NBN Discussion

[whatmeworry]

Motherhood statements. Surely the arguments for base political motives are now moot. In reality the actual expenditure cost for a government is irrelevant for a national infrastructure project that will benefit the country for many years to come. Surely the argument should be to build the best possible network and provide high speed services that will see the country in good stead for the next 20-30-50'years. But some (many, most) politicians think only of their superannuation and for two years rather than to build proper national infrastructure.

It makes no sense to build an inferior network then cruel it further by nor using the available bandwidth for high speeds just for some mythical future profit argument. Underutilising the network makes no sense, technically or economically.

Well the Parliamentarians do have $370 million in personal property holdings amongst themselves. For the majority to have any vision beyond their property portfolios is very small.

You have one wasting millions moving a government department to the bush, another on maternity leave whose local Toorak millionaire members want her out because of changes to super and the potential pork barrelling of the Northern Development Fund to the tune of a billion dollars for some dodgy coal mine.

The next election can't come quick enough to save what is left of the NBN rollout.

 

[Quickstatus]

The best way to get things done is to have a benevolent dictator in power.

But back to the topic:

I agree with the multi technology mix. Horses for courses. You don't build a sydney harbour bridge for every river crossing in the country. But neither do you build a one lane wooden bridge for a two lane road.

In my area I'm actually looking forward to Fixed wireless. FTTP would have been cost prohibitive in a area where the minimum land allocation is 5 acres.
Its a pity that FW is hobbled by the lack of available radio spectrum as most have been auctioned off.

 

[jb747]

I object wholeheartedly to them spending $60 billion or so, only to end up with a network that is capable of barely more than ADSL2. We need a law that ensures that all politicians, their businesses and homes, get special treatment, so that the maximum they are allowed, is equal to the minimum the rest of us have to put up with.

Mine is still zero.

 

[moa999]

I agree with the multi technology mix. .

I agree with most of it - HFC, FTTB and FTTC
FTTN lines over 500m are poor

 

[RB]

Back to no home phone today. A minor inconvenience compared to some but a royal pain in the butt not to have a reliable service you are paying for

 

[whatmeworry]

Looks like the ACCC can't break the standoff between NBN and Telstra.

Intervention by Australia's consumer watchdog has failed to break a stand-off between NBN, Telstra and retailers leaving homes without broadband for months.
Despite direction from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Telstra Wholesale has failed to assist retailers such as TPG in restoring ADSL copper services to homes left without broadband after NBN activation failures, as revealed by Fairfax Media investigations.

Broadband limbo remains as ACCC fails to break Telstra, NBN deadlock

 

[Quickstatus]

Its never been an ACCC issue. The Minister is running very fast away from NBN related bad news. This can be easily fixed, but requires all actors (including the Minister) to collectively own the problem

 

[KitKat]

Mine just keeps on dropping out.......have to reboot nearly every day now:evil:

 

[moa999]

What modem and tech KitKat?

Some of the RSP devices are like the iq3, ridiculously bad

 

[RAM]

But even with this expensive pricing the NBN is making a return of about low single digits in IRR terms (if not negative).
It's not commerical and if the govt ever sought to sell the sale price would be well under construction costs.

Our vast distances, low density (even in CBD areas), and high wages and strong OH&S practices (not that the latter two are a bad thing) mean constructing the network is a very expensive exercise.

And both sides of politics decided it should be off-budget, ie. Usage fees need to fund it.

The density argument is frankly not true for Australian cities.

For example the suburbs of Kingsford and Kensington in NSW have a higher density than London, Paris, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Munich, Berlin and 15 other major cities I pulled the data out for.

For too long people have mindlessly accepted what we're being told about density etc.

True - across the outback the density is 3/10ths of nothing but for comparison if you take the top 5 largest cities in Germany (pop'n > 81m) and 5 largest cities in Australia then 5 of the biggest by population are Australian.

For too long the propaganda put out by the property developers crowing for higher density high rise (with no on-site parking as NSW now permits) which equates to significantly higher profits (and mental health issues funnily enough) - has been mindlessly accepted by their political donees and inflicted on the wider community.

Compared to HK we are not super density but that is a very small island as is Singapore.

On an apples for apples comparison - things are very wrong in Australia - wrong for the public that is not the donors driving the policy agendas.

After all, for example, how could a company that has been found to have bribed Govt MPs and officials consistently over the last 24 years to win power or transportation projects be awarded the two largest transport contracts by the NSW Govt in 2014? Despite being found guilty and entering a no contest agreement on bribery with the US Dept of Justice earlier in the year and the Aust Fed Police (apparently) offered transcripts of 'conversations of interest to them'?

Does make life hard for honest souls trying to get a working phone or internet service...

