NBN Discussion

[whatmeworry]

Yes it is wonderful of the Govt to subsidise the pay TV industry by building the infrastructure they require.

Pity about us taxpayers footing the bill.

Problem is, companies like Telstra and Optus have no incentive to continually renew their networks.

 

[serfty]

Problem is, companies like Telstra and Optus have no incentive to continually renew their networks.

Unlikely to be any need (other than trunks), go back to my post #725 and subsequent ...

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Good reply to the article above.

If that person thinks there is nothing between ADSL and Fibre on the technology spectrum, they are clearly incompetent. Metro Ethernet? SHDSL? Fixed Wireless? All capable technologies available now.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Yes it is wonderful of the Govt to subsidise the pay TV industry by building the infrastructure they require.

Pity about us taxpayers footing the bill.

Some of us say the same about an all fibre NBN -- pity about us taxpayers footing the bill.

Regardless, HFC is a great technology capable of delivering speeds into the Gb/s. The fact that it is also the technology of choice for current payTV distribution is irrelevant. It is unlikely that NBNco will hand over access to their HFC to FOXTEL, however FOXTEL like any other provider will be able to provide an IP based payTV service, potentially opening up that market to many other competitors.

All that while offering 1Gbps over existing copper.

Not seeing a downside.

 

[RAM]

Some of us say the same about an all fibre NBN -- pity about us taxpayers footing the bill.

Regardless, HFC is a great technology capable of delivering speeds into the Gb/s. The fact that it is also the technology of choice for current payTV distribution is irrelevant. It is unlikely that NBNco will hand over access to their HFC to FOXTEL, however FOXTEL like any other provider will be able to provide an IP based payTV service, potentially opening up that market to many other competitors.

All that while offering 1Gbps over existing copper.

Not seeing a downside.

Perhaps you may not have got my point or perhaps I missed your sarcasm - but the NBN is the infrastructure for the pay TV groups.

All the spin about 'new applications un heard of' requiring speeds of 1 GB per second are meaningless.

Home security DOES NOT NEED to be broadcasting 4K video 24 hours a day multiple cameras per house for EVERY house in Australia.

So no matter what new applications are invented - straight data requires a fraction of the capacity that 4K video does. Add in improving compression software and the requirement is significantly smaller still (really need 8 4 K video streams per house across Australia?)

Wonderful for the pay TV suppliers - they become content only suppliers. The huge fixed cost of transmission cables/wireless etc is picked up by the tax payer.

Sure some businesses, hospitals & schools can use high capacity downloads but OLD TECH can handle that.

Instead of only having one 'pipe' to pour the content down, well they have 2 or 3. Saving to the Australian taxpayer = TENS of billions up front and billions annually.

Just remember the BER debacle.

I did some research a few weeks after the initial announcement and discovered a contract signed 4 days prior to the announcement with one of the two successful tenderers in NSW for the BER.

The school hall built Australia-wide was taken the the NSW DoE High School Hall model. They also had a Primary School Hall model but guess what?

It had a lower profit margin as it had windows AND multiple emergency doors (vs High School model with one side nearly completely a single horizontal bending 'garage door'.

Back to my discovery.

Four days before the announcement, there was a contract signed for one HS hall to be built on sloping land for a school north of Sydney. The sloping land increased the cost due to significant foundations required - nearly a compete storey high for one-long side of the hall.

The cost for this contract was 60% of the cost under the BER for the same hall on FLAT LAND.

Comparing the 2 contracts there were 2 news levels of fee imposed as well as several 'design' fess added on. BTW - every successful lead successful tenderer/contractor Australia-wide just happened to be a donor to a major political party. In fact many donated to both major parties coincidentally. What a coincidence indeed.

Reminds me of that old adage, "He who pays the piper calls the tune."

Many people think China is so corrupt...

Oh that's right, the largest political donor now to ALL Australian Political parties is a Chinese Property developer. Great 7.30 report on him. Not suggesting he is corrupt.

Equal opportunity Chinese billionaire - both ALP & Libs love him. Nine minutes of revelation. Especially. "He left China later in 2011 to come to Australia after the Mayor was arrested for taking tens of millions in bribes."

Only hundred's of thousands of dollars a time in donations in Australia for him.

This is the mysterious billionaire property developer behind some of the largest political donations in Australia - 10/06/2015

 

[drsmithy]

Yes it is wonderful of the Govt to subsidise the pay TV industry by building the infrastructure they require.

Pity about us taxpayers footing the bill.

