National Broadband Network

[Ice-Wolf]

Personally i'm not opposed to doing the network in two phases. FTTN and then FTTP. It's messy in it's own way but at least it accepts that the network is going to take a long time to build.

That is the more expensive than going straight to FTTP and takes longer and results in a network design that isn't optimised.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

That is the more expensive than going straight to FTTP and takes longer and results in a network design that isn't optimised.

That horse has already bolted.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

That horse has already bolted.

Not if Turnbull can somehow find a way to extract his head from his own arse.

 

[Caesar]

Even the guys over at Delimiter who have a raging hard-on for the Labor version of the NBN admit that the Coalition's plan is a good one:

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/16/the-coalitions-policy-is-a-sensible-nbn-alternative/

The Coalition’s rival policy is a sensible alternative to Labor’s National Broadband Network project, based soundly on its traditional principles of liberalism and support for the free market, but also pragmatically taking into account the situation which the the current Federal Government will leave the Coalition with if it takes power in September.

If all you care about is everybody getting the best toys as quickly as possible, of course you're going to regard it as inferior. But the reality is that if you are of a liberal mindset, the Coalition's policy makes excellent sense. It provides a reasonable pathway to FTTH where it is needed, that minimises government risk and expenditure and maximises the utility of the private sector.

 

[Pessimistic]

Even the guys over at Delimiter who have a raging hard-on for the Labor version of the NBN admit that the Coalition's plan is a good one:

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/16/the-coalitions-policy-is-a-sensible-nbn-alternative/


If all you care about is everybody getting the best toys as quickly as possible, of course you're going to regard it as inferior. But the reality is that if you are of a liberal mindset, the Coalition's policy makes excellent sense. It provides a reasonable pathway to FTTH where it is needed, that minimises government risk and expenditure and maximises the utility of the private sector.

Im all for it as long as they continue to make decisions based rationally rather than reinforce the ' we was right ' mentality or bow lo lobby pressure cough news cough.

Also abandon politically expedient delivery targets. Do it once, do it right, stick to your guns

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Even the guys over at Delimiter who have a raging hard-on for the Labor version of the NBN admit that the Coalition's plan is a good one:

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/16/the-coalitions-policy-is-a-sensible-nbn-alternative/


If all you care about is everybody getting the best toys as quickly as possible, of course you're going to regard it as inferior. But the reality is that if you are of a liberal mindset, the Coalition's policy makes excellent sense. It provides a reasonable pathway to FTTH where it is needed, that minimises government risk and expenditure and maximises the utility of the private sector.

There is still the glaring flaw in the coalition plan that they don't ****ing own a copper network to upgrade.

Yes let's praise them for coming up with a solution that isn't as shit as their last one, but still worse than what is already being rolled out that has already jumped through all the regulatory hoops.

The Coaltion is going back to the drawing board with all the contracts and regulations and approvals having to be redone, it is ludicrous just finish what is being already rolled out.

They don't have a business plan or a design nor any technical details, it's a great thought bubble but it is the same thought bubble Labor had 6 years ago and was found to be not be worth doing.

You know what Caesar **** the private sector, they can compete in the retail market, it's what they are best at anyway.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Even the guys over at Delimiter who have a raging hard-on for the Labor version of the NBN admit that the Coalition's plan is a good one:

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/16/the-coalitions-policy-is-a-sensible-nbn-alternative/


If all you care about is everybody getting the best toys as quickly as possible, of course you're going to regard it as inferior. But the reality is that if you are of a liberal mindset, the Coalition's policy makes excellent sense. It provides a reasonable pathway to FTTH where it is needed, that minimises government risk and expenditure and maximises the utility of the private sector.

For you information Caesar. Renai LeMay has been a very vocal critic of Labors NBN for a long time not someone "who have a raging hard-on for the Labor version of the NBN." More like a Liberal party apologist.

 

[Caesar]

Funny sort of 'Liberal Party apologist'. He points out very clearly in the article that in his opinion, the ALP plan is far superior. He's been a critic of the way Labor rolled the NBN out, not the actual plan.

The Liberals have been in opposition, the business plan will come now that they actually have access to the department and NBNCo. Maybe we'll even get a cost-benefit analysis this time, which would be nice.

It's all very well for you to say '**** the private sector', but Turnbull is a liberal, not a socialist. From a liberal perspective there is no need for the government to spend billions of extra dollars providing a five-star service to everybody when the private sector can adequately meet what is actually needed on a demand basis. Let the user pay, not the taxpayer.

People need to get their head around the idea that this is a problem with multiple 'right' solutions based on what your priorities are.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Let the user pay, not the taxpayer.

The user is paying! Why don't you get that? It is being paid for they exact same way the copper network was by usage fees.

 

[Caesar]

The user is paying! Why don't you get that? It is being paid for they exact same way the copper network was by usage fees.

Theoretically. In the interim, it locks up tens of billions of dollars worth of capital that the government could be spending on other projects.

