Whirlpool

Thinking from different angles, what's wrong with the current NBN plan? Those who don't like the NBN can post here. There seem to be a lot of NBN Pro threads.

If you think you have a new angle, put it in quotes at the top of your post, and i'll edit this original post to collect them all. Each of the angles can also be debated.

Don't get me wrong, faster internet isn't bad and fiber is a great technology, but let's do it right.

Reasons (not in priority order):
1. High projected monthly subscription cost (strong)
2. Australia is not behind the rest of the world (strong)
3. The private sector will easily compete taking needed market (strong)
3. The project is not "Nation Building" (strong)
4. Most productive tasks use a small amount of bandwidth (medium)
5. Not mobile (medium)
6. Does not provide equal access to rural users (strong)
7. Untimely – in 8 years public construction may be inflationary (weak)
8. There are other more affordable technologies (medium)
9. The private sector can build it over longer time for cheaper (medium)

Alternatives:
1. LTE (Strong)
2. WiMAX (Medium-Strong)
3. FTTN (Strong)
4. Use of alternative for short term needs, allowing long term rollout of FTTP by private companies (Strong)
5. New Technologies (Medium)

Think of it this way:
- Australia isn't a big enough market – stop trying to compare us to the rest of the world.
- We can't afford FTTP – It would cost $200 / month per premises [http://www.commsday.com/node/325]
- Therefore another direction should be pursued
- All of the other arguments strengthen the need to pursue another direction

We already have Wireless and ADSL, why do we need to short/medium step to LTE and Wimax as well as FTTN ?

Because we don't.

MicroNinja writes...

We already have Wireless and ADSL, why do we need to short/medium step to LTE and Wimax as well as FTTN ?

Because it's a cheaper more responsible approach.
EG. Install LTE "gigabit" today for $3bn, meaning subscription costs are <$50 / month. For the future: Roll out FTTP over longer timeframe which is cheaper – eg. install fiber and conduit as council works are done on piping etc.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Because it's a cheaper more responsible approach.

Being cheap doesn't necessarily mean better results.

For the future: Roll out FTTP over longer timeframe which is cheaper – eg. install fiber and conduit as council works are done on piping etc.

And can also cost alot more – since being on a longer time frame, you also loose alot more revenue.

If you don't like it, just don't use it~~simple!!

Merari Schroeder writes...

2. Australia is not behind the rest of the world (strong)

Hello!? Compared to other western nations, Australian prices are extraordinarily high and our speeds are mind-numblingly slow. If that's not "behind", what is?

Merari Schroeder writes...

2. Australia is not behind the rest of the world (strong)

Even if we weren't (which is hilariously wrong), what is wrong with being the best?

I assume you're not a "If you're going to do a job, do it well" kind of person. I guess you're more of a "I'll do the bare minimum and nothing more".

We have the worst infrastructure in the western world, barely beating 1 or 2 3rd world countries.

Even when I was in South Africa I had access to fibre.

Reasons (not in priority order):
1. High projected monthly subscription cost (strong)

You can't say this for sure since the media is just speculating, not that there's anything wrong with speculation but I seriously doubt it would be anything like $200 a month.

2. Australia is not behind the rest of the world (strong)

Nope, we are way behind other developed countries. It's expensive, slow and the data caps are tiny compared to countries like America and Europe (it's not our international cables are being used anywhere near their full capacity). Refer to my handy dandy broadband chart to see where Australia stands:

http://img44.imageshack.us/i/averagebroadbandspeedby.jpg/

3. The private sector will easily compete taking needed market (strong)

I don't completed understand this comment but aren't we building the NBN because the private sector has failed as far as telecommunications go?

3. The project is not "Nation Building" (strong)

During the build will give people jobs which are sorely needed in the current crisis, and not only that it will change everyone's lives, e.g. medical and educational benefits.

4. Most productive tasks use a small amount of bandwidth (medium)

The internet is also media intensive compare to what it was say ten years ago. People can buy there movies and music online now as well stream data.

5. Not mobile (medium)

It could be, it's not that much more effort to add in wireless towers as well and there is demand for mobile broadband.

8. There are other more affordable technologies (medium)

Yes, but we don't want to do this again in five years time and none of them seem to be able to provide all the benefits we could get over the NBN once it's built.

9. The private sector can build it over longer time for cheaper (medium)

I don't believe they can and they probably don't want to since it's a huge investment.

Wireless is great and all but it shouldn't be the main and only technology used. If anything it should be fibre mainly used, supplemented by wireless and satellite where fibre would be too costly.

Merari Schroeder writes...

what's wrong with the current NBN plan?

Would be better if money came from private sector right now, not later when government plans to sell it.

MicroNinja writes...

Being cheap doesn't necessarily mean better results.

You're right – but there are technologies which can come close. You get 80% of the results for 20% of the price

And can also cost alot more – since being on a longer time frame, you also loose alot more revenue.

That's not right. If buying a $43b network means that "everyone" has to pay $200 on average to work, which won't happen – then the NBN is going to "lose more revenue"

simonxu11 writes...

If you don't like it, just don't use it~~simple!!

Well if it's going to cost $200 / month on average, they project that it could go up to $300 / month if some people "just don't use it".

Sankari writes...

Hello!? Compared to other western nations, Australian prices are extraordinarily high and our speeds are mind-numblingly slow. If that's not "behind", what is?

Who told you that? Do you just believe what the gov. says by default?

Have a look at this, we're not behind:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25770/1231/1/1/

And as for the prices – it all has to do with the size of the Market. In the U.S. a 10Gbps fibre can be layed down and have millions of people sharing it. In Australia, a 10Gbps fibre can be layed down and have only thousands of people sharing it. Australia is sparsely populated, it's one of the reasons many australian entrepenurs start selling with selling a product in the US, where there is a bigger market.

We have to look for more cost effective alternatives – we have no choice. Australia doesn't have the buying power.

umop 3pisdn writes...

Even if we weren't (which is hilariously wrong), what is wrong with being the best?

Australia can't afford it – don't have a big enough market.

I assume you're not a "If you're going to do a job, do it well" kind of person. I guess you're more of a "I'll do the bare minimum and nothing more".

No I'm a choose a solution that we can afford – that will work.

We have the worst infrastructure in the western world, barely beating 1 or 2 3rd world countries.

Where do you get this information from? Not this article I think: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25770/1231/1/1/

Even when I was in South Africa I had access to fibre.

How much was that access?? $30 / month? What was the minimum cost and at what speed?

Merari Schroeder writes...

Australia can't afford it

You keep saying that, but evidence says otherwise.

Final Fantasy Fanatic writes...

You can't say this for sure since the media is just speculating, not that there's anything wrong with speculation but I seriously doubt it would be anything like $200 a month.

I actually did my own calculations with a very generous interest/coupon rate of 2.5% – at the moment bond have a coupon of around 5% and with private investors they expect commercial rates of return – >5% – 10%. I found it would be about $100 / month.

But then the pros say it will be more:
http://www.commsday.com/node/325

Nope, we are way behind other developed countries. It's expensive, slow and the data caps are tiny compared to countries like America and Europe (it's not our international cables are being used anywhere near their full capacity). Refer to my handy dandy broadband chart to see where Australia stands:

According to a very real source, we are ahead:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25770/1231/1/1/

I don't completed understand this comment but aren't we building the NBN because the private sector has failed as far as telecommunications go?

That's right – i'm not against an NBN. It would be great to push the industry forward – but no one wants to pay $200 / month

During the build will give people jobs which are sorely needed in the current crisis, and not only that it will change everyone's lives, e.g. medical and educational benefits.

The project will go for 8 years, at the end when the GFC is recovered such projects will be inflationary. Any other alternative will also provide the same amount of work and the saved money can be spend on "real" infrastructure like solar thermal energy and water.

The internet is also media intensive compare to what it was say ten years ago. People can buy there movies and music online now as well stream data.

Yer, so? You can still do the most productive work with low bandwidth – email, IM, VoIP. The higher bandwidth applications like HD Video are not productive, they're a luxury. An NBN is not "Nation Building"

It could be, it's not that much more effort to add in wireless towers as well and there is demand for mobile broadband.

Ok, so the NBN is created, and everyone moves to wireless internet and doesn't use the FTTP connections. So now who's paying off the $43b loan? Yes the wireless may use some NBN infrastructure, but they certainly won't pay if the gov. wants them to subsidise the unused FTTP system.

Yes, but we don't want to do this again in five years time and none of them seem to be able to provide all the benefits we could get over the NBN once it's built.

You don't seem to get that we can't afford the NBN. No one will pay $200 / month! We have no choice but to use a "lesser" system, because Australia doesn't have the buying power.

I don't believe they can and they probably don't want to since it's a huge investment.

Naturally this would not happen as quick as with the NBN plan because that's unaffordable. Companies such as telstra have been building up over years. Companies such as Soul Australia, PIPE and others put in their own infrastructure to compete with Telstra. They don't put in new technologies until it's financially feasible.

Wireless is great and all but it shouldn't be the main and only technology used. If anything it should be fibre mainly used, supplemented by wireless and satellite where fibre would be too costly.

You're right – it would be great – but the reality is that if you spread out the cost of the NBN, every Australian premises will need to pay $200 / month.

Merari Schroeder writes...

but no one wants to pay $200 / month

It is nothing but speculation.

MicroNinja writes...

It is nothing but speculation.

What are you talking about? Concept Economics don't speculate, they crunched the numbers for Communications Day.

http://www.commsday.com/node/325

Stop trying to hide from the truth. You can get a calculator out, plugin the $43b capital, with 5% interest over a 30 year term plus maintenence and wages, spread over 60% of Australia's properties (60% of homes are connected according to Buero of Stats), and wallah you have an undeniable truth. But how much more concrete are Concept Economics figures? They're professionals in ... Economics.