You mean like we "subsidise" nearly every industry in the country by building roads, water pipes, sewerage systems, electricity distribution, the original telecommunications infrastructure, etc, etc ?

ZOMG !!!! SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING !!!!

I was staggered to learn that the internet connectivity I've had for the last twenty years was completely wasted since I've never had pay tv.

 

[drsmithy]

Point me towards a country that hasn't had any sort of telecomunications upgrade or update in the last 10 to 15 years. Thats a meaningless statement to make as it wouldn't at all be surprising if telecomunications systems were being upgraded and updated throughout the world (including Australia) in the period 2026 to 2030 regardless of whether there is an NBN or not.

The upgrade from copper to fibre only has to happen once, that's the point.

What you are advocating is an upgrade from copper, to better copper, to better copper and some fibre, then finally to fibre, when we could just skip the middle steps.

 

[drsmithy]

Some of us say the same about an all fibre NBN -- pity about us taxpayers footing the bill.

"Taxpayers footing the bill" is an even bigger reason to do it properly the first time.

Regardless, HFC is a great technology capable of delivering speeds into the Gb/s. The fact that it is also the technology of choice for current payTV distribution is irrelevant. It is unlikely that NBNco will hand over access to their HFC to FOXTEL, however FOXTEL like any other provider will be able to provide an IP based payTV service, potentially opening up that market to many other competitors.

All that while offering 1Gbps over existing copper.

Not seeing a downside.

What's the upload like ? How does it handle congestion ?

This has probably been posted earlier:
NBN Might Have To Replace Optus' Messy, Broken Cable Network | Gizmodo Australia

 

[TheRealTMA]

I was referring to the hardware and I was being generous. Most elderly people on this forum don't care the NBN.

I do! Plus proper FTTP NBN speeds means better TV/Movie streaming and significantly better health care for us in the near future.

 

[RAM]

You mean like we "subsidise" nearly every industry in the country by building roads, water pipes, sewerage systems, electricity distribution, the original telecommunications infrastructure, etc, etc ?

ZOMG !!!! SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING !!!!

I was staggered to learn that the internet connectivity I've had for the last twenty years was completely wasted since I've never had pay tv.

You seem to have missed something (intentionally perhaps as you cannot refute the point?).

Previously FoxTel PAID the cost of building their network and maintaining it - that is how Telstra came to own 50% of FoxTel.

Optus PAID and maintains its fiber network and launched its own Pay TV service.

Both networks sold access to other groups.

The taxpayer did not pay for any of this.

With the NBN the tax payer is footing 100% of the risk and cost.

Once K Rudd announced his redesign of the Howard/Costello OPEL system that was due to be 100% operational by 2009 - then Telstra and Optus had no commercial need to properly maintain their networks as the Fed Govt was going to nationalise them - NO CHOICE.

Sure they could argue about how much they were paid but they were forced sellers.

Now what about OPEL?

OPEL was contracted to supply at the same cost packages offered in cities to rural and regional areas. BTW it had a business case that was published and found to be both feasible AND commercial.

Then after committing to include OPEL as well as the 'NBN' K Rudd cancelled it a year later.

"The Government's decision to accept the Department's advice means that around 900,000 households, which were to have been offered a competitive choice of high bandwidth broadband services from the OPEL roll out, will now be denied that.

"Optus has made an offer to the Government which I repeat publicly today: we are quite happy to have a respected independent expert audit OPEL's coverage database and the Department's coverage database. <For some reason the Fed Govt never took the offer up>

"We believe this would confirm that our claimed coverage accurately reflects the definitions in the Department's Guidelines issued in September 2006, and delivers within the agreed 90 per cent tolerance levels upon the coverage we committed to provide in our winning bid.

"We call on the Government to take up this offer of independent expert advice and reconsider its decision.
"As things stand, the 15,000 kilometres of new backbone optical fibre, which would have been available to other operators at wholesale prices 30 per cent lower than existing levels, will also now not be delivered.

"The OPEL access network, which was to be wholesaled to other telcos and internet service providers, will now not be built."



The various commentators seem to forget (on purpose perhaps) what the OPEL system was going to do - provide internet access to virtually every non-urban dwelling or business and leave the urban areas to competition.

Clear? Nothing to do with Pay TV previously.

 

[RAM]

I do! Plus proper FTTP NBN speeds means better TV/Movie streaming and significantly better health care for us in the near future.

The 'better health care' is pure spin doctoring at the extreme. How exactly is health care going to be 'significantly better?

