NBN Discussion

[RooFlyer]

That article nicely demonstrates the corruption in modern politics and how it seeks to transfer the nation's wealth to a handful of people.

"We're going to build this beautiful house that 's perfect for us, then we're going to sell it to someone, take a big round the world holiday with the money, come back and rent it for the rest of our lives."

As usual, these issues can be laid at the feet of the Howard Government. If they'd handled Telstra properly and split out the infrastructure and retail arms, keeping the infrastructure side publicly owned, we wouldn't have to be building another national telecommunications network from scratch.

Ah. All explained. Of course it's Howard's fault. That revelation has absolutely made my morning .

So let me get this right - if Howard had kept the infrastructure publicly owned, "we wouldn't have to be building another national communications network from scratch". That is, we could make do with the existing (copper based) national communications network, and not have to build a new fibre optic, FW etc national communications network (save existing trunk lines).

Personally, I blame Howard for the cost of the new submarines.

 

[junbugging]

Whilst 4g might not be the best solution, it will work for everything you have specified

1GB per month won't, though.

The people in the IT department at my firm would laugh at what you're suggesting. Why not just accept the possibility that some business needs might lie outside your own experience?

 

[whatmeworry]

Leaving your obvious political bias to one side, moving to a full FTTP network would cost far more that currently anticipated ($56 billion).

The nearly full FTTP would have costed about $80 billion and the cost was still dropping. Malcolm Turnbull's MTM just keeps rising in price. It is criminal the mess he has created and a disgrace the mainstream media has been in not reporting his gigantic stuff up.

 

[Pleb Status]

The nearly full FTTP would have costed about $80 billion and the cost was still dropping. Malcolm Turnbull's MTM just keeps rising in price. It is criminal the mess he has created and a disgrace the mainstream media has been in not reporting his gigantic stuff up.

So you believe that the cost of the two networks will be same?

I agree the cost of the current network will be far higher than $56 billion. I disagree that a full FTTP network will be the same. Around the $100 billion mark (say 70+30) would be a starting point.

The open question still remains how we are going to pay for any of it.

 

[Moindardt]

1GB per month won't, though.

The people in the IT department at my firm would laugh at what you're suggesting. Why not just accept the possibility that some business needs might lie outside your own experience?

1Gb per month? You are questioning my experience but not providing any basis for yours? Once again displaying your complete ignorance of any facts or reality. Do you ever think before typing something? You are what is described in the industry as PEBKAC.

I had an engineer at a client say he had found a perfectly suitable storage solution and presented a Fibre Channel connected storage shelf with 20x1Tb domestic drives for $20k, because how hard could it be and obviously it had the word Fibre in it so surely could host their $300k solver software (and no, it didn't include all the associated hardware, software and licensing). And his was a far more educated opinion than yours. We looked at him in the same way I look at your post. I would point out all the flaws in your argument and the obvious parts of mine you missed, but you have made it painfully obvious that facts are not your strong point and you will rather grasp at any straw, rather than contest a fact or provide competing data.

 

[RAM]

In the businesses I have worked for, the biggest problem is up speeds. I remember once I had to email a 30mb file that the boss requested (who was offsite) and it took a few hours till he got it.

Another work place, a customer was complaining why it was taking so slow for files to be received. Had to explain we were limited because of net speeds.

The copper network is limiting productive.

Unfortunately not quite the true situation.

With Foxtel (8 years ago that is NOT today) - you could watch a high quality film/program and record 2 others to top quality at the same time - no problem.

Yet if you had Telstra cable to your house (not Foxtel) you could not watch a high quality video as it was downloading due to frequent pauses for buffering. Forget about downloading 3 at the same time and watching one.

Yet they were using the same backbone just set-up differently to provide different products.

In late 2000s I did the numbers on how many times more Telstra was charging phone & data bundle customers vs Foxtel customers.

Came out at around a 15-22x price for the max downloads available for the minimum subscription (then) for Foxtel ($50/month) vs the download limits on the Telstra fixed line bundles (no mobile data nor phone plans).

When it came to comparing the download speeds provided respectively - Foxtel was 4 to 10 times better than any offered by Telstra for fixed line & data bundles.