Merari Schroeder writes...

What are you talking about? Concept Economics don't speculate, they crunched the numbers for Communications Day.

The whole CommsDay scenario has been delt with by people in the NBN threads of the past by the looks of it.

But how much more concrete are Concept Economics figures?

What's it to say that your idea won't be an increase to the current prices?

CommsDay is the last place I'd visit to get proof needed.

It's the reason why I don't trust Game reviewers anymore.

Merari Schroeder writes...

I actually did my own calculations

Please refer to .... /forum-replies.cfm?t=1204809&r=19358305#r19358305

But then the pros say it will be more:
http://www.commsday.com/node/325
As MicroNinja notes, this was discussed earlier in another thread (part of the problem of creating what is essentially a duplicate thread.) But I can understand your use of the guesstimates – they support your position. However I suggest you look to Commsday's general stance and the affiliations of Ergas, and recognize that Concept Economics' calculations are the equivalent of 'back of the envelope' calcs.
(And note that Lynch is not a 'pro' in the telecommunications industry sense of the word. He is an industry commentator/reporter not adverse to pushing his own opinions and agenda.)

According to a very real source, we are ahead:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25770/1231/1/1/
Cool. We can sit back and relax seeing as how we are so far in front. After all, none of the other countries are improving their networks, are they?

such projects will be inflationary.
Considering you classed that problem as 'weak' it's hardly worth responding to. Though I suspect your classification was made more on the basis of impact than validity. Mind you, your knowledge of the economic climate in 8 years time impresses me. I also note you advocate spending the money on other projects. Won't that also be 'inflationary'?

An NBN is not "Nation Building"
Of course not. And neither was the copper network. I mean, they had the telegraph and Cobb & Co coaches.

Ok, so the NBN is created, and everyone moves to wireless internet
Wow. So every installer of Fttp around the world is going to go broke in 8 years because everyone will move to the 'you beaut' mobile network and the NBN won't be used much. Lol. (Discusssed 'ad infinitum' in another thread)

You don't seem to get that we can't afford the NBN. No one will pay $200 / month!
Ah the old back of the envelope calcs again.

Naturally this would not happen as quick .... until it's financially feasible.
Ooooh but it might become so in 30 yrs time. And of course business is concerned with indirect benefits to the country as a whole, isn't it?

....but the reality is that if you spread out the cost of the NBN, every Australian premises will need to pay $200 / month.
....but the reality is....my claim is .... Fixed.

Ooops – envelopes again. In which case I refer you to this post again. /forum-replies.cfm?t=1204809&r=19358305#r19358305

That's it for me in this thread. Bye.

The best thing about the NBN is that Telstra won't be controlling it.

Worse thing is government control of the NBN – ie they can attach and stipulate requirements at will that we will have no control over. Filter anyone?

my conspiracy theory for the day :P

mordie writes...

Worse thing is government control of the NBN – ie they can attach and stipulate requirements at will that we will have no control over. Filter anyone?

They maybe able to do that, but don't forget The greens and independents have power. And atm neither of them like ISP Filtering.

Merari Schroeder writes...

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25770/1231/1/1/

WRONG! – This article is talking about broadband uptake, yes 72% of people may be subscribed to broadband services, but the very definition of broadband is very loose, ie 256k ADSL is classified as broadband simply because its not dialup but deep dowm we all know 256k is narrowband.... Sorry

Sporlan writes...

The best thing about the NBN is that Telstra won't be controlling it.

This is true – a good thing about an NBN is it can break telstra's monopoly. But they also have the best (albeit most expensive to subscribe to) mobile network. Of course Vodafone and 3 just joined forces to compete against that.

MicroNinja writes...

The whole CommsDay scenario has been delt with by people in the NBN threads of the past by the looks of it.

You'd like to think so.

What's it to say that your idea won't be an increase to the current prices?

What idea? In this thread I list a few. But to put it simply, a smaller capital outlay equals a smaller subscription fee. So $13b / household premises =.... ~$30 / month.

CommsDay is the last place I'd visit to get proof needed.

What? You mustn't understand the numbers behind it. A high school student could do the calculations. The fact is you don't need a super computer and months of modelling to see that $43b / household premises =..... >$100 / month.

The Economics company do have experience with communication industry economics. They could have had no experience and still worked it out, because we are only talking about the economical problem – numbers. $43bn goes in, how does it come back (with interest) – simple. But of course as an economics company they also did the research behind it, looking at current international prices (of course they adjusted that to the Australian currency) and similar government led projects and their costings.

Tailgator writes...

Please refer to .... /forum-replies.cfm?t=1204809&r=19358305#r19358305

Cute

As MicroNinja notes, this was discussed earlier in another thread (part of the problem of creating what is essentially a duplicate thread.) But I can understand your use of the guesstimates – they support your position. However I suggest you look to Commsday's general stance and the affiliations of Ergas, and recognize that Concept Economics' calculations are the equivalent of 'back of the envelope' calcs.

What? Regardless of your accusations – the numbers don't lie.You mustn't understand the numbers behind it. A high school student could do the calculations. The fact is you don't need a super computer and months of modelling to see that $43b / household premises =..... >$100 / month.

The Economics company do have experience with communication industry economics. They could have had no experience and still worked it out, because we are only talking about the economical problem – numbers. $43bn goes in, how does it come back (with interest) – simple. But of course as an economics company they also did the research behind it, looking at current international prices (of course they adjusted that to the Australian currency) and similar government led projects and their costings.

Cool. We can sit back and relax seeing as how we are so far in front. After all, none of the other countries are improving their networks, are they?

I never said that, the private sector got us there without government intervention, do you think they'll stop competing and driving the industry forward? Also I never said we should or shouldn't abondon an NBN, more affordable alternatives exist, which the average Australian would be able to afford (<$200 / month)

Considering you classed that problem as 'weak' it's hardly worth responding to. Though I suspect your classification was made more on the basis of impact than validity. Mind you, your knowledge of the economic climate in 8 years time impresses me. I also note you advocate spending the money on other projects. Won't that also be 'inflationary'?

Other projects such as a solar thermal power plant would be built quicker, they would "support" the primary and secondary industries directly – aka. truely nation building.

Water projects, such as those which provide more water which we "NEED" for farmers, would also be shorter term projects and support primary and secondary industries directly – aka. truely nation building.

Of course not. And neither was the copper network. I mean, they had the telegraph and Cobb & Co coaches.

Don't try and say that a fibre NBN is nation building. If we could get 10Mbps off a telegraph line today we wouldn't have upgraded to a copper POTS network. But again there are many alternatives out there that won't cost $43bn dollars and every Australian can afford the monthly costs.

Wow. So every installer of Fttp around the world is going to go broke in 8 years because everyone will move to the 'you beaut' mobile network and the NBN won't be used much. Lol. (Discusssed 'ad infinitum' in another thread)

No – don't compare Australia to the rest of the world. We are a sparsely populated island. The reason why we don't have trains running everywhere every 3 mins like Singapore is because we're sparesely populated, not enough market. Also communication market conditions are different, they don't have a Telstra monopoly and the overpriced ducts access and other complications.

Ooops – envelopes again. In which case I refer you to this post again. /forum-replies.cfm?t=1204809&r=19358305#r19358305

Well you can refer to the start of this post again. Numbers don't lie – why don't you argue something about the numbers? Or don't you understand them? You saw the $200 figure, thought – I don't know how I can reduce that and then just lazily threw up the "back of the envelope" cliche.

The calculations aren't that difficult to accomplish. In fact you can probably do them on the back of an envelope, if you write small you can fit all the numbers of the ridiculously high price tag of $43bn.

ph00ns writes...

WRONG! – This article is talking about broadband uptake, yes 72% of people may be subscribed to broadband services, but the very definition of broadband is very loose, ie 256k ADSL is classified as broadband simply because its not dialup but deep dowm we all know 256k is narrowband.... Sorry

How many plans are available in 256k download these days? And ADSL2+ is cheaper than ADSL these days. Maybe 2% of that 72% have a 256k speed because they haven't swapped ISPs yet. The fact is that the service is there and people are using it.

I do say that we are behind some countries in internet cost, but that's because we're more sparsely populated. But puting in an NBN that will cost >$100 / month on average (that's right that's not the – most expensive plan) will not fix that problem. We need a solution which fits the unique case of Australia, which is affordable and one that is not rammed down with spin of "nation building" and a catchup to the rest of the world.

MicroNinja writes...

And atm neither of them like ISP Filtering.

Dont blame them no point having a sooper doooper internet if its going to be stuffed up by a crappy censorship eer filter in place.

Merari Schroeder writes...

fact is you don't need a super computer and months of modelling to see that $43b / household premises =..... >$100 / month.

Yeah but this calculation is useless, the NBN won't only be servicing home users and it won't only be providing internet access.

Merari Schroeder writes...

How many plans are available in 256k download these days? And ADSL2+ is cheaper than ADSL these days. Maybe 2% of that 72% have a 256k speed because they haven't swapped ISPs yet. The fact is that the service is there and people are using it.

How many users will be on current Wireless before moving onto the more expensive Wireless options such as LTE?

Same problem will happen.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Roll out FTTP over longer timeframe which is cheaper – eg. install fiber and conduit as council works are done on piping etc.

Totally impractical. Councils don't touch the conduits that Telstra owns. Councils fix roads – that's about it. They just redid the road out the front of my house. They resealed perhaps 100m worth of road.
You can't just connect up houses haphazardly to a fibre network. It needs to be done in an ordered fashion, with entire streets/suburbs being connected.