From a liberal perspective, it's a no-brainer. Up-front user-pays demand based rollout can take care of it - so let it. If city dwellers aren't prepared to shell out for FTTH out of their own pocket then they don't really need it. It's the efficiency of the market - each individual gets to make their own decision on the cost/benefit of FTTN v FTTH, and the taxpayer saves money. Win-win.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Theoretically. In the interim, it locks up tens of billions of dollars worth of capital that the government could be spending on other projects.

Caesar we are talking about a difference of around $900 million of Government Capital between the 2 plans.

1 year of operating a CFTN network over a FTTP eats up that difference.

I agree from a Liberal perspective (note the "L") it is a no-brainer because they aren't using their brains at all.

The taxpayer saves virtually no money and is left with a less valuable asset that has to be redone in short order. The only ones this is possible good for is private enterprise not the taxpayer.

 

[Caesar]

Caesar we are talking about a difference of around $900 million of Government Capital between the 2 plans.

Not really. The government figure that you are citing is a tacitly-acknowledged fairytale. Even advocates of the NBN accept that it is going to cost potentially tens of billions of dollars more than that (even if they don't agree with Turnbull's figure of $94B). They just don't care. They think it is worth it at any price.

If Turnbull can bring the Coalition's plan in close to its budgeted figure, he will have saved the country a shedload of money. Granted that is a reasonably big 'if', but given the far more modest scope of his proposal it seems to be a more realistic goal. We will have to see how he goes.

1 year of operating a CFTN network over a FTTP eats up that difference.

Ongoing operating costs are only marginally relevant, because both parties have indicated that they are likely to sell off the completed network.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Not really. The government figure that you are citing is a tacitly-acknowledged fairytale. Even advocates of the NBN accept that it is going to cost potentially tens of billions of dollars more than that (even if they don't agree with Turnbull's figure of $94M). They just don't care. They think it is worth it at any price.

If Turnbull can bring the Coalition's plan in close to its budgeted figure, he will have saved the country a shedload of money. Granted that is a reasonably big 'if', but given the far more modest scope of his proposal it seems to be a more realistic goal. We will have to see how he goes.

Government funding.

Turnbulls goal and scope isn't in any way realistic. The technology he is touting can not do what he wants, how he wants, in the time he wants, for the cost he wants, even if we started rolling it out yesterday. 60,000 nodes will not get 25Mbps Germany had to install over 300,000 nodes to do that, and that was over a much smaller and densely packed area.

We only need to look across the ditch to see the result of Turnbull's policy, New Zealand got halfway through building a CFTN and scrapped it in favor of FTTP because it did not live up to the claims made of it.

Former BT execs call CFTN the biggest mistake they ever made.

Telstra told the Howard government that CFTN wasn't worth doing and that FTTP was what they saw as way forward.

 

[Caesar]

You are exaggerating somewhat. Despite there being some question over the maximum speeds being massaged a little, there is a general acceptance by the experts that the Coalition plan will basically do what it is designed to do. As stated in the above article, it is a fundamentally sound plan. The main criticisms are about its vision and scope.

Vision and scope do not bother me. The Labor plan may have been far superior from a technical perspective, but I regarded it as unnecessarily profligate government spending. It was not a major factor in my vote, and I would not have been excessively bothered if the Labor NBN survived (most governments waste money) but I am not sorry to see it gone.

If the Coalition plan can deliver basically what it promises, at basically what they claim it will cost, then I will be more than happy. It will give Australia a solid basis for future technological development.

 

[Pessimistic]

Actually theres precedent for governments applying policies seen as the children of the other side in a more measuerd way than the other side would do.

We had hawke keating implementing a right wing set of policies in the eighties much more soberly than such as the thatcher government did
It will probably be the same with abbott and PPL, NBN, Gonski and RDIS. They wouldnt have dreamed of firing these policies up but once established, they dont have the idealogical baggage.

My two riders on this is we dont know how independent turnbull will be of newscorp and telstra, and bleme has to be attributed to the howard government for failing to provide ongoing competition when privatising telstra

 

[Ice-Wolf]

http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/gov...ate-of-wiring-for-the-nbn-20130916-hv1qt.html

Coalition Policy relies on Copper that they have no idea the condition of.

What we do know is that the copper that was typically installed in Australia is unlikely to be ideal for VDSL technology even if it was in pristine condition.

 

[medusala]

Can you drop the taxpayers expense ? Its a furphy

Why do you believe the government forecasts?

 

[RUNVS]

http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/gov...ate-of-wiring-for-the-nbn-20130916-hv1qt.html

Coalition Policy relies on Copper that they have no idea the condition of.

What we do know is that the copper that was typically installed in Australia is unlikely to be ideal for VDSL technology even if it was in pristine condition.

Unfortunately Abbott really doesn't care. He doesn't see the value in the internet and he isn't interested in learning it.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

You are exaggerating somewhat.

Not really.

If the Coalition plan can deliver basically what it promises, at basically what they claim it will cost, then I will be more than happy.

It can't, it wont and I'm sure you will be.

