NBN to the city last and to be more expensive

luthor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Posts
12,058
Likes
11,874
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
#26
I'm not. Nor am thick enough to be conned by the NBN story.
:thumbsu:

We've been sold a pup!

$43,000 million (as an uncosted "estimate") for exactly what?

A monopolistic entity (the NBN) that will be peddling what will be a technologically obsolete product by the time it gets off the ground ...that is, if it ever does.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheMase

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 20, 2001
Posts
16,894
Likes
10,283
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#27
:thumbsu:

We've been sold a pup!

$43,000 million (as an uncosted "estimate") for exactly what?

A monopolistic entity (the NBN) that will be peddling what will be a technologically obsolete product by the time it gets off the ground ...that is, if it ever does.
I find this highly unlikely.
 

TheMase

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 20, 2001
Posts
16,894
Likes
10,283
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
#30
That's what Bill Gates said when he originally designed DOS.

Couldn't in his wildest dreams imagine any program needing any more than 640k to run effectively.:eek:
You are right. He would not have seen the development of fibre coming either.
The current technology and type of wireless service will never be able to deliver like fibre.

Don't forget the wireless network is backboned by this obsolete rubbish technology. :rolleyes:

You can question whether we need it. You can question whether it costs too much. But please don't try and compare wireless to it.
 

TheBloods

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Posts
17,894
Likes
94
AFL Club
Sydney
#31
Of course the market has failed - broadband has not been rolled out to all customers and it is slower in Australia than overseas.

AUSTRALIANS are paying nine times more for broadband that trundles along 35 times slower than the world's fastest networks.

A report from the US has revealed that Australia has become the Third World of broadband developed nations, raking 26th out of 30 countries for its transfer speeds.

Sydney households pay an average $2.65 per month for one megabyte of service at a speed of 1.7 megabytes a second, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation's broadband rankings.

By comparison, users in Japan have the world's fastest broadband and pay a paltry 29 cents per month for one megabyte at a blistering 61 megabytes a second.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-world-broadband/story-e6freuzi-1111114682325
RUPERT Murdoch yesterday condemned the quality of Australia's broadband services as a disgrace, warning the nation would be left behind unless the federal Government and Telstra spent billions to increase download speeds.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-slow-broadband/story-e6frg996-1111112529377
 

midorigreenwood

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
8,274
Likes
2,231
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#32
I find this highly unlikely.
exactly, once you've got the fibre installed just upgrade the equipment at both ends to get a speed boost

The NBN has budgeted 1.5 billion for this

Its a pittance compared to the cost of installing the fibre

in the words of Wise Man no 2

you do it once, you do it right, you do it with fibre
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#34
Of course the market has failed - broadband has not been rolled out to all customers and it is slower in Australia than overseas.
Australia is a big damn country. I specifically said cities. Noone would ever claim that ALL of Australia would be covered, the market clearly wont sort out rural Australia.

So what if it is slower? Why would you go to the expense of providing 100mbs when few need or want it? Why force people to pay for something they dont want?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheBloods

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Posts
17,894
Likes
94
AFL Club
Sydney
#37
Australia is a big damn country. I specifically said cities. Noone would ever claim that ALL of Australia would be covered, the market clearly wont sort out rural Australia.

So what if it is slower? Why would you go to the expense of providing 100mbs when few need or want it? Why force people to pay for something they dont want?
The lack of expansion outside the cities shows that the market doesn't always work.

Other countries have faster and cheaper broadband, so it seems likely that people would demand it but the market isn't providing it here.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,848
Likes
61,048
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
#38
And how are metro areas going to be sorted if Telstra's network is rolled in to NBN and work is halted until regional Australia is sorted?
well I guess they'll wait until they're done in regional. Which is better than waiting forever for a non-existent "market solution" wouldn't you agree?
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#39
well I guess they'll wait until they're done in regional. Which is better than waiting forever for a non-existent "market solution" wouldn't you agree?
No. The market will provide in cities and it will do so cheaper and quicker.