Merari Schroeder writes...

- We can't afford FTTP – It would cost $200 / month per premises [http://www.commsday.com/node/325]

sorry for being slow but this is a return on investment asap. if its government owned it should be non profit.

Mr1979 writes...

Dont blame them no point having a sooper doooper internet if its going to be stuffed up by a crappy censorship eer filter in place.

Yer – reckon filtering should be something a responsible parent does on their home computers. And that way the filtering load is "distributed" and cannot be centrally controlled.

In order to stop kids circumventing the filtering, it should be incorporated in internet routers which probably only 10kids in Australia would be able to crack.

Merari Schroeder writes...

What are you talking about? Concept Economics don't speculate, they crunched the numbers for Communications Day.

Let's have just a brief qualification look here then:

Number cruncher: Hernry Ergas?
Henry Ergas: Liberal Party sponsor, supporter, financial contributor...
Henry Ergas objectivity on a Labor Party project that could keep his party out of power for a decade: Somewhere between Tony Abbotts rear cheek set and Mal Turnbulls understanding of email due diligence...

I suggest you look at various large carrier/telco projects of this size over the last 15 years, their financial models and their market penetration models...

They will typically take an 8-15 year, if not longer, amortization planning, based on an extensible financing model and the total projected life span of the infrastructure, which based on the previous copper will be 25-30 years...

Then apply the interest rates they get for these levels of government backed funding. (low...)

Their pricing model will be based on market acquisition targets aligned with the primary, secondary and tertiarty revenue streams. Ergas ignored these factors, amazingly.

Their pricing will be based on multi-play product sets, Ergas ignored this aspect, amazingly... Taking the multiplay of phone, internet & pay-tv alone, just how many australians already happily pay out well over $200 pcm?

You need to understand how economics in modern telecoms and carriers actually works, the product sets they bring to market with the infrastructure, and.... he has assumed that it will be $43billion in capital...

If that model had any more market reality holes in it , Swiss cheese would be embarrassed...

Now, get all the facts onto this thread on what comparison services he has quoted, the market dvelopments at the time of those comparisons, spread the whole model comparisons over the various NBNco equity comptutations, calculate the funding requirements using a similar financial model across all of these scenarios to say, Verizon or a Deutsche Telecom as a good example, and you might get close to the 500 to 1000 pages of financial and economic analysis that a professional economics company would develop for a project of this size...

You first of all need to seriously ask yourself: What were they trying to achieve with their analysis and where are their alleigences...??

also the alternative technologies has it limitations FTTH has room to expand the current record for single strand transmission is 25.6 TB/s not GB/s... TB/s... below is the link

http://news.soft32.com/256-tbs-world-record-of-optical-transmission_3817.html

this maybe not able to happen for us if we have different fibre strands etc but yeah.

Merari Schroeder writes...

$43b / household premises =..... >$100 / month.

Sorry if this has been dealt with earlier/in a link I've missed/in another thread (the NBN ones are getting very long) – are there any numbers around that that factor in business/high capacity usage (eg health services for remote telemedicine?). The NBN is supposed to reach 90% of homes + schools + workplaces so it's not just households that are supposed to be paying for it. Wouldn't commercial & high-capacity users pay more?

I was saying about the high monthly cost...

Linkusmax writes...

Yeah but this calculation is useless, the NBN won't only be servicing home users and it won't only be providing internet access.

Well it technically will only be providing internet access with other services layered on top, but that's just a technicallity.

That's right the price is an average cost. But who will be paying higher than the average? Domestic or business users? Lets see...

- HD Video content is going to be mostly used by domestic users (25Mbps per stream)
- Businesses will use video streams, such as for:
– Instructional content (HD not needed – you don't need to see the time on a persons watch and if you do the camera zooms in)
– Video conference (Do you need to see the CEOs zit in HD quality?)
– Not as frequent as people going home and watching the TV for 2+ hours a night on average
- Large backup file transfers between offices – doesn't need fast internet, can occur over 12 hours – and off peak.
- Power grid monitoring – low bandwidth
- Internet enabled service meters – very low bandwidth and using the residents internet connection, unless you think they'll run a fiber to your water meter.
- SLA for business? Not needed. FTTP would be very reliable for everyone, will the government bug it on purpose? Don't think so.

So in all when you consider a user pays scheme, domestic users will be the hardest hit probably paying more than business users. And there doesn't seem to be a way to value add for business which will make them balance the scales!

Do we need this thread? It's just going over the same stuff the main thread has for months

Also Merari don't ignore stuff you don't like and get the whole picture not what you just like.

MicroNinja writes...

How many users will be on current Wireless before moving onto the more expensive Wireless options such as LTE?

I'd hardly call $30 / month more expensive.

Same problem will happen.

No a cheaper alternative such as LTE (there are others) doesn't carry the $33bn risk of FTTP. Plus the $3bn last mile infrastructure can be funded purely by bonds – meaning that no dividends need to be paid to 49% stake shareholders.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Well it technically will only be providing internet access with other services layered on top, but that's just a technicallity.

What do you mean by this???

1 cable coming into your home then you can have Net access, also using the same cable you could have a TV service which isn't IPTV over your net connection, same goes with voice.

So all these services could be provided by different companies.

I was talking about FTTP rollout over longer time....

one writes...

Totally impractical. Councils don't touch the conduits that Telstra owns. Councils fix roads – that's about it. They just redid the road out the front of my house. They resealed perhaps 100m worth of road.

There are already councils – I heard of at least one in QLD – which are already doing this. They mandate that all utilities providers must allow the council to put in ducts when the ground is open, bridges/tunnels are built, etc.. That way comms. infrastructure providers, utilities providers etc. can rent the ducts of the council.

You can't just connect up houses haphazardly to a fibre network. It needs to be done in an ordered fashion, with entire streets/suburbs being connected.

That's right – i'm talking about installing ducts, and when say 80% are done, you spend a little more to fill in the gaps. Then the complete duct system is installed over say 8-16 years for 20% of the cost. Utilities providers come in and benefit and so do the customers who aren't paying the higher duct overheads.

If simple maths is required, here's my "back of the envelope calculation"...

$43 billion divided by 10 million premises (8 million homes, 2 million businesses, numbers from The Age http://business.theage.com.au/business/a-lot-is-riding-on-how-we-choose-to-take-our-fibre-20090702-d6mr.html?page=-1)
$43,000,000,000 / 10,000,000 = $4300/premises upfront..
(I'd be happy to fork that out today to get off ADSL1 which is the only service I can get on a RIM in inner-suburban Adelaide!)

Including interest.. using an excel spreadsheet I set up for my mortgage. Fortnightly repayments, 7.4% interest, 30 year term, interest calculated daily. Total repayments (including the principle) over 30 years would be $107,128,076,636 (~$107 billion, 2.5 times the Principle)

So per premises = $107 billion/10,000,000 premises = $10,700/premises
Per year = $356/year/premises (that's $1/day)
Per month = $30/month/premises

(That figure does not factor higher charges for businesses as they currently pay for POTS.)

Add maintenance costs of $5/month (overestimate pulled from the air)
$35/month/premises

Add profit (14%)
$40/month

And we're at a figure just above what most people pay for POTS service... ($30-35/month)

Add Data at the current retail rate of ~$1/Gb (based on $/Gb for added data to current plans)

CommsDay's $200/month figure gets you 160Gb data at 100Mbps
Not too bad!

Of course using those same numbers, you could get 10Gb (like I currently get) for $50 (I currently pay $65!)

(assumes 100% takeup, which the cost of the network will be, since it's taxpayer funded. Doesn't factor inflation over 30 years... ie cost will be less than my calculations)

Where are the flaws in my calculations? What assumptions are well off the mark?

Merari Schroeder writes...

I'd hardly call $30 / month more expensive.

$30 more ontop of what already costs ~$50 bucks + mb/gb excess fee's.

This doesn't even include data charges.

meaning that no dividends need to be paid to 49% stake shareholders.

And thats why you won't see it happen.

Simply no investment from the private sector because everyone wants to be part of it even cash wise. So even if the Government has said they will fork out the entire thing if it has to.

mordie writes...

Worse thing is government control of the NBN – ie they can attach and stipulate requirements at will that we will have no control over.

Yeah, give it to someone fair, equitable and open to public sentiment, like Telstra!

Companies like Telstra never attach and stipulate requirements at will that we will have no control over...

I was talking about the high monthly cost.... and the comms day article which explains it....

Yoshi900 writes...

sorry for being slow but this is a return on investment asap. if its government owned it should be non profit.

Yer it should be government owned – 100%, because then it's about quality of service and not profit, but...

There will be a 49% private stake in the network – and they're already finding it hard to get investors in on it (likely because they don't think their customers will pay $200 / month). If they do get the private investment, those investors will be seeking market rate returns/dividends. The rest is payed for by Treasury Bonds which are selling with a >5% coupon at the moment. That's the problem.

If the loan was $13bn instead of $33bn, then the private equity wouldn't be needed and the monthly fees reduced yet further (beyond the fact that the loan is cheaper).

With Optus wanting to put the NBN to work, they think it will give the NBN a kick start, thus reducing the costs anyway and possibly a customer base.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200907/s2615533.htm

MAHA KRISHNAPILLAI: Absolutely. We think we can kick-start the NBN network to about 25 per cent of the Australian population by converting our pay-TV HFC network, which is a hybrid fibre co-axe network, into a fibre-to-the-premises network. That'll give a big start to the NBN – it'll be a much cheaper and more effective way to do it. But there are of course many ways you can do that. There are a number of other players who we're sure the Government will want to talk to.