SO...

Speed available is more to do with the priority of the service provider NOT necessarily demand but demand can be a determinant.

For Foxtel product - the delivery (downloads) must be perfect, no pauses nor delays = just like digital/analogue TV.

For internet product - no guarantee on min download speeds (Qn - why the Fed Govt allows these donors to get away with not having to guarantee a min download speed?).

Similar story (costs, speed) for Optus and Optus TV and that was/is optic fibre backbone with copper to the premises.

Marketing and reality are two very different things yet most accept the spin.

 

[drsmithy]

I am interested to hear if there is anyone with actual real knowledge of commercial infrastructure, internet services or fibre optic hardware is actually a proponent of NBN.

Well, there's these guys.

Then there's all those other places in the world where they're rolling out FTTP and abandoning FTTN plans and rollouts and going to FTTP instead.

This is all about people streaming tv, cat videos and that type of cr@p. You all advocate "infrastructure building" and "commercial benefits" but not one has provided a single commercial benefit that couldn't have been provided for a fraction of the cost.

We're not running a business, we're running a country.

If it really was about "nation building", the first places that would have received it would have been commercial areas, not marginal voting areas.

You mean the places already, by and large, well serviced by high speed connectivity ?

I am using 20+ years of working with commercial businesses, NGO, semi-Govt, Govt and charity organisations, advising, designing and supplying Enterprise server, storage, local network, Wide Area Network internet services and in more recent years providing high grade internet services and physical and virtual server hosting. What are you using?

Awesome. Can you quote us some comparative pricing for running FTTP vs symmetrical gigabit-capable FTTN/copper to an estate of 500 new homes ? Then another for running FTTP vs upgrading to symmetrical gigabit-capable FTTN/copper to a neighbourhood of 500 existing homes ?


Can you explain what the limiting factors in a rollout are ? Is it labour, expertise, raw materials ?

 

[drsmithy]

Leaving your obvious political bias to one side, [...]

What's "politically biased" about observing that Howard sold off Telstra, and that selling off the infrastructure side of it has had repercussions ?

[...] moving to a full FTTP network would cost far more that currently anticipated ($56 billion).

You mean after it's been sabotaged for years for political purposes ? Say it isn't so !

Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the Australian taxpayer would most likely be up for a greater loss than currently anticipated (in the order of $30 billion at the moment as a capital loss, plus billions more in operating losses until the network gets to a sufficient size (unless these costs are already capitalised) and further billions for the interest on the debt raised to cover the other losses). Even the latest NBN results note that brownfield FTTN is approximately half the cost of brownfield FTTP.

HTF is building the NBN a "loss" ? That's like saying Tesla is making a "loss" by building their gigafactory.

Your approach to infrastructure construction is 'interesting'. It makes no allowance for the cost of capital. It also makes minimal/no allowance for the additional operating and maintenance costs of the 'oversized' assets. Most projects try to delay capital spending to the latest possible time (and generally too late).

Government is not private industry. It plays by different rules. It *makes* the rules.

I once worked on a project where a ~300km railway line was constructed with only half of the required ballast. This reduced initial capital cost but required the whole line to be re-ballasted within three years. Once taking into account all of the costs, it was determined that this was the cheapest option overall.

Why ?

 

[drsmithy]

So let me get this right - if Howard had kept the infrastructure publicly owned, "we wouldn't have to be building another national communications network from scratch". That is, we could make do with the existing (copper based) national communications network, and not have to build a new fibre optic, FW etc national communications network (save existing trunk lines).

No. That's what's called a straw man.

 

[drsmithy]

Unfortunately not quite the true situation.

With Foxtel (8 years ago that is NOT today) - you could watch a high quality film/program and record 2 others to top quality at the same time - no problem.

Foxtel eight years ago didn't have HD.

Yet if you had Telstra cable to your house (not Foxtel) you could not watch a high quality video as it was downloading due to frequent pauses for buffering. Forget about downloading 3 at the same time and watching one.

Telstra had 30 megabit cable in 2008. That's good for a couple of HD streams. If you had problems, they were at the other end.