 

[moa999]

For example the suburbs of Kingsford and Kensington in NSW have a higher density than London, Paris, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Munich, Berlin and 15 other major cities I pulled the data out for.

Pick two suburbs with high proportion of apartments. Potts Point (and I expect now Green Sq/Zetland and Haymarket) have the highest density.

Only a few small parts of Sydney are considered dense (>8000ppl/sqkm) - 21 square km versus London at 330 for example.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/01/13/population-density-is-sydney-an-outlier/

 

[RAM]

Pick two suburbs with high proportion of apartments. Potts Point (and I expect now Green Sq/Zetland and Haymarket) have the highest density.

Only a few small parts of Sydney are considered dense (>8000ppl/sqkm) - 21 square km versus London at 330 for example.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/01/13/population-density-is-sydney-an-outlier/

Firstly a couple of minor points - the maps shown in the Crikey article date back to the 2011 census. Since then Randwick LGA has approved (and mostly been built) over 13,000 new dwellings taking the number from around 65,000 to just below 80,000. At the 2011 census figures of approx 2.7 people per dwelling - you can see how much of an increase this is.

I quoted those two suburbs as the State Govt is proposing to more than triple the heights for tower blocks of units (with no on-site car parking to boot) despite the CSELR cutting public transport (and other road transport) capacity by around 10,000 passengers/hour into the city in the am peak hour.

The Greater Sydney Commission has officially stated that as the CSELR is INCREASING public transport capacity then increasing density even more is fine. Trouble is just as Gladys was revealed in the NSW Auditor General's report to have mislead Parliament and the Community over the cost blowout being due to increased capacity - the contract signed actually REDUCED the capacity from the earlier claimed potential.

I and another person took the evidence (TfNSW public documents) to the AG and caused the investigation.

Back to the comparison with London - The public transport capacity of London (underground heavy rail et al) is many times that of Sydney. Have a look at the London Cross Rail project which will have around 34 to 36 trains an hour operating and built platforms two cars longer than currently needed to allow for future capacity increases.

With suitable public transport, school capacity, hospital capacity, public open spaces etc etc increased density can be handled.

That is not what we have in Sydney.

Take a tube ride around London's suburbs and outer suburbs and you will see public park/playing fields constantly. The opposite is the case in Sydney. Schools from Sydney Harbour through to Botany Bay have been at or over capacity since before 2010, many have now banned children running in the playground due to the risk of knocking down other children. They have also banned soccer and rugby balls for similar risks.

Finally - according to the study in the news over the last few days - it appears that Randwick LGA did not add one 'affordable' dwelling despite the thousands of new high rise (up to 12 storey in some locations) tower blocks built supposedly for that very purpose. Or at least that is what the local Politicians (State and Council) used as the excuse for supporting them.

Nothing to do with the trail of donations from the property developers to all parties of course.

 

[ajw373]

I quoted those two suburbs as the State Govt is proposing to more than triple the heights for tower blocks of units (with no on-site car parking to boot) despite the CSELR cutting public transport (and other road transport) capacity by around 10,000 passengers/hour into the city in the am peak hour.

Totally irrelevant really. You have cherry picked a few inner city suburbs of high density and compared them to the whole of London and other cities.

Simple fact remains, yes some Sydney suburbs have very high density, yes more dense than the cities you mention, but the greater city and country as a whole, which is what is relevant to the NBN debate does not.

Anyone who has ever visited or lived in any of the cites you mention will know the comparison is hardly like for like.

Simple maths greater London has an area of 1562Km2 and a population of 8,665,000, or ~5545 people per square KM.

Sydney has an area of 12,367Km2 and a population of 4,605,992 for a total of ~372 per square KM.

So London is just under 15 times more dense.

Interestingly the whole of England has a population density of 413 per square KM, still more than suburban Sydney.

Though your cherry picking does highlight something. Some private companies want, or wanted to rollout their own systems to these high density suburbs, for the simple fact it was more economic to do so. Though fortunately NBN needs to consider the country as a whole, not just what makes the most fiscal sense.

 

[moa999]

TPG has already cherry picked with its apartment building FTTB networks, as have a few private fibre companies

 

[ajw373]

Indeed, what I really meant was that is why NBN was not given to business to build as they would cherry pick areas.

Telstra is another that has built fibre networks in high density regions too. Brisbane southbank area comes to mind.

 

[drsmithy]

Simple maths greater London has an area of 1562Km2 and a population of 8,665,000, or ~5545 people per square KM.

Sydney has an area of 12,367Km2 and a population of 4,605,992 for a total of ~372 per square KM.

That is not an apples to apples comparison. You are comparing the inner suburbs of London (up to about 22km from the centre - not even to Heathrow) to the greater Sydney area (out to Berowra/Penrith/Camden).