MicroNinja writes...

$30 more ontop of what already costs ~$50 bucks + mb/gb excess fee's.

You already pay POTS line rental right??
and you pay an ISP service fee for them to pay Telstra to have their DSLAM in an exchange and to maintain the DSLAMS..

FTTP would replace those costs...

No company will do it cause they can't force a 100% transition like a government can.

Synaptic Cleft writes...

Would be better if money came from private sector right now, not later when government plans to sell it.

No! Because the private sector have shown over and over again that they are not interested in greenfields development, with the notable exception of the Mining Industry. The private sector have repeatedly shown that even in the best of times, they are dependent on Govt handouts and subsidies and in the worst of times (read your daily papers) they either cannot manage on their own or are in a state of near constant collapse.

Argue to the above all you like but look at the subsidies we have provided Ford and GMH ever since they started up for example. Or the legislative backing we have provided to the Airline industry since they started for example.

I was talking about the costings mentioned in CommsDay...

SecurityGuy writes...

Let's have just a brief qualification look here then:

Number cruncher: Hernry Ergas?
Henry Ergas: Liberal Party sponsor, supporter, financial contributor...
Henry Ergas objectivity on a Labor Party project that could keep his party out of power for a decade: Somewhere between Tony Abbotts rear cheek set and Mal Turnbulls understanding of email due diligence...

Regardless of the background of the "number cruncher", talk about the numbers, what did they get wrong?

I suggest you look at various large carrier/telco projects of this size over the last 15 years, their financial models and their market penetration models...

They will typically take an 8-15 year, if not longer, amortization planning, based on an extensible financing model and the total projected life span of the infrastructure, which based on the previous copper will be 25-30 years...

Ok well the true market penetration models will be a lot less optimistic about 100% NBN penetration which the initial costings provide.

Then apply the interest rates they get for these levels of government backed funding. (low...)

Actually Treasury Bonds are quite high at the moment, >5%. On 774 an analyst said this was due to an oversupply of debt in the bond market – aka. lots of governments around the world splurging on debt. The analyst projected that such a rate will go higher than the mortgage rate, and has done in the past.

Their pricing model will be based on market acquisition targets aligned with the primary, secondary and tertiarty revenue streams. Ergas ignored these factors, amazingly.

I don't understand this. But, I will say that domestic users will be using the most bandwidth for HD video content delivery.

Their pricing will be based on multi-play product sets, Ergas ignored this aspect, amazingly... Taking the multiplay of phone, internet & pay-tv alone, just how many australians already happily pay out well over $200 pcm?

The $200 per month figure is an average. If those, like me, who don't have pay tv and use their mobile phone for communication want to pay $50 for a shaped and limited internet connection, then someone else has to pay the $150 that I didn't pay!

You need to understand how economics in modern telecoms and carriers actually works, the product sets they bring to market with the infrastructure, and.... he has assumed that it will be $43billion in capital...

He didn't assume it, he listened to what the government said would happen. Treasury Bonds and 49% private equity.

If that model had any more market reality holes in it , Swiss cheese would be embarrassed...

I just plugged those tiny holes.

Now, get all the facts onto this thread on what comparison services he has quoted, the market dvelopments at the time of those comparisons, spread the whole model comparisons over the various NBNco equity comptutations, calculate the funding requirements using a similar financial model across all of these scenarios to say, Verizon or a Deutsche Telecom as a good example, and you might get close to the 500 to 1000 pages of financial and economic analysis that a professional economics company would develop for a project of this size...

You first of all need to seriously ask yourself: What were they trying to achieve with their analysis and where are their alleigences...??

You can use Verizon et al., as guides but Australia is more sparsely populated than the US and there is an overall smaller market. Also there is a $43bn price tag going to 20 million people, whereas in the US a similar network can be rolled out and goes to 200 million people. The more thorough analysis may change the outcome of the result my say 5-10%, but most likely up, and even if it's down, $180 / month is still too much.

ESEMCE writes...

You already pay POTS line rental right??

Not everyone.

Naked DSL users anyone?

You pay a fee, but it's not a line rental fee.

and you pay an ISP service fee for them to pay Telstra to have their DSLAM in an exchange and to maintain the DSLAMS..

We're talking Wireless connection, not a DSL connection here

Merari Schroeder writes...

and even if it's down, $180 / month is still too much.

It won't be that much.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Australia can't afford it

MicroNinja writes...

You keep saying that, but evidence says otherwise.

Possibly, but we afford even less not to have it!

What doesn't seem to dawn on most people who post arguments to these fora is that the system will start producing income (increasingly) from 1 month after the first connection not after 8 years.

Also it is apparent that most people have no idea of how Govt budgeting and project works. In very basic terms, when a Govt Project goes over a number of years, Govt sets aside future revenue to help fund that project. That is one of the reasons that when there is a change of Govt, the incoming Govt always whinges and bitches about a financial "black hole", they have to keep paying the bills!

This is national infrastructure and everyone will benefit, for decades to come.

Also it isn't as if Fibre is brand new technology with unknown characteristics etc. we had that argument back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Yoshi900 writes...

also the alternative technologies has it limitations FTTH has room to expand the current record for single strand transmission is 25.6 TB/s not GB/s... TB/s... below is the link

That's right, lots of potential in Fiber, but you're not going to have TBs to everyhouse with a PON system. Imagine the headache routing that much information centrally!

I'm not an expert here, but I've done some research:
At the moment the equipment to achieve even over 1.25Gbps is phenomenal, the fiber stays there but the transmission and receiver equipment gets expensive with the LDs and InGaAs recievers. The multi TB systems of course like all things would go down in price with time – but everything has a cost and that 1.25Gbps price has stayed quite firm for a long time.

It's good for backhaul. Free Space Optics are the same as Fibre Optic, but without the fiber and can be set up in a more affordable manner and have the same potential and is a "wireless" technology – not necessarily mobile wireless though.

A QUESTION: Can anyone think of a medium which will require TB speeds? The most productive tasks are accomplished today with low bandwidth applications such as IM, email, instructional YouTube SQ videos. Text -> Images -> Music -> Video -> HD Video -> 30MP Stereo Video (Capability of eye) -> Teleportation?

Wireless will be huge cost anyway, bigpond Wireless highest plan (10GB) costs $130.00, add another $30-$40 bucks ontop of that to repay any payments for the next generation and expand of the wireless network (including new towers, transmission, backhaul, redundancy, etc), it isn't that much expensive than running FTTP (which has massive more benefits) to the end-user.

The problem currently with Wireless it offers little freedom to the end-user.

Even Data-blocks on Internode wireless costs alot more than normal adsl/dsl connection data blocks.

The one thing that people (including the OP) continually forget that data costs to the end-user will be huge, despite the large amount of subscribers getting Wireless.

MicroNinja writes...

You pay a fee, but it's not a line rental fee.

Of course it's a line rental fee!!
You're still using the line!
Just because you pay the line rental fee as a component of the cost to your ISP doesn't take away that you pay more for Naked than you do for "clothed" (??) ADSL2+

Wireless, well personally I'll take the cable option.. I don't trust wireless to be 100% reliable like cable.. and I'm happy to pay the premium for that reliability. There is a place for wireless, but not as the number 1 option..
On this we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

snailbot writes...

Sorry if this has been dealt with earlier/in a link I've missed/in another thread (the NBN ones are getting very long) – are there any numbers around that that factor in business/high capacity usage (eg health services for remote telemedicine?). The NBN is supposed to reach 90% of homes + schools + workplaces so it's not just households that are supposed to be paying for it.

Health services are already providing remote tele-medicine, I work in a Hospital and they have fast dedicated dark fiber already. Also the only high bandwidth medical item is an MRI which is about 90MB – if you want that at home you can wait 5 minutes for it to download – it's not a streaming media.

Households will be using the most bandwidth as they will be watching on demand episodes of the Simpsons in HD not workplaces. Businesses will be sending emails, making voip calls, the occasional video conference.

Schools are low on funds as it is, a responsible school would have a content server to cache all video content required for a given curricular year.

Wouldn't commercial & high-capacity users pay more?

Commercial, no. High capacity domestic users – yes!

Even if business was to use it more – you can't just say we'll off load it to them, that's truly a "back of the envelope" assumption.

I was talking about layering TV, Voice etc. on the internet....

upNdown writes...

What do you mean by this???

Video on Demand, VoIP...

1 cable coming into your home then you can have Net access, also using the same cable you could have a TV service which isn't IPTV over your net connection, same goes with voice.

Yes you could have the carrier, supply internet and other applications as seperate streams on the fibre- I'd imagine that your Fiber PHY would be TDM. But that means that the carriers would need a lot more equipment to do that. Plus you're say 100MBps would then only be say 50MBps as 50Mbps is dedicated to video. Content providers and telecommunications providers will provide their service over the internet – this simplifies and reduces the cost. And the providers only need a single set of equipment to provide those services.

So all these services could be provided by different companies.

Yes – one company provides internet, then your TiVo connects to TiVo.com to get content. Your ISP may cache the TiVo content – as is being done by iiNet i think.

This is the modal which would work with alternative technologies as well. And FTTP cannot work because you're not going to get every premises paying an average of $200 / month.

SecurityGuy writes...

Let's have just a brief qualification look here then: ...

*Applause*

ESEMCE writes...

You're still using the line!

Of course, but it's still not the same line rental fee.

and I'm happy to pay the premium for that reliability. There is a place for wireless, but not as the number 1 option..

Agreed, you can't compete with a fixed line network.