A catch phrase is simply that, not necessarily the truth though. A bit like the Sydney Light Rail which is actually CUTTING public transport capacity to the South East by over 60%. So far over $18m spent on advertising, agencies and consultants for it. Like the NBN - no published business case either...

What hardware is required to capture this content to be streamed over the NBN?

Will it be provided in every home? NO.
Will it be in every GP's office? NO.
Will it be in every regional hospital? NO.

But hold on a minute - why are their such waiting times in Sydney/Melbourne/Adelaide/Canberra/Perth etc to get into see these specialists that are going to be 'miraculously' there via the NBN for rural and regional patients?

What have I missed?

Australia cannot afford to even have the equipment required for basic A&E at every regional hospital - so A&E has been removed from many. The other services that have been removed are huge.

What about Sydney's Prince of Wales Hospital? Most people do not know that in 2007 it was downgraded from a Category One hospital to a Category Three hospital. 10% of staff were cut with one weeks notice. How? The then State Govt merged the South Eastern Sydney Health Service with the Illawarra Health Service to form the South East Sydney and Illawarra Health Service (SESIAHS).

Staff had the option of accepting a transfer from PoW Randwick to Dapto or Port Kembla hospitals, or as one particularly galling letter suggested; "commuting each day." Try commuting from Penrith to Dapto each day!

Why?

Because it was costing too much to offer all the services...

If you every look at the Sydney papers, every week there are articles about 'bashed man', 'knifed man', 'collision victim' etc taken from Coogee, Randwick, Kensington, Kingsford, Maroubra, Matraville etc - to St Vincents (bypassing PoW on the way) or to St George Hospital.

That is the reality that is not publicised. Health care costs are exploding and the availability of services is declining on a per capita basis.

You cannot stream a MRI machine to someone's house or GP's office. Nor can even such simple procedures as Barium Meal be done across rural and regional areas.

Visiting GPs in rural areas only visit up to the levels that make it worth their while. One day a fortnight in this area etc. Do you expect the NBN will see staffing in remoter areas increase by 3 to 7 fold so all the specialist nurses are on hand for each VOD consultation?

So, this 'wonderful step forward in medical care' still requires a doctor on the other end of the NBN. That doctor's time still costs as does their office etc.

A remote control operation still requires skilled nurses in an operating theatre at the other end in case something goes wrong. It is not as it is portrayed in the spin.

There still needs to be an anaethestist, Intensive care ward and beds available etc. These simply don't exist and the NBN will not make them exist either. The health budget continues to increase at 2 to 3x NDP each year as it is.

Specialists only have so much time per day. Yes they can spend that time looking at a screen which shows a patient 3,000km away - but that is time that they are not dealing with a patient locally isn't it?

Just as patients do not show up for specialist appointments routinely - do you think it would be any different over a video link? With the impact of floods etc the ability to make appointments at a 'video' hospital/consulting rooms fitted out with all the expensive monitoring/testing equipment - will not be as high as in urban areas. That's the reality.

The cost of outfitting these remote 'centres' is huge (and never discussed or in ANY FORWARD ESTIMATES either - why is that?).

I'm not sure what you are expecting the NBN will allow to happen - perhaps you can provide some detail?

 

[drron]

RAM you are both right and wrong.
Telehealth is available with current services-I was even providing an irregular service before I retired.And that was December 2006.
Since 2007 in Tasmania I have participated in many medical education programs usually between the Mersey and NWR hospital.Sometimes Hobart as well.
Telehealth in QLD has been going for a while now and has an extensive reach-
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/telehealth/html/locations.asp

But as you said there have to be available specialists.
Telehealth equipment sits idle in Queensland regional hospitals

In Armidale NSW one bed of the HDU is equipped so live consults can occur with an intensivist at the John Hunter Hospital.this was being done before the NBN arrived.

Prior to my retirement I did outreach services to the North Burnett region of QLD.In the last 2 years I could easily get MRI investigations done due to a private mobile MRI scanner in Central QLD-
$3m mobile MRI scanner to benefit city patients | Gladstone Observer

MRI units are now being incorporated into mobile health ambulances so clot busting treatment can be given early enough to save lives.So medical technology is already on the move.But it is going to be very expensive.People will have to decide just what Australia can afford.The answer wont be everything.
https://www.uth.edu/media/story.htm?id=b1485cfc-110f-4a4c-91ea-06b573b3ba6d

 

[RAM]

drron - thanks for the links to the reality that is health & Australian Govts.