You should be using (at least) the London Metro area which is 8,382km^2 (and population, so ca. 13.9m).

(Still gives a substantially higher density of 1658/km^2.)

Sydney's population has also topped 5m I believe.

Australia is a very urbanised country. Something like 80% of the population live in less than a dozen cities. We may not have anything to compete in terms of pure density to the megacities like London, NY or Tokyo, but they are outliers so such a comparison is silly in the first place.

 

[ajw373]

That is not an apples to apples comparison. You are comparing the inner suburbs of London (up to about 22km from the centre - not even to Heathrow) to the greater Sydney area (out to Berowra/Penrith/Camden).

You should be using (at least) the London Metro area which is 8,382km^2 (and population, so ca. 13.9m).

(Still gives a substantially higher density of 1658/km^2.)

Sydney's population has also topped 5m I believe.

Australia is a very urbanised country. Something like 80% of the population live in less than a dozen cities. We may not have anything to compete in terms of pure density to the megacities like London, NY or Tokyo, but they are outliers so such a comparison is silly in the first place.

The figure I quoted was the greater London Authority area which does include Heathrow and the Sydney population figures believe were from 2012, but yeah higher now for sure.

As for comparisons if you are going to include the London commuter belt, then Sydney should also include up to Newcastle (or to at least Wyong) and down to Wollongong, west to Lithgow and south to Mittagong and the Southern Highlands. All that is part of the greater Sydney/ Sydney commuter belt too.

As for the orginal comparison, yeah maybe not apples to apples, maybe a granny smith to a gala instead. And you are right we are urbanised that's why I quoted a broad urban figure for Sydney with a broad urban area for London. Simple fact is London, even if you move the borders out is still significantly more than 10 times more dense that Sydney, and as mentioned the whole of England is still more dense that suburban Sydney.

 

[RAM]

Totally irrelevant really. You have cherry picked a few inner city suburbs of high density and compared them to the whole of London and other cities.

Simple fact remains, yes some Sydney suburbs have very high density, yes more dense than the cities you mention, but the greater city and country as a whole, which is what is relevant to the NBN debate does not.

When someone's example does not prove your point it is cherry picking is it?

The example I provided was to point out (in conjunction with my earlier posts) that what info is being force-fed to the community about 'not economic' and 'need to increase density' and 'affordable housing requires high rise rezonings' etc etc - do not stand up to examination.

I talked about the two suburbs adjacent to me - as I know them well and have witnessed the State Govt and RCC as well as the Greater Sydney Commission blatantly lying to the Parliament and wider community.

Just as much about the NBN does not match reality (and never will) - the point is the claim that we need greater density is normally followed by requests from the normal donor developers to rezone areas that are already high density by all but China/HK/Singaporean standards.

You chose to pick apart the comparison with London but what about the other major cities I previously mentioned like Munich, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berlin, Paris etc etc.

They have significantly LOWER density than London or Kingsford or Kensington.

Why did you choose to cherry pick vs London and not San Francisco or Paris?

Why indeed?

What about Germany as a whole then? Significantly higher population but spread out in many cities. Add 5 largest German and 5 largest Australian cities and Australian cities make 5 of 6 largest.

 

[ajw373]

When someone's example does not prove your point it is cherry picking is it?

Ditto

The example I provided was to point out (in conjunction with my earlier posts) that what info is being force-fed to the community about 'not economic' and 'need to increase density' and 'affordable housing requires high rise rezonings' etc etc - do not stand up to examination.

You compared a couple of higher density suburbs to an entire city. Yes it is economic in the higher density areas, and in lower density areas less economic.

Australian cities, and forgetting the country towns here for a moment, are by world wide standards low density, so yes the argument that it costs more to do it here is a 100% true statement. Which if I am not mistaken is what you were trying to say was false, and then proceeded to use the example of a couple of higher density suburbs to prove that point.

Oh and it seems you have some issue with housing density, and political donors etc. Whilst not going to disagree in principle, that is not really relevant to the discussion of NBN cost. Were are trying to compare an actual density, weather right or wrong, not argue if we should have that, a higher or lower density. Though it is a fact that lower density does cost more to build and support on many many fronts, including the provision of telecommunications.

 

[drsmithy]

Oh and it seems you have some issue with housing density, and political donors etc. Whilst not going to disagree in principle, that is not really relevant to the discussion of NBN cost. Were are trying to compare an actual density, weather right or wrong, not argue if we should have that, a higher or lower density. Though it is a fact that lower density does cost more to build and support on many many fronts, including the provision of telecommunications.

It is worth noting that Australia has a much denser population now than it did the last time we rolled out nationwide communications infrastructure.