In 8 years by the time we get it, due to inflation etc then $100 will be the worth of $50 – $60 is now. So that cost isn't unreasable. Roll in IP TV and or Phone on the one cable and $150 – $250 total spend (For those 3 services) isn't much different to that of what some people spend now.

Wireless technology is really only matching ADSL2 currently so the only advantage in rolling that out would be to possibly increase coverage.

To me, this is future proofing (For increased business productivty and opportunities, as well as consumer benfits like IP TV, internet voip etc), not some patch up interim solution. It will help us get out of the global recession in regards to the infrastructure investment.

If you roll out Wimax or similar you will keep progressivly having to replace it with newer wireless technology as it comes out. Fibre is a one off thing. Consumer devices will remain the same and not require upgrades.

Thanks ESEMCE, not bad, I'm glad you gave it a go (his calculation of $40/month)...

It's a bit manipulative to state that things like a dollar a day, it's misleading, a lot of people can't afford an additional $600 a year on their annual budget. You could say it's $.0000116 a second (wow that's even better!).

My results are pretty close to yours, but if you look at the conclusions section, you will see the problem.

Methodology:
- Your interest rate was 7.4%, i've used 5% (current TBond rate)
- Both yours and my estimates don't consider the dived ends to pay to the 49% stake holders at market rates, which may raise the total effective rate to more like 7.5%
- I've used information from the Beuro of Statistics which puts internet penetration at 64%, I used a more liberal 70% figure
- Also note that only 37% of wages <40k have internet, Australia needs more affordable internet, so they are not disadvantaged.
- I used Optus's estimates of $108 / of which they said 50 is wholesale price leaving 58 for retail! I reduced this to $5.
- I subtracted $33 from that $50 wholesale price to get the rough cost of maintenence, staffing overhead.
- I compared FTTP to any alternative (which are more like $3bn)
- I also demonstrated both 100% and 50% market share

Results:
- FTTH – 100% market share – $54.80 / month (average)
- Alt. – 100% market share – $25 / month (average)
- FTTH – 50% market share – $104.5 / month (average)
- Alt. – 50% market share – $45 / month (average)

Conclusions:
- Market rate divid ends payed to 49% stake holders (FTTH only) not considered and has a huge impact (the CommsDay calcs did)
- I would consider maintaining "above ground" equipment cheaper, this is not benefitted to the Alts. as it should
- FTTH needs 100% market share to have $54.80 / month prices
- Businesses need to also pay that much, but they're not using the heaviest appliaction – HD Video Streaming – which means domestic users will be paying the higher cost
- Other alternatives will still exist which are <$50, such as HSPDA so around 37% (<$40 k market) of the market may choose such a more cost effective solution, futher driving up domestic prices and further contributing to lost NBN market share.
- A 50% penetration is more likely especially for the first 5 years or so
- Even less are willing to pay $100 / month opting for cheaper alternatives
- So the FTTH cost is very dangerous, especially because success depends on 100% market share which cannot be assured when an average of $54.80 / month is required.

You can find the updated spreadsheet on my personal website.

OP, you seem to be looking at things the way they are now, not the way they will be.

8 years ago I just got my first real broadband plan, Telstra cable. The bandwidth limit was 8gb (or close to that) and I wouldnt come close to that, i had nothing to use it on.

Now days 8gb lasts me 4 days, There are SO MANY different things that require a decent amount of bandwidth these days that just were not even thourght of 8 years ago.

We need to take into account all the extra things that are going to be running on this network that are going to spawn BECAUSE we have the network available.

This is why we need a stable reliable fiber network, Also it is why there is no possible way you can say "my maths show it will be $200pm so we cant afford it".

Also a newer, more technological generation of people will now be ready to take full advantage of the network.

When the network gets implemented and is fully up and running I'll bet ya we will all be at a stage where we be looking back at these threads and thinking why we were ever discussing costs and if we need it or not.

Of $180 / month...

MicroNinja writes...

It won't be that much.

According to calculators it will be

DenisPC9 writes...

What doesn't seem to dawn on most people who post arguments to these fora is that the system will start producing income (increasingly) from 1 month after the first connection not after 8 years.

Yes, but alternatives can produce the same income, and do so at a lower cost, meaning more users, more market, cheaper for business to start internet business, etc..

Also it is apparent that most people have no idea of how Govt budgeting and project works. In very basic terms, when a Govt Project goes over a number of years, Govt sets aside future revenue to help fund that project. That is one of the reasons that when there is a change of Govt, the incoming Govt always whinges and bitches about a financial "black hole", they have to keep paying the bills!

Yes, they're using a loan though, not tax money (aka cashflow). And that loan is currently going to cost 5% at current TBond rates. Plus the market rate dived ends to the 49% of share holders.

This is national infrastructure and everyone will benefit, for decades to come.

No only the teriary sector benefits. Farmers don't NEED faster internet, they NEED water. Of course they can have both water and faster internet if a more affordable solution is used.

Merari Schroeder writes...

According to calculators it will be

Its a Myth until it is confirmed, even then it will be worth it, FTTH, Broadband everywhere in the 90% zone.

MicroNinja writes...

Wireless will be huge cost anyway, bigpond Wireless highest plan (10GB) costs $130.00, add another $30-$40 bucks ontop of that to repay any payments for the next generation and expand of the wireless network (including new towers, transmission, backhaul, redundancy, etc), it isn't that much expensive than running FTTP (which has massive more benefits) to the end-user.

That's when you consider a "small" company operating to make a "profit". If taken up by the government it is a "large" market, with "quality of service" as the business model.

The problem currently with Wireless it offers little freedom to the end-user.

LTE wireless would be truly mobile with cell handover.

Even Data-blocks on Internode wireless costs alot more than normal adsl/dsl connection data blocks.

That's using the "small" company making "profit"/s plans.

Merari Schroeder writes...

LTE wireless would be truly mobile with cell handover.

That was suppose to happen with 3G, is it not ?

That's using the "small" company making "profit"/s plan

No it what happends when you are using Wireless, data going through a Wireless isn't cheap, despite the amount of subscribers piling up.

Voldo writes...

In 8 years by the time we get it, due to inflation etc then $100 will be the worth of $50 – $60 is now. So that cost isn't unreasable. Roll in IP TV and or Phone on the one cable and $150 – $250 total spend (For those 3 services) isn't much different to that of what some people spend now.

In 8 years time, maintenance costs will be higher, staff salaries will be higher and dived end payouts will be higher (indexed to inflation).

Wireless technology is really only matching ADSL2 currently so the only advantage in rolling that out would be to possibly increase coverage.

That statement only considers older technology. LTE and WiMax is gigabit.

To me, this is future proofing (For increased business productivty and opportunities, as well as consumer benfits like IP TV, internet voip etc), not some patch up interim solution. It will help us get out of the global recession in regards to the infrastructure investment.

We have no choice if subscription is going to be $100+ / month.

If you roll out Wimax or similar you will keep progressivly having to replace it with newer wireless technology as it comes out. Fibre is a one off thing. Consumer devices will remain the same and not require upgrades.

No it's not, the fiber can conceivably stay the same, but you have to replace the Laser Diodes technology and Receiver technology for the speed increases, which is the same as with wireless. Both the transmitter and receiver are upgraded every time.

ArTeesT writes...

This is why we need a stable reliable fiber network, Also it is why there is no possible way you can say "my maths show it will be $200pm so we cant afford it".

You can't dismiss $200 / month just because we want progression of speed using FTTP. You can acheive that progression of speed and volume with alternative technologies for closer to $30 / month.

Merari Schroeder writes...

In 8 years time, maintenance costs will be higher, staff salaries will be higher and dived end payouts will be higher (indexed to inflation).

So what do you seriousaly think will be higher maintenance? fiber or wireless?

MicroNinja writes...

Its a Myth until it is confirmed, even then it will be worth it, FTTH, Broadband everywhere in the 90% zone.

It's not a myth and 100% market share for the NBN isn't assured, especially if there are going to be people buying alternative connections (eg. LTE) because they can only afford $30 / month.

I ultimately would prefer to pay $30 / month, for my mobile phone communication, internet, TV etc...

I mentioned cell handover..

MicroNinja writes...

That was suppose to happen with 3G, is it not ?

Ah it's been happing since mobile phone networks started, analog, CDMA, GSM...
I think you might have thought I was talking about FemToCell?

No it what happends when you are using Wireless, data going through a Wireless isn't cheap, despite the amount of subscribers piling up.

You're basing that on today's implementations. "Small companies" trying to make a "profit". Wireless implemented by the gov. would be "Large scale" trying to guarentee QOS and affordability.

Merari Schroeder writes...

It's not a myth and 100% market share for the NBN isn't assured

100% of the market isn't even assured in present times, you still have over 4.5M connections on fixed line networks and thats still rising (slowly but still rising), despite the rate of the current Wireless networks.

especially if there are going to be people buying alternative connections (eg. LTE) because they can only afford $30 / month.

But there are people who can afford $30 bucks +, so don't include everyone in the same bunch, Wireless networks is already here, and they will be upgraded eventually!

ArTeesT writes...

So what do you seriousaly think will be higher maintenance? fiber or wireless?

I believe wireless – you don't have to fix the "medium". Fiber fails and has to be replaced. Air doesn't need to be replaced.

And remember wireless includes Free Space Optics.

Merari Schroeder writes...

You can't dismiss $200 / month just because we want progression of speed using FTTP. You can acheive that progression of speed and volume with alternative technologies for closer to $30 / month.

No im saying that there is no way you can say its going to be 200 a month when its still 8 years away that we will start paying the connection/montly fee's for the fiber.