 

[whatmeworry]

Just wait for the complaints next EPL season when the streaming from Optus is patchy because our current internet can't keep up.

 

[Moindardt]

Well, there's these guys.

Then there's all those other places in the world where they're rolling out FTTP and abandoning FTTN plans and rollouts and going to FTTP instead.

We're not running a business, we're running a country.

You mean the places already, by and large, well serviced by high speed connectivity ?

Awesome. Can you quote us some comparative pricing for running FTTP vs symmetrical gigabit-capable FTTN/copper to an estate of 500 new homes ? Then another for running FTTP vs upgrading to symmetrical gigabit-capable FTTN/copper to a neighbourhood of 500 existing homes ?

Can you explain what the limiting factors in a rollout are ? Is it labour, expertise, raw materials ?

Wow.. so many things wrong.. lets go through them.

Your experts. *lol* Because there is some many experts on commercial technology and project management in Academia.. as the old saying goes, "Those that can, do, those that can't teach."

You watching Netflicks is so important to running a country.

Obviously you have never tried to connect ADSL services to many business in commercial areas. I am not talking in the CBD, commercial areas with warehousing and manufacturing or regional areas.

Once there is costings for a gigabit capable FTTP then maybe worth a comparison. Oh wait, NBN Co actually has it, the wholesale price was $20k a month for 1000/400 (yep. Actually got a quote on it ) Realms of reality people. It seems that even if you were provided the costings, you would only take notice if they backed up your case, which makes the exercise kind of pointless.

Normally in Australia, labour and Labor are the limiting factors (see what I did there ) . However, with fibre, material costs and equipment are far more expensive than the labour. It has a lot limiting factors especially things like cutting and joining and bends. Terminators and networking devices are insanely expensive and the endpoints are far less enduring than copper (which is easy to cut, join, bend and costs a fraction for materials). If someone puts a backhoe through a bundle of fibre, the cost and time to repair is exponentially more than that of copper.

With regards Bigpond Cable, I had my Extreme installed in 2012 but it was available 2 years earlier. 116Mb/s.

 

[straitman]

Enough of the name calling please people :!:

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
As usual, these issues can be laid at the feet of the Howard Government. If they'd handled Telstra properly and split out the infrastructure and retail arms, keeping the infrastructure side publicly owned, we wouldn't have to be building another national telecommunications network from scratch.

<snip>
So let me get this right - if Howard had kept the infrastructure publicly owned, "we wouldn't have to be building another national communications network from scratch". That is, we could make do with the existing (copper based) national communications network, and not have to build a new fibre optic, FW etc national communications network (save existing trunk lines).
<snip>.

No. That's what's called a straw man.

Well, I'd call it your argument - in black and white, right there.

Fair dinkum, if you have to go back and blame Howard's privatisation of Telstra for the current NBN situation (4 Prime Ministers and 3 elections later), well, again, sincerely thank you for lightening my day .

 

[drsmithy]

Wow.. so many things wrong.. lets go through them.

Your experts. *lol* Because there is some many experts on commercial technology and project management in Academia.. as the old saying goes, "Those that can, do, those that can't teach."

Ad hominem.

You watching Netflicks is so important to running a country.

Straw man.

Obviously you have never tried to connect ADSL services to many business in commercial areas. I am not talking in the CBD, commercial areas with warehousing and manufacturing or regional areas.

Red herring.

Once there is costings for a gigabit capable FTTP then maybe worth a comparison. Oh wait, NBN Co actually has it, the wholesale price was $20k a month for 1000/400 (yep. Actually got a quote on it ) Realms of reality people. It seems that even if you were provided the costings, you would only take notice if they backed up your case, which makes the exercise kind of pointless.

I didn't ask what NBN Co. said something costs to get done. I asked *you* to reach into that depth of experience and knowledge you keep telling us you have to compare the actual costs of, as you saying "doing" the work to put fibre into the ground for a whole new neighbourhood, or upgrade an existing neighbourhood with some rotten old POTS lines that can barely hit 20Mb ADSL2+.

Or is your experience just in looking at a few price lists and on-quoting someone else's work rather than actually, as you put it, "doing" ?