Stutchbury added to a long list of people putting the boot in.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...rd-not-taxpayers/story-e6frg9p6-1225914991675

Most of the IT world backs spending $43bn of other people's money on a super-duper fibre network. But a collection of telco suppliers, including AAPT's Paul Broad, two week ago issued an alternative broadband plan, based on next generation 4G mobile technology, that rejected the NBN model of "infrastructure monopolies with retail competition". The Alliance for Affordable Broadband argues that a mix of technologies and market-based provision could include 4G coverage for 98 per cent of Australians at up to 100 megabits per second and even higher-speed fibre broadband for schools and hospitals. It would cost perhaps $3bn.

And Committee for the Economic Development of Australia research head Michael Porter argues that any benefits from Conroy's vertical separation of Telstra will be swamped by his suppression of horizontal broadband competition between fibre, the copper network and HFC. Tellingly, the Productivity Commission backs Porter by arguing that "strong competition" between the rival broadband infrastructure "is likely to provide the best outcomes for the country".
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#41
Clearly it hasn't so far and doesn't look likely.
Hasnt? It started quite a while back. It will where there is demand.

As for the government they arent interested for a few years until regional has been done and even then do you think fibre can be sorted out to households in a few months?

What do you have to suggest the PC is wrong?
 

TheBloods

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Posts
17,894
Likes
94
AFL Club
Sydney
#42
As noted already, Australia's broadband is slower and more expensive than overseas. There is no incentive for market players here to spend a fortune on building the infrastructure.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#43
As noted already, Australia's broadband is slower and more expensive than overseas.
So? There are reasons for that.

There is no incentive for market players here to spend a fortune on building the infrastructure.
ie its not economically viable outside of the cities. There is no reason for govt to get involved where it is viable.

What is the point of this?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...rd-not-taxpayers/story-e6frg9p6-1225914991675

While structurally separating Telstra in this way may increase retail competition, it is designed to suppress competition in broadband infrastructure. The deal further requires Telstra to stop supplying high-speed broadband over its coaxial pay-TV (or HFC) cable that now passes 2.5 million homes
 

NTRabbit

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Posts
17,033
Likes
10,823
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Arsenal, 76ers, Royals
#44
arguing that "strong competition" between the rival broadband infrastructure "is likely to provide the best outcomes for the country".
What rival broadband infrastructure?

HFC is nowhere with practically non-existent coverage outside of Sydney, and some small sections of Melbourne and Brisbane, and nobody is going to be laying any more of it - especially since laying more HFC is practically identical to laying the fibre network, but with an inferior bit of cable.

The copper network has almost reached the ceiling when it comes to speed and latency, and even then due to Telstra doing what any company does - look after the bottom line - copper is currently failing, and will continue to fail large sections of the community due to poorly maintained lines, the use of RIMs, and sheer distance.

Wireless is, as it always has been, entirely unsuitable within high density urban areas. Shared resource, too many people trying to use it at once turns the claims of 100mb into sheer fantasy, and wireless still remains unreliable and highly dependent on geography and atmosphere.

Face the facts, while you might be an ideologue when it comes to economic philosophy, and there's no way I'm going to debate you on that topic, you have about as much knowledge of technology as the Coalition front bench - which is to say next to none.

It's also hardly surprising that the director of AAPT, a company that primarily makes its money from mobile phones, is in favour of using the same technology to boost their internet business.
 

midorigreenwood

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
8,274
Likes
2,231
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#45
Telstra will do it except only in the city and only if they can charge what they want to competitors.

They'll also use their incumbency to batter any competitor who tries to challenge their dominance in the fixed line market. The last telco that tried to do so got sold off to the Singaporeans.
 

wedgetail

All Australian
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Posts
784
Likes
869
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#46
The lack of expansion outside the cities shows that the market doesn't always work.
Most small towns dont have reticulated gas supply either, but people accept that when they decide to live regionally. Its not like they dont get gas, its just in bottles. Likewise its not like they dont get internet, just its via sattelite or more cost effective methods.

Other countries have faster and cheaper broadband, so it seems likely that people would demand it but the market isn't providing it here.
Some countries have in excess of 95% of the population living in apartment blocks (aka Japan and most of asia). Its easy and cheap to roll out fibre networks to them, just run trunk lines down each main street and use gigabit ethernet through existing building conduits and routers. You can pick up subscribers like fish jumping into a barrel with very little outlay, often literally no outlay at all. Hence its cheap as chips there, and fast as buggery.