Your $30 a month alternative is going to cost more in the end anyway. FTTP eventualy will be installed and putting up short term redundant technology for cheaper interm cost is just going to add extra things to the equasion.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Fiber fails and has to be replaced. Air doesn't need to be replaced.

Fibre Backhaul anyone ? Tower Failer ? Transmission Failer? etc?

Merari Schroeder writes...

- Businesses need to also pay that much, but they're not using the heaviest appliaction – HD Video Streaming – which means domestic users will be paying the higher cost

You've already made some rather bad assumptions as part of your calculations but this would have to be the worst. Depending on what business you work for, some files can be gigabytes in size. Currently, Small to Medium business have to rely on shipping the data between companies (on USB sticks or Portable HDDs) for these files. Small to Medium business can't afford $5000+ a month for a 100mbps fibre connection.

When the NBN comes in, there is nothing stopping them from offering a $200 a month wholesale service with SLAs and the like and retailers onselling that for anywhere between $300 and $800 a month to small and medium business. And to give you a comparison, the company I work for pays ~$800 for a 4/4 fibre connection. I'd say we'd be one of the first to jump on the NBN wagon. Calculate that factor into your equation.

Whilst you're at it, calculate the income from all Government and Health/Education/etc moving their data onto the new network (the government will do this to reduce prices for consumers).

Also calculate the top end of town businesses who would move to the new network at $2000 a month (wholesale with SLAs) for a 1gbps+ connection. The NBN could provide this service and they'd still be cheaper than what's currently available.

Let's also take into account possible actions that could be taken by the government. There is nothing stopping them from legislating that all copper must be phased out in 25 years, making sure that 100% of residential, business and government landline connections are fibre.

Wow, talk about taking certain factors into consideration. Until you know the actual cost of the network, what they're planning and how they plan to implement it, you don't have a leg to stand on Merari. Quoting someone who has provided a few pages of analysis (Ergas, which has already been ripped appart in the other threads) on information that is not known cannot be taken as fact. Your calculations can't be taken as fact. My calculations can't be taken as fact but the difference between you and me is that I can see a much broader market for the NBN than you. Just remember that short sightedness costs a lot more money in the long term

+1

To the OP... go paste your question in the RIM Port Hell thread (/forum-replies.cfm?t=949767) and see what responses you get.

I respect the monetary issues the NBN faces but being one of the fastly increasing numbers of people affected by RIM Port Hell – I really dont care about most of the points you raised.

Quick noob question

what are the ongoing costs for FTTH once the cable is in the ground compared to wireless?

The main reason I ask is, One of the guys at my work owns a farm and Telstra pay him $100,000 a year so that they can run a mobile tower in one of the back paddocks of his farm. I assume that wireless tech would use something similar to mobile towers. If there is a similar cost for every single wireless tower in Aus then I would think that wireless is a very expensive option when you add that cost up over the decades to come.

Chris Griggs...

+1

i work at a uni and i would hate to know how much our internet connection is.

ESEMCE writes...

Where are the flaws in my calculations? What assumptions are well off the mark?

1. Assumes full $43b will be spent.
2. Assumes full amount will be required to be repaid plus interest
3. Assumes full amount will be spent immediately rather than over 8 years
4. ...... etc etc etc

A simple maths waste of time.

It all depends on price, really. 8GB will last me 2 months, and just because there is new technologies available online, doesn't meant that everyone will use them.

video on demand, even youtube, is not really my thing. As for my dad, he doesn't even have internet, and I can't justify to him to install it.
You are assuming that everyone will take it up because you will?

For me, if it is cheaper, I will sign up to it, else I will maintain my current connection, and I think it will be the same for many people. I do believe that many people are price conscious, or "value" conscious. That is why there is exetel and TPG, or three and vodaphone.
The govt can make the best network in the world, but if it costs too much, most people will avoid it and accept the "cheaper" option. Look at Telstra and NextG. How many of you will say that my Optus/Three/Vodaphone is sufficient for my needs and I don't want to be screwed by Telstra?

Merari Schroeder writes...

Regardless of the background of the "number cruncher",
of course, that's irrelevent.

talk about the numbers, what did they get wrong?
What did they get right? Tell you what, why don't you list all the assumptions made in the economic model? What? You can't? So you can't vouch for the accuracy of said economic modelling.
Or will you claim they know what they are doing, (they're 'pros' lol), in which case it comes around to reputation, background, and motivation.

Sigh. Next.

Merari Schroeder writes...

My results are pretty close to yours, but if you look at the conclusions section, you will see the problem.

Lol. My back of the envelope calculations are more accurate than yours! Hilarious!
No, mine are .... /forum-replies.cfm?t=1204809&r=19358305#r19358305

But anyway, take yours to Parliament House and leave them at the desk. I'm sure the DBCDE will appreciate them

Next.

Merari Schroeder writes...

According to calculators it will be

You know, the 'back of the envelope' calculators.

Next

Merari Schroeder writes...

- Both yours and my estimates don't consider the dived ends to pay to the 49% stake holders at market rates, which may raise the total effective rate to more like 7.5%

Actually I did... I included a profit margin of 14% (rather than 15% to make nice round numbers)..
In the any economic climate, 15% guaranteed for 30 years is a very healthy profit margin..
Dividends come from profits.. they're not a separate "cost" to factor.
Also, with the taxpayer being shareholder for at least 50% of the project, the "government's" 15% profit could be farmed back into loan repayments, thus reducing the principle and interest to be repayed, thus increasing the profit margin for the private investors or reducing the cost of access as the network ages.

- I've used information from the Beuro of Statistics which puts internet penetration at 64%, I used a more liberal 70% figure
- Also note that only 37% of wages <40k have internet, Australia needs more affordable internet, so they are not disadvantaged.

Here's the flaw in your argument... it will be 100% penetration (to 84% of the population)
You're looking at FTTP as an internet only service.. but it's not internet only.
If you have a landline phone connected it could/will replace your POTS,
It will be integrated into your Smart meter on a smart electrical grid,
It will deliver you IPTV,
etc, etc, etc.
Each of these will have a quotient of FTTP cost built into them..
Internet/Corporate Networks will be the main use of FTTP and will absorb most of the cost, but other services foreseeable and unforeseeable will also add to the mix.
The cost of FTTP per subscriber will be diluted across all these services, it won't come in solely on the Internet invoice.

- I used Optus's estimates of $108 / of which they said 50 is wholesale price leaving 58 for retail! I reduced this to $5.
- I subtracted $33 from that $50 wholesale price to get the rough cost of maintenence, staffing overhead.

I don't know what these Optus figures are for (HFC, or ADSL), either way for HFC you're looking at a very low market share, therefore much higher maintenance per subscriber cost. In the case of ADSL you're looking at a very old network (requiring high maintenance) and also paying Telstra their cut..

- I compared FTTP to any alternative (which are more like $3bn)
$3bn comes from OPEL?
You're comparing a ADSL/ADSL2+/HSPA + WiMAX network with something in a different league..
Yes it's cheaper but no it doesn't do what we want it to do.. and certainly isn't comparable..

Tailgator writes...

1. Assumes full $43b will be spent.
2. Assumes full amount will be required to be repaid plus interest
3. Assumes full amount will be spent immediately rather than over 8 years
4. ...... etc etc etc

A simple maths waste of time.

So you read my post as anti-NBN??
and in response..
1) well you have to assume a figure from somewhere and $43 is the number most commonly thrown around..
2) ummm, well they're not giving the money away!! I'm guessing it'll have to be repaid in some form..
3) totally agree.. the interest will be less because the money will be spent over time and therefore the principle and interest will be lower at any given stage of the project than my assumptions..

I still think $40/month is a pretty reasonable access fee..
I fully support the NBN process. It amazes me that anyone is against it!

ESEMCE writes...

I fully support the NBN process. It amazes me that anyone is against it!

same here, they must have shares in telstra.

Sporlan writes...

NBN is that Telstra won't be controlling it.

wow ... how did you know?

Maybe the NBN project will unexpectedly collapsed at 95% completion and then Telstra picks it up for next to nothing ...

Guess who ended up with the infrastructure that OneTel built?

AI ? writes...

wow ... how did you know?

I don't mind Telstra being part of the project, but total control of it, no thanks.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Australia can't afford it – don't have a big enough market.

You're trying to get the average joe riled up over this fact? Good luck with that.

Its like the dad came in and promised his son a Porsche, but the uncle (you) now is trying to convince the son to reject the Porsche on a theory of his.

Even if you have access to sensitive treasury information and your theory has merit, you're not going to get many people on your side. The average (and uneducated) joe will have the mind set "they will find some way to fund it" and won't think about it again.

I couldn't imagine Australians protesting for something less than promised, waving banners saying "we can't afford it!"

Even if the government didn't have enough money, what would be wrong with the government starting construction, then reviewing their budget plan finally accepting that it is wasn't a viable cost? If they can't afford it, so what? If our current network is so great, whats wrong with sitting back and watching them learn the hard way?

You should be focusing your energy on the draconian censorship scheme.

AI ? writes...

Maybe the NBN project will unexpectedly collapsed at 95% completion and then Telstra picks it up for next to nothing ...

Regulation is regulation if it is regulated that 49% or 20% is the max any company can own then that is it, if it is regulated it can only be wholesale then that is it and for the co to go under the government has to go under and that wont happen over this

AI ? writes...

Guess who ended up with the infrastructure that OneTel built?

What assets??? They only really had the spectrum and that was it.

ArTeesT writes...

No im saying that there is no way you can say its going to be 200 a month when its still 8 years away that we will start paying the connection/montly fee's for the fiber.

Your $30 a month alternative is going to cost more in the end anyway. FTTP eventualy will be installed and putting up short term redundant technology for cheaper interm cost is just going to add extra things to the equasion.

