors

 

[pokerspiv]

Don't know where you get your costs from but they are a fair amount out. Call now only 30 cents. But if you are trying to make a case where none exists, may as well exaggerate slightly.

I am getting the prices from when I paid my phone bills in the 1990s.
Calls now only 30c in 2014 money, they were 30c in 1990s money too, before other companies were allowed to compete with Telstra.

Where are you getting your historical costs from?

 

[pokerspiv]

Now we require the government to do, what industry wouldn't and people are still arguing that the same party who so mismanaged the privatisation, are doing what is right for consumers.

Industry was actually rolling out their own fibre networks just fine before government stepped in. And this point has been made hundreds of times in this thread, you are just a dishonest campaigner.

 

[yibbida]

Any quotes from people in the IT industry or just professors?

Malcolm Turnbull is probably the most qualified person in the country to assess the value of the NBN,

An investment banker who supplied money to OzEmail is the most qualified person? LOL

 

[yibbida]

Industry was actually rolling out their own fibre networks just fine before government stepped in.

Links to back your statement up?

 

[Maggie5]

I am getting the prices from when I paid my phone bills in the 1990s.
Calls now only 30c in 2014 money, they were 30c in 1990s money too, before other companies were allowed to compete with Telstra.

Where are you getting your historical costs from?

1990's money, 2014 money? What are you on about?

 

[pokerspiv]

1990's money, 2014 money? What are you on about?

30c was worth a lot more in 1994 than it is in 2014. It's called inflation.

 

[pokerspiv]

Links to back your statement up?

Links have been provided half a dozen times.

 

[Maggie5]

30c was worth a lot more in 1994 than it is in 2014. It's called inflation.

I know that duh, why would you use that example though? Trying to justify your post?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Industry was actually rolling out their own fibre networks just fine before government stepped in. And this point has been made hundreds of times in this thread, you are just a dishonest campaigner.

No they weren't. You cheeky fibbing piece of excrement.

Only TPG, though Optus have considered it. Also, I was the one who brought it up and argued it was a positive in the other thread.

The issues with this are threefold though. They still don't have access to the preexisting network, standardisation is an issue and it will only be in central areas. No good for satelites or rural peeps.