As you point out - Tele-health already exists and existed prior to the NBN. It has not needed 1GB/second to function.

The portable MRI is a good example of the significant hardware costs. According to the Govt stats the average MRI machine performs 25-33 scans a day if operated for 15 hours per day. One patient can require 2 or more scans such as a patient may have his entire spine imaged, so technically, this would include a C-spine, T-spine and an L-spine that would be reported independently (3 scans).

However there are many MRI machines that operate for less than 15 hours a day due to lack of operating funds, medical radiation technologists as well as log jams in the review of the images by equally qualified but limited number of radiologists to interpret the results.

Like many other areas of 'modern' western economies - the delivery of public health is paying an extortionate rent to both the drug, prosthetic and equipment companies. Generating an ever growing ponzi scheme until it finally falls over.

Australia has some very bad examples of the high cost paid for medical goods to the companies but at least (not yet) as scandalous and bordering on out-right corrupt practices in the US.

You probably know about this but in case you had forgotten - here is but one minor example I came across during research into several international prosthetic companies.

• In the US each hospital is required to sign a confidentiality agreement with every major supplier - or else they will not be supplied.
• They face penalties up to the tens of millions if they disclose ANY cost information - even internally other than to an approved list as specified in the contract.
• Curiously enough if a hospital refuses to sign one supplier's agreement then they start having issues getting their supplies from the other majors - purely coincidental of course.

This has been a festering sore known by the US politicians for decades but then again some of the largest donors to both parties, and their associated PACs, are the very same companies - just another coincidence.

I had argued against investing in the companies (indeed sell out of our holdings) as surely Obama and Obamacare would go for the low-hanging fruit in implementing Obamacare.

How wrong I was.

How low is the fruit (still)?

Well two major Philadelphia hospitals performed roughly 1,000 knee, hip and shoulder replacements per year (back when I delved into this area). They used identical prosthetic devices (then predominantly J&J, Biomet and S&N). But through a stroke of luck (pardon the quasi medical pun) their costs for each of the different schedule items got out - go figure!

One hospital paid between 2.5x and 3 times the price that the other hospital paid for each item - across the board.

How's this for another coincidence - both charged within a few % of each other for the same replacement procedures.

This may interest you - a US interactive procedure cost by hospital listing.

Compare knee or hip replacement or reattachment surgery all states

 

[drsmithy]

You seem to have missed something (intentionally perhaps as you cannot refute the point?).

You appeared to be making the "point" that publicly funded broadband telecommunications infrastructure is "subsidising" pay tv operators.

The "refutation" is that by that logic all publicly-funded infrastructure, from sewers to roads, is "subsidising" some business since they use it in the provision of goods and/or services to customers.

If the only thing the NBN was going to be used for was pay tv, you might have a point. But it's not.

 

[RAM]

You appeared to be making the "point" that publicly funded broadband telecommunications infrastructure is "subsidising" pay tv operators.

The "refutation" is that by that logic all publicly-funded infrastructure, from sewers to roads, is "subsidising" some business since they use it in the provision of goods and/or services to customers.

If the only thing the NBN was going to be used for was pay tv, you might have a point. But it's not.

That is a little bit too much of a stretch.

Your refutation is a bit apples and oranges.

Under the NBN Pay TV companies will no longer have to provide ANY network infrastructure - all the poles/conduits and cables therein or satellites or transmission masts etc will now not be their cost but the tax payers. Just as the poles and wires run along predominantly Crown Land so do the roads...The route is not being taken over by the NBN just the transmission mechanism - subtle but important difference.

Previously Foxtel and Optus owned, operated and maintained the transmission system - and charged a price for it. Now have you noticed that you can get 24 hour a day HD pay-TV for $25 a month from say Foxtel?

In fact you can get 72 hours a day as you can record 2 other channels at the same time - all this on the non-NBN set-up. But it is costing the two network owners/operators to maintain all this.

In the future (as some new entrants have already jumped in) you pay a fee to access the content from the Pay TV companies servers and YOU pay for the data usage on your internet facility.

Notice the difference - the owners of the systems (currently) seem to consider $15 per month adequate to pay not only for the upkeep, operation etc of their networks.

How did I get $15? The difference between the old Pay TV monthly cost and the new content only services.

Ever wonder why the NBN business case was never published?

A fair comparison would be if the Fed Govt announced that it was going to be the sole owner of all business transportation vehicles in the future and buy the existing fleets from well-known political donors like LinFox etc. Now there's an idea...