It will give Australia a solid basis for future technological development.

No it wont as to upgrade it you have to scrap the expensive bits of the Coalitions network and then extend fibre to the premises which is 95% Labour cost. To upgrade Labor's network you only need to swap out the bits at the ends. It is already capable of 40x the Coalitions most optimistic claim for their network.

The other thing is that CFTN is only a temporary solution it will need to be replace shortly after it is finished if not before.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Why do you believe the government forecasts?

Do you believe Turnbull's?

 

[Caesar]

Not really.

It can't, it wont and I'm sure you will be.

It seems to me that most of the experts disagree with you. They see the Coalition's plan as sensible and achievable, even if it is not the plan they personally want to see.

No it wont as to upgrade it you have to scrap the expensive bits of the Coalitions network and then extend fibre to the premises which is 95% Labour cost. To upgrade Labor's network you only need to swap out the bits at the ends. It is already capable of 40x the Coalitions most optimistic claim for their network.

The other thing is that CFTN is only a temporary solution it will need to be replace shortly after it is finished if not before.

These will be handled through the private sector, not costing the taxpayer a cent.

If you want FTTH straight off the bat you can pay for it now. If not, you can pay for it later or not at all. Whichever you choose makes no difference to me because it's not my money. Which is the point.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

It seems to me that most of the experts disagree with you. They see the Coalition's plan as sensible and achievable, even if it is not the plan they personally want to see.

No the experts agree that their plan is not as bad as their previous one but pales in comparison to Labor's plan.

These will be handled through the private sector, not costing the taxpayer a cent.

No they wont which is precisely the reason that the NBN is being built in the first place.

If you want FTTH straight off the bat you can pay for it now. If not, you can pay for it later or not at all. Whichever you choose makes no difference to me because it's not my money. Which is the point.

And If I move house? Do I pay again and again. What if I rent? Do I pay to improve my land lords property and again do I do this over and over when I move?

 

[Caesar]

No the experts agree that their plan is not as bad as their previous one but pales in comparison to Labor's plan.

Because they disagree with the scope and goals. Not because they think the goals stated are unachievable.

No they wont which is precisely the reason that the NBN is being built in the first place.

Incorrect. There is no reason why last mile rollout in major metro areas can't be handled on a demand basis. The private sector deficiency has always been about the main spine of the network, and rural/regional areas.

And If I move house? Do I pay again and again. What if I rent? Do I pay to improve my land lords property and again do I do this over and over when I move?

It is no different to any other aspect of a property's capital improvement. It's factored into the price and amenities of the property when sold or rented.

 

[yibbida]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254045,conroy-feared-giving-telstra-20bn-war-chest.aspx

Apr 11, 2011 10:43 AM

According to the ABC, the program will reveal the alleged reasons Laborscrapped its NBN1 proposal – a fibre-to-the-node network that would have used Telstra's copper for last-mile access.

According to the ABC, "expert" legal advice suggested the Government would have had to pay up to $20 billion compensation to Telstra for "misappropriating" the incumbent's copper under its FTTN plan.

The Government feared Telstra would use that money to cherry-pick profitable suburbs by rolling out a competing – but higher-speed - fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP).

"The Government could spend $15 billion to build a fibre-to-the-node network, pay $15-20 billion to Telstra for compensation, and then Telstra could take that money and build a fibre-to-the-home network past you and strand 70 per cent of $15 billion on the side of the road," Conroy was said to have told the program.

Former Telstra group managing director of public policy Phil Burgess was said to have told the program that the Government's fears were well founded.

Telstra continued to argue recently that it should have the right to cherry-pickprofitable areas before NBN Co reaches them.

The Government had sought to prevent that from occurring in the NBN Access Bill.

That is exactly what is going to happen. TPG and Optus have already announced they are going to offer fibre. Telstra will have to wait for that $40 billion that the Tax payer will give them for the copper.

 

[Pessimistic]

Intersting item from brazil

Imagine the uproar if australia proposed this

BRAZIL plans to divorce itself from the US-centric internet over Washington's widespread online spying in a move that may fracture the global network.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff ordered a series of measures aimed at greater Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the US National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into the state-owned Petrobras oil company's network and spied on Brazilians who entrusted their personal data to US tech companies such as Facebook and Google.
The leader is so angered by the espionage that she's considering cancelling a trip to Washington next month where she's scheduled to be honoured with a state dinner.
Internet security and policy experts say the Brazilian government's reaction to information leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is understandable, but warn it could set the Internet on a course of Balkanization.
"The global backlash is only beginning and will get far more severe in coming months," said Sascha Meinrath, director of the Open Technology Institute at the Washington-based New America Foundation think tank. "This notion of national privacy sovereignty is going to be an increasingly salient issue around the globe."
While Brazil isn't proposing to bar its citizens from US-based Web services, it wants their data to be stored locally as the nation assumes greater control over Brazilians' internet use to protect them from NSA snooping.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/b...ms/story-e6frfro0-1226721418156#ixzz2fBaJpKwT