Normally in Australia, labour and Labor are the limiting factors (see what I did there ) . However, with fibre, material costs and equipment are far more expensive than the labour. It has a lot limiting factors especially things like cutting and joining and bends. Terminators and networking devices are insanely expensive and the endpoints are far less enduring than copper (which is easy to cut, join, bend and costs a fraction for materials). If someone puts a backhoe through a bundle of fibre, the cost and time to repair is exponentially more than that of copper.

How many whole neighbourhood fibre implementations have you been involved in ? How many upgrades of existing infrastructure at similar scale have you been involved in ?

 

[drsmithy]

Well, I'd call it your argument - in black and white, right there.

Indeed.

What I said (paraphrased): 'The main reason we have to build a whole new telecommunications network from scratch is because the Howard Government sold the one we already owned.'

What you said I said (paraphrased): 'Copper is good enough to do the job.'

Fair dinkum, if you have to go back and blame Howard's privatisation of Telstra for the current NBN situation (4 Prime Ministers and 3 elections later), well, again, sincerely thank you for lightening my day .

So to be clear. You think it's not fair to blame the Government that sold our telecommunications infrastructure for having to rebuild it - or buy it back from the people who bought it - from scratch today ?

And you reckon I'm biased ?

Do you also think it's not fair to blame Keating's deregulation of the finance industry on the (entirely predictable) economy-destroying monster it's become today as well ?

Privatisation of natural monopolies and critical infrastructure produces these kinds of outcomes. It's a rent-seeker's utopia.

 

[whatmeworry]

Indeed.

What I said (paraphrased): 'The main reason we have to build a whole new telecommunications network from scratch is because the Howard Government sold the one we already owned.'

What you said I said (paraphrased): 'Copper is good enough to do the job.'



So to be clear. You think it's not fair to blame the Government that sold our telecommunications infrastructure for having to rebuild it - or buy it back from the people who bought it - from scratch today ?

And you reckon I'm biased ?

Do you also think it's not fair to blame Keating's deregulation of the finance industry on the economy-destroying monster they've become today as well ? Why is it not fair to hold politicians responsible for the outcomes of their decisions, especially when everyone told them what those outcomes would be ?

Shhh Telstra-Bank-Foxtel shareholders not happy with your analysis.

 

[RooFlyer]

Indeed.

What I said (paraphrased): 'The main reason we have to build a whole new telecommunications network from scratch is because the Howard Government sold the one we already owned.'

What you said I said (paraphrased): 'Copper is good enough to do the job.'

<snip>.

Oh, for goodness sake.

Your obsession with 'copper' (and misrepresenting my argument to an absurd level ,) and its attendant evils makes a useful debate on the NBN all but impossible. The rest of us recognise the reality that the new network is a mix of technologies - optic fibre, FW, satellite, copper network - and we can debate whether that is preferable over a obsession for technological Rolls Royces and a bankrupting (near) universal optic fibre network.

How about this: No matter whether the Telstra network was sold to the public or not, it still needed upgrading. NBN Co is essentially a government organisation, so either government owned Telstra would have done the new network, or government owned NBN Co would have done the new network. Government or government.

<snip>
So to be clear. You think it's not fair to blame the Government that sold our telecommunications infrastructure for having to rebuild it - or buy it back from the people who bought it - from scratch today ?

And you reckon I'm biased ?

Do you also think it's not fair to blame Keating's deregulation of the finance industry on the (entirely predictable) economy-destroying monster it's become today as well ?

Privatisation of natural monopolies and critical infrastructure produces these kinds of outcomes. It's a rent-seeker's utopia.

I wouldn't describe your argument in terms of bias, but rather in terms of absurdity, sorry. As above - you appear to decry the selling off of Telstra because that means the government has to re build the network, without realising that if the government still owned Telstra, it would still be rebuilding it! And to reach back to the Howard government to assign blame for the current situation with the NBN (seemingly completely ignoring the way it was conceived and initially executed by the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments) is just silly. What about Fraser's abolition of the Post Master General's Department? That's where the rot set in. Disgraceful!! And don't get me going on the submarines again ...