Back to the sewers.

You may have (not) noticed that there are differential fees charged to businesses that discharge waste products into the sewers. In fact many business are BANNED from discharging into the sewers (which is why so many industries around the world have moved to China and discharge directly into the rivers btw - with NO removal of toxic waste). Such as the Japanese company Ajinomoto did nearly 20 years ago to far western China.

one of the byproducts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-MCPD

So on point (1) Sewers - subsidising some businesses - Mostly False - They are charged differentially or prohibited from using the sewers to dispose of their waste.

In Australia there are significant costs for companies 'legally' disposing of their waste - not one cost for all users of the sewers.

ON point (1) for roads - also mostly false on many fronts. Tolls are significantly higher for trucks and other non-car vehicles. Similarly the registration cost and in cases where required, permits/licenses can run into tens of thousands of dollars per annum per vehicle to be able to be 'on-the-road'.

 

[moa999]

Ever wonder why the NBN business case was never published?

A fair comparison would be if the Fed Govt announced that it was going to be the sole owner of all business transportation vehicles in the future and buy the existing fleets from well-known political donors like LinFox etc. Now there's an idea...


Tolls are significantly higher for trucks and other non-car vehicles. '.

No NBN case because the Labour Govt developed the plan and the ridiculously undercosted budget in 12wks.. And then promised it wouldn't cost anymore -- hence the ridiculous NBN premium between 12/1 and 100/40 for the same data limits

Funny to mention the trucking fleets... That is exactly what NSW Govt does with Sydney buses.. Last 10yra or so government has funded the assets, and just hires an operator on regional bases.

Trucks pay higher tolls because they take up more roadspace (in peakhour this is a limit), have slower acceleration (again limiting flow) and their weight generally causes more road damage.

But I think we are going very OT here.

BTW if anyone is looking for a home VOIP provider I highly recommend Telecube. Under a generally available plan from a tech-focussed forum -- 55c/mth DID rental, 10c flat/ local or national call, 8c/min mobile and cheap calls....

(I generally use my mobile for most calls so landline bill is now <$2/mth)

 

[drsmithy]

That is a little bit too much of a stretch.

Your refutation is a bit apples and oranges.

It's neither. It is a very direct and simple application of the logic that 'publicly funded infrastructure subsidises business using that infrastructure'.

How did I get $15? The difference between the old Pay TV monthly cost and the new content only services.

I think you need to reconsider your assumption that there is a direct and easily derived link between charges and costs. You may find it helpful to refer to your previous posts about medical procedure costs at different institutions.


Foxtel and Optus will charge as much as the market can bear, regardless of what their actual costs are. Recent price drops are far more likely to be due to the significant inroads into the market by companies like Netflix, than cost reductions.

A fair comparison would be if the Fed Govt announced that it was going to be the sole owner of all business transportation vehicles in the future and buy the existing fleets from well-known political donors like LinFox etc.

No it wouldn't, because bulk transport businesses are not the only ones that benefit from publicly funded roads.

Back to the sewers.

Similar to above, dumping of waste into the sewers is not the only way businesses benefit from having sewers. Any restaurant with a toilet, for example, is benefitting from publicly funded sewerage infrastructure (not to mention water, electricity, telecommunications, etc).


Differential charging is irrelevant. Foxtel will be differentially charged to connect to the NBN.

 

[drsmithy]

Trucks pay higher tolls because they take up more roadspace (in peakhour this is a limit), have slower acceleration (again limiting flow) and their weight generally causes more road damage.

But I think we are going very OT here.

I don't. It's a relevant analogy. Modern telecommunications infrastructure will be as critical as roads in the future, both are core infrastructure that should be publicly funded and owned.

 

[DeKa]

Previously FoxTel PAID the cost of building their network and maintaining it - that is how Telstra came to own 50% of FoxTel.

Optus PAID and maintains its fiber network and launched its own Pay TV service.

Both networks sold access to other groups.

The taxpayer did not pay for any of this.

Neither Optus or Telstra / Foxtel have sold last mile access to their HFC networks to anyone else.

 

[RAM]

Neither Optus or Telstra / Foxtel have sold last mile access to their HFC networks to anyone else.

So how does Dodo, for example, provide internet capacity etc? Do they not use the Telstra or Optus or Eftel to provide the bulk of their connections – mostly Optus?

Once the NBN has passed a premise then after 18 months (from memory) Telstra's old connection is turned off and you have no choice but to use the NBN for a phone line. To me that's their last mile access sold off?