Australia will require an average 20m of underground custom laid PVC conduit between every single subscriber. Then another 10m of conduit / fibre to reach each individual front door, which will in turn require its own modem / router.

Lament Japan's system all you want... but the maths & logic of building the NBN in the worlds least dense cities isnt even in the same document let alone on the same page.
 

Doctor Jolly

Premiership Player
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
4,531
Likes
238
Location
sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
#48
That's what Bill Gates said when he originally designed DOS.

Couldn't in his wildest dreams imagine any program needing any more than 640k to run effectively.:eek:
Yeah, but the speed of light (fibre) has been a pretty rock-solid cap for the ahh... the past few billion years.... at least since the big bang, and before that no one really knows for sure.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#49
Face the facts, while you might be an ideologue when it comes to economic philosophy, and there's no way I'm going to debate you on that topic, you have about as much knowledge of technology as the Coalition front bench - which is to say next to none.
I have never claimed any great insight in to the technology, but it is absurd to dismiss economics. You cant separate the two. Lots of thing would be fabulous ie world class underground metros in Sydney and Melbourne. It is reasonable to ask a) are they really needed, b) what will they cost and c) are there better uses of scarce resources.

It's also hardly surprising that the director of AAPT, a company that primarily makes its money from mobile phones, is in favour of using the same technology to boost their internet business.
It is hardly surprising that the majority of analysts in favour are rent seeking as Stutchbury pointed out. When others who arent involved in the industry speak re the economics of the matter they tend not just to be negative but scathing. Guys like Stutchbury and Davidson are miles apart politically but both are on the same page re this. Even the investment banks who are loathe to criticise governments lest they miss out on work have come out with some scathing remarks.

Call me a skeptic but I remember huge promises re the tech sector before it crashed and the same for 3G.

The usual response to criticism at the time was "you dont understand the technology".
 

NTRabbit

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Posts
17,033
Likes
10,823
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Arsenal, 76ers, Royals
#50
I have never claimed any great insight in to the technology, but it is absurd to dismiss economics. You cant separate the two. Lots of thing would be fabulous ie world class underground metros in Sydney and Melbourne. It is reasonable to ask a) are they really needed, b) what will they cost and c) are there better uses of scarce resources.



It is hardly surprising that the majority of analysts in favour are rent seeking as Stutchbury pointed out. When others who arent involved in the industry speak re the economics of the matter they tend not just to be negative but scathing. Guys like Stutchbury and Davidson are miles apart politically but both are on the same page re this. Even the investment banks who are loathe to criticise governments lest they miss out on work have come out with some scathing remarks.

Call me a skeptic but I remember huge promises re the tech sector before it crashed and the same for 3G.

The usual response to criticism at the time was "you dont understand the technology".
It seems to me that the majority of analysts in favour of 4G wireless instead of fibre, ignoring the political pundits who were in favour of it because it was the Coalition plan, were people who already have significant investments in the existing copper and wireless technology and infrastructure that would have been used. Their word is hardly any more credible than that of the people you suggest are only in favour of the NBN because they are rent seekers.

So in your economic philosophy, what is more wasteful - 40 billion dollars on something that achieves more than we currently need, or 6 billion dollars on something that achieves absolutely nothing?

Fair go if you think the NBN is an over-engineered solution, but the alternative plan proposed by the Coalition was not actually a broadband plan, rather it was a campaign plan to distract people with a headline and a massive cost difference. Not only was it technologically inferior, but it wasn't even capable of meeting the meagre and yet nebulous claims the Coalition made of it with regards to speed, coverage and reliability - their own shadow communications minister didn't even understand what he was saying at the announcement, let alone have an understanding of the fundamentals, and the leader of the opposition wasn't even present. Given that it was not even going to happen this term, is it really beyond the realms of possibility to assume that the entire thing would have been canceled at some point as a "budget cutback" when the polls were good enough to take whatever hit still remained?
 
Top Bottom