Biased? No, that's not a term I'd use. But I do observe that a discussion on the NBN and the virtues of various technologies being employed has for you simply come down to a tirade against privatisation Vs the good old socialist philosophy of government ownership of assets and the evils of private enterprise. Nothing wrong with that ... good for you. Replace the rent-seeker's utopia with a worker's utopia. Lets sing together:

Debout, les damnés de la terre
Debout, les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la fin
Du passé faisons table rase
Foule esclave, debout, debout
Le monde va changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout

This message has been brought to you copper-free[SUP]TM[/SUP] , via my Fixed Wireless NBN service. Had the NBN not been progressed with mixed technologies, and had Howard :evil: not sold off Telstra, it would have come to you many times slower, via the (horrors!) Telstra copper network.

 

[drsmithy]

Oh, for goodness sake.

Your obsession with 'copper' (and misrepresenting my argument to an absurd level ,) and its attendant evils makes a useful debate on the NBN all but impossible. The rest of us recognise the reality that the new network is a mix of technologies - optic fibre, FW, satellite, copper network - and we can debate whether that is preferable over a obsession for technological Rolls Royces and a bankrupting (near) universal optic fibre network.

Nobody disagrees the NBN will use a mixture of wired and wireless connectivity.
The context of the discussion is FTTP vs FTTN for wired connectivity.

FTTP isn't a "Rolls Royce". It's buying a Holden Commodore station wagon rather than a Toyota Corolla sedan when you know you're going to be having kids in the next few years. FTTN is buying the Corolla sedan, then upgrading it to a Corolla hatchback when you can't fit the pram in the boot, then upgrading that to a Commodore wagon when you can't fit the second pram in the hatch.

How about this: No matter whether the Telstra network was sold to the public or not, it still needed upgrading. NBN Co is essentially a government organisation, so either government owned Telstra would have done the new network, or government owned NBN Co would have done the new network. Government or government.

Do you really think there is no difference between upgrading an existing asset you already own, and rebuilding that asset from scratch ? Seriously ?

I wouldn't describe your argument in terms of bias, but rather in terms of absurdity, sorry. As above - you appear to decry the selling off of Telstra because that means the government has to re build the network, without realising that if the government still owned Telstra, it would still be rebuilding it!

So, again, do you seriously think there is no different between upgrading something you already own and rebuilding it from scratch ?

And to reach back to the Howard government to assign blame for the current situation with the NBN (seemingly completely ignoring the way it was conceived and initially executed by the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments) is just silly.

Again with the straw man. I don't blame the Howard Government for the current dog's breakfast with the NBN, that was Abbot and Turnbull. I blame Howard for selling off the public infrastructure in the first place.

Biased? No, that's not a term I'd use. But I do observe that a discussion on the NBN and the virtues of various technologies being employed has for you simply come down to a tirade against privatisation Vs the good old socialist philosophy of government ownership of assets and the evils of private enterprise. Nothing wrong with that ... good for you. Replace the rent-seeker's utopia with a worker's utopia. Lets sing together:

<redacted> Off Topic

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
Do you really think there is no difference between upgrading an existing asset you already own, and rebuilding that asset from scratch ? Seriously ?

So, again, do you seriously think there is no different between upgrading something you already own and rebuilding it from scratch ?
<snip>.

Move the goal posts again . Now its become upgrading and rebuilding Vs government or non government ownership. Lets say the old copper network was still owned by the government. The NBN plan comes about. Would the government be 'upgrading' the old copper network, or re-building a new one from scratch?

Seriously , I can't see the point of your argument. Telstra was privatised. If it wasn't, the government (because of the size of the undertaking) would be establishing the NBN, perhaps though Telstra but most likely through a separate government entity. But it has been privatised, so the government (because of the size of the undertaking) is establishing the NBN through a separate government entity.

Seriously, it seems to me that either way the government establishes the NBN.

Seriously, if Telstra had remained in government hands, what do you think would have happened? Would the Rudd government acted any differently?

<snip>
Again with the straw man. I don't blame the Howard Government for the current dog's breakfast with the NBN, that was Abbot and Turnbull. I blame Howard for selling off the public infrastructure in the first place.<snip>.

I was wondering when Abbott would get a mention .

<redacted> Off Topic