Just the backhaul and maybe an interim alternative last mile technology should be pursued:
- FTTP isn't cheap enough for implementation in Australia today
- In a few years when:
– FTTP technology is cheaper – equipment; and
– More conduit is layed and owned by the goverment / councils
- It will then make sense to roll out an FTTP network.

Also, consider that even FTTP common practice is already changing, with the EU recommending that new installations don't use PON, but rather point-to-point ethernet.

While FTTP has been propelled recently into the spotlight – best practice for installation still hasn't settled and it would be unwise to be a "first mover" in that regard as well.

Chris Griggs writes...

You've already made some rather bad assumptions as part of your calculations but this would have to be the worst. Depending on what business you work for, some files can be gigabytes in size. Currently, Small to Medium business have to rely on shipping the data between companies (on USB sticks or Portable HDDs) for these files. Small to Medium business can't afford $5000+ a month for a 100mbps fibre connection.

Businesses will use offpeak data. And no current companies don't have to rely on USB sticks etc.. At my previous job we setup cable for all sites and all the backups were sent to head office using offpeak allowance. Of course offsite copies were also made.

When the NBN comes in, there is nothing stopping them from offering a $200 a month wholesale service with SLAs and the like and retailers onselling that for anywhere between $300 and $800 a month to small and medium business. And to give you a comparison, the company I work for pays ~$800 for a 4/4 fibre connection. I'd say we'd be one of the first to jump on the NBN wagon. Calculate that factor into your equation.

Yer you'd be prepared to pay $800 / month. But you wouldn't have to. The SLA wouldn't be anywhere near as expensive as the technology is much more reliable than POTS. Both domestic and business users would have good enough SL. An SLA would only have to cover priority servicing and insurance for failure.

Whilst you're at it, calculate the income from all Government and Health/Education/etc moving their data onto the new network (the government will do this to reduce prices for consumers).

Tell me how using faster internet saves billions in the health and education sector. How does it reduce health waiting lists? How does it reduce the amount of teachers required?

Also calculate the top end of town businesses who would move to the new network at $2000 a month (wholesale with SLAs) for a 1gbps+ connection. The NBN could provide this service and they'd still be cheaper than what's currently available.

So your saying that even though the top of the town businessman can pay less than $100 with a futuristic LTE network at GB speeds they would choose a $2000 / month plan? Not to mention that you're putting speeds out of reach of the majority of users which could be obtainable with a more cost effective solution.

Let's also take into account possible actions that could be taken by the government. There is nothing stopping them from legislating that all copper must be phased out in 25 years, making sure that 100% of residential, business and government landline connections are fibre.

Doesn't make a difference, most will use the cheaper Wireless with fiber backhaul. And don't tell me that by using the fiber backhaul, the wireless companies are paying off the $43bn loan, they will not pay higher than market rates for backhaul connectivity.

Wow, talk about taking certain factors into consideration. Until you know the actual cost of the network, what they're planning and how they plan to implement it, you don't have a leg to stand on Merari. Quoting someone who has provided a few pages of analysis (Ergas, which has already been ripped appart in the other threads) on information that is not known cannot be taken as fact. Your calculations can't be taken as fact. My calculations can't be taken as fact but the difference between you and me is that I can see a much broader market for the NBN than you. Just remember that short sightedness costs a lot more money in the long term

Well the actual cost of the network isn't concrete, but from what we've seen it doesn't look good. And if the NBN isn't going to get 100% of the market using FTTP, then costs are going to be high for everyone.

And your "broader market" doesn't exist. Domestic users will be using the network the most, large backup files will be copied overnight. And technology like DFS means that incremental file changes can be sent over the internet.

UZ3R writes...

I respect the monetary issues the NBN faces but being one of the fastly increasing numbers of people affected by RIM Port Hell – I really dont care about most of the points you raised.

Well yes the price is in the end the biggest point. So you're eager to accept any solution, because you're eager to get off RIM? (i'm not sure what that is – is that for remote users in contract with telstra?).

azzah writes...

Quick noob question

what are the ongoing costs for FTTH once the cable is in the ground compared to wireless?

Quite high, due to conduit, duct and power pole rental costs.

The main reason I ask is, One of the guys at my work owns a farm and Telstra pay him $100,000 a year so that they can run a mobile tower in one of the back paddocks of his farm. I assume that wireless tech would use something similar to mobile towers. If there is a similar cost for every single wireless tower in Aus then I would think that wireless is a very expensive option when you add that cost up over the decades to come.

True, but NBNCo will be doing the same, paying duct. conduit and power pole owners a rental fee.

Also wireless isn't restricted to Wifi. An FSO Mesh node would be on each persons house, acting as both the access and infrastructure, there would be no such placement fees to pay as you own the node. But an FSO mesh still needs to be researched further.

Most own their own infrastructure. And universities are different, they don't need an FTTP network, they would connect straight to a backhaul link – do you know how much bandwidth they use? Universities and labs are considered the foremost users, but they wouldn't be paying toward an FTTP network. And if NBNCo charge them more to help cover FTTP, the university will just contract another provider to make the connection.

Tailgator writes...

1. Assumes full $43b will be spent.

And this is a bad thing? Remember I didn't include the amount that would have to be paid as Dived ends to share holders!

2. Assumes full amount will be required to be repaid plus interest

TBonds are usually 10 year bonds. But yes about $10bn actually wouldn't need to be paid because they are shares, but shares pay them selves off in 10 years so in 30 years, double the amount of interest would have been paid when compared to TBonds.

3. Assumes full amount will be spent immediately rather than over 8 years

That would only make a small difference, plus if the full amount is spread over 8 years, you can't have 100% market share from day 1 anyway. So pretend they complete 1/10 of australia in 1 year, then you only have 1/10 people to pay off that part of the loan, so you still need 100% of 1/10 of the installed base to be keeping up with 1/10 of the $43bn amount.

argamond writes...

It all depends on price, really. 8GB will last me 2 months, and just because there is new technologies available online, doesn't meant that everyone will use them.

That's right. Not everyone will use full speed with heaps of volume. There would probably be a plan for that costing $50, but then out of the average of $200 someone else has to be paying the missing $150. So $350 for the top 100Mb/s plan? Probably more because 90% would go for the cheaper range deals, meaning it would be more like $1550 for the top plans. Current market rates for 100MB/s are around $100 not $1550.

video on demand, even youtube, is not really my thing. As for my dad, he doesn't even have internet, and I can't justify to him to install it.

Yer, i'm the same, I don't watch that much TV, don't have foxtel (my parents do have foxtel), my grandma doesn't have the internet and most pensioners wouldn't be able to afford it!

You are assuming that everyone will take it up because you will?

That's what the government and NBN supporters think. They think that because they can afford it and want it that the rest of Australia are the same – crazy.

For me, if it is cheaper, I will sign up to it, else I will maintain my current connection, and I think it will be the same for many people. I do believe that many people are price conscious, or "value" conscious. That is why there is exetel and
TPG, or three and vodaphone.

That's right, that's what DODO's business plan was about, cheap (and nasty) internet for those who don't want to pay big $$$.

The govt can make the best network in the world, but if it costs too much, most people will avoid it and accept the "cheaper" option. Look at Telstra and NextG. How many of you will say that my Optus/Three/Vodaphone is sufficient for my needs and I don't want to be screwed by Telstra?

Bingo! Thanks for you're clear thinking!

Of the CommsDay estimates...

Tailgator writes...

What did they get right? Tell you what, why don't you list all the assumptions made in the economic model? What? You can't? So you can't vouch for the accuracy of said economic modelling.

I did, look further back, I showed a fully worked out example of costing the NBN. It's simple, debt goes in, money must come out to pay off debt.

Tailgator writes...

Lol. My back of the envelope calculations are more accurate than yours! Hilarious!

You still haven't debated the numbers – still resorting to rhetoric.

Merari Schroeder writes...

An FSO Mesh node would be on each persons house, acting as both the access and infrastructure, there would be no such placement fees to pay as you own the node. But an FSO mesh still needs to be researched further.

Oh dear. I wondered when you would get around to this topic.
Other readers refer to this thread if you want to read more about.

Merari, if you are going to push your personal agenda, at least be honest about it.

ESEMCE writes...

Actually I did... I included a profit margin of 14% (rather than 15% to make nice round numbers)..

Great I'll use that in the next update to the spreadsheet. Also the capital raised from share holders isn't payed back, so I think that's $10bn of principle that doesn't have to be payed back, but 15% of 10bn over 30 years is 4,500,000,000bn, which will likely reduce the cost a little. Yep.

In the any economic climate, 15% guaranteed for 30 years is a very healthy profit margin..
Dividends come from profits.. they're not a separate "cost" to factor.

No they are treated as a "cost" factor because if they didn't get any dived ends they wouldn't invest in the first place.

Also, with the taxpayer being shareholder for at least 50% of the project, the "government's" 15% profit could be farmed back into loan repayments, thus reducing the principle and interest to be repayed, thus increasing the profit margin for the private investors or reducing the cost of access as the network ages.

Ah, no. Effectively the 50% govmt. dived end would pay off the bonds. Although the bonds will likely be debts of the company its self not of the nation directly. Therefore the dived end would be payed after paying the bond coupon.

Here's the flaw in your argument... it will be 100% penetration (to 84% of the population)

Okay, I don't know the source of that number, but the Beuro of Stats say otherwise. And if you're talking about growth – movement from 60% to 84% of internet takeup, think again, because those without internet today, eg. pensioners and the retired will not likely pay $50 for something they will not use. Yes as the older generation passes (more like 20 years) it will be different.

You're looking at FTTP as an internet only service.. but it's not internet only.
If you have a landline phone connected it could/will replace your POTS,

Yep so $30 / month saved for the people who couldn't part with their phone number. I BTW like many these days just use my mobile. (Naked ADSL2+ for internet)

It will be integrated into your Smart meter on a smart electrical grid,

Yer, they are low bandwidth and will have to connect wirelessly. Or are you proposing to run fiber to all your utilities meters?

It will deliver you IPTV,

Yep, HD Video will chew up download allowances.

etc, etc, etc.
Each of these will have a quotient of FTTP cost built into them..

No it doesn't the user still has to pay >$100 / month to be connected then pay say $2 for each movie they watch to the content provider, .10 per VoIP call...

Internet/Corporate Networks will be the main use of FTTP and will absorb most of the cost, but other services foreseeable and unforeseeable will also add to the mix.

So you watch HD movies at work do you? Most businesses would transfer backup files off-peak.

The cost of FTTP per subscriber will be diluted across all these services, it won't come in solely on the Internet invoice.

Well we know that's not true. All the services will be layered on top of the internet service. Package it how you like: $50/month (INET) + ($100 Foxtel over Fiber) = $100/month (INET) + $50 (Foxtel) it's all the same. And if you don't have "Foxtel" or whatever VoD provider then you're not paying that $50 which means someone else has to pay it to cover the average >$100 / month tag.

I don't know what these Optus figures are for (HFC, or ADSL), either way for HFC you're looking at a very low market share, therefore much higher maintenance per subscriber cost. In the case of ADSL you're looking at a very old network (requiring high maintenance) and also paying Telstra their cut..

I'm not sure why your talking about HFC, ADSL etc., LTE, WiMAX, FSO etc. are the way forward for >100Mb/s speeds.

You're comparing a ADSL/ADSL2+/HSPA + WiMAX network with something in a different league..

I've listed a list of alternatives, I know WiMax is second rate, that's why the other options are in there like LTE.

Why does the NBN have to pay off the costs of building it.
The Govt is about to order $65 billion worth of new submarines and fighter jets.
They wont pay for themselves.
Some infrastructure projects are simply built to achieve a stated Govt objective.
There is no requirement that such projects must be profitable.

Tailgator writes...

Oh dear. I wondered when you would get around to this topic.
Other readers refer to this thread if you want to read more about.

Merari, if you are going to push your personal agenda, at least be honest about it.

Who said it's a personal agenda? It's not going to make me any money – I'm publicising all the design details and being open about it. I proposed the idea simply because RF Wireless has a limit, yet FSO does not have such limits and is as "future proof" as Fiber Optic – and most importantly affordable. I'm being proactive in trying to find an alternative solution because it's obvious that FTTP is going to fail, because no one wants to pay >$100 / month.

I said that the Australian market isn't big enough....

umop 3pisdn writes...

You're trying to get the average joe riled up over this fact? Good luck with that.

No, What the average Joe cares about is the >$100 / month they'll have to pay. The size of the Australian market is the reason the >$100 / month price tag is there – not for the average joe to understand, but you.

Its like the dad came in and promised his son a Porsche, but the uncle (you) now is trying to convince the son to reject the Porsche on a theory of his.

Yer that's right – you think that the government has bottomless pockets. Dad here is actually $200bn in debt already and wants to charge you for his "gift".

Even if you have access to sensitive treasury information and your theory has merit, you're not going to get many people on your side. The average (and uneducated) joe will have the mind set "they will find some way to fund it" and won't think about it again.

You're right they won't care, they'll just choose another ISP which isn't paying high royalties to the NBNCo.

I couldn't imagine Australians protesting for something less than promised, waving banners saying "we can't afford it!"

That's just a statement appealing to patriotism, there's no argument there.

Even if the government didn't have enough money, what would be wrong with the government starting construction, then reviewing their budget plan finally accepting that it is wasn't a viable cost? If they can't afford it, so what? If our current network is so great, whats wrong with sitting back and watching them learn the hard way?

I'd support that – start with only the backhaul rollout.

You should be focusing your energy on the draconian censorship scheme.

An FSO Mesh would solve that – decentralised control.

mauried writes...

Why does the NBN have to pay off the costs of building it.
The Govt is about to order $65 billion worth of new submarines and fighter jets.

Defense is different, it's paid by taxes, that's your subscription to safety.

Some infrastructure projects are simply built to achieve a stated Govt objective.

Yes but when the plan to meet that objective is projected to fail, you scrap it and try one that will work.

There is no requirement that such projects must be profitable.

Well you need to pay the Bond coupon and in 10 years when the bonds are cashed in you have to pay it back or reissue Bonds. You seem to like having national debt.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Who said it's a personal agenda?

Because you are pushing it hence it's a personal agenda. And the other thread /forum-replies.cfm?t=1167086 which you hijacked and in which you were pushing it died through lack of interest, despite you trying to resurrect it, so 4 hours later you start this one.
What is essentially a duplicate thread.

And being honest means revealing your agenda, not hiding it in a new thread until eventually .....

:( for you.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Free Space Optics are the same as Fibre Optic, but without the fiber and can be set up in a more affordable manner and have the same potential

FSO requires line-of-sight. This presents a huge political problem as it would require the construction of (at least) tens of thousands of towers spread out over suburbia. Such construction would no doubt be met with opposition. Obstruction due to obstacles (trees, buildings etc.) is also a problem as these obstacles can change over time.

Furthermore, FSO has problems with some atmospheric phenomena such as rain, fog and dust[1]. These can degrade (or completely cut) connections. Such reliability problems would be considered unacceptable to many sectors, such as business and medical.

With these limitations, it is not fair to say that FSO has the same potential as fibre.

mauried writes...

Some infrastructure projects are simply built to achieve a stated Govt objective.
There is no requirement that such projects must be profitable.

Countries were governments own lots and lots of infrastructure are usually not doing well. And so does the infrastructure. Unless there are special circumstances like a lot of resources to export.

Merari, what are the health implications for installing such high powered wireless devices? or the towers in residential areas? You work at hospital, you must know the danger of high powered transmission devices, like mobile phones, that can cause cancer...

The more wireless devices, we put it, the higher is the risk...

While being mobile is amazing, I rather sacrifice the mobility to ensure my health and my children...

XTCGoo writes...

the danger of high powered transmission devices, like mobile phones, that can cause cancer...

I agree. Many people here take simplistic view: ionising radiation = cancer, non-ionising radiation = safe.

I just thinks it crazy that someone has taken this "no nbn" so far so early without knowing any of the true facts (no-one knows them).

Sprouting a non – existant shared technology (4g) as a alternative with costings???

costing a FTTH on a commentators (not a industry insider) rough esitimate not taking into account the "non-reasonable" return parts of the funding....

Ignoring anything that doesn't say what he wants.

Setting up a petition and a website devoted to "no nbn" spreading this rubbish.

And hinting at doing it all over again in the origonal FTTH format 10 years later....

Please expose your true agenda here, their is obviously a self interested reason going on here that you are not devulging.

Are you a telstra shareholder?
Are you a telstra employee?
Or is it just about money by asking for donations? and a lot of money Wanting a full time webmaster? 100,000 for advertising?
School project?

Website is owned by Alivate Pty Ltd (and according to website sponsered) which is registered to a small residential address in Geelong I doubt they are a actual running business.

After anther 5 mins work (yes thats all I spent) Todd or Merari Schroeder (as everyone here knows him as) has completed a It course and wants to try and make a name and some money for himself by trying to run this campaign.

And is true you were trying to campaign against the NBN project over a year ago? So you were against the FTTN rollout and started up a website against it but a year later you want something similar?

google's a bitch aint it.

Wouldn't mind a dollar for every time someone mentioned that wireless is a practical and viable solution.

Holly crap!

Let me continue on the "reasons" part of the original post.

9. Spend way too much time thinking about the NBN (Strong)
10. Time I spent doing this research I could have afforded years of NBN when released (Strong)

Melbourne is getting a new sewerage system because the old system is crap. Your thoughts? List your negatives and alternatives.

Get out more dude it may be good for you. Don't worry replying as I wont be in this thread every again to read your reply.

Sorry if I have offended you, but I had to say something.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Businesses will use offpeak data. And no current companies don't have to rely on USB sticks etc.. At my previous job we setup cable for all sites and all the backups were sent to head office using offpeak allowance. Of course offsite copies were also made.

I was about to submit a massive reply to this post you made but in the end I decided to delete it and respond with what is here now. I think you clearly have missed the points everyone has made to you in this thread and in the previous thread from both very technical and non-technical standpoints. You clearly do not read what people have been posting to you and instead go off on your own tangent.

My suggestion would be this: If you really are serious about your wireless network, get off of Whirlpool and go and get a proper feasibility study done. Find out what is really required. Provide a real plan of where towers will need to be located, tackling buildings that block wireless signals, LoS issues, installation, maintenance, power requirements, costs, fees and schedules. Once you've done this, have the study independently analysed by someone like KPMG, Deloitte's, etc...

Otherwise, you're just really talking s**t. Your idea won't work and countless people with much more technical knowledge than myself have explained to you why. From the previous thread:

Merari,
If you honestly believe you have a viable RF based plan, than please sit down quietly and develop it. When you have a stable concept present it as a part of the overall solution.

/forum-replies.cfm?t=1167086&p=9#r164

Merari, are you being recruited by Minchin or something to infect these forums?

Your case for against FttP is centered around one technology (LTE) which is a) untested in the Australian environment; b)will be more expensive to the consumer than FttP will ever be (Cost/MB); c) I can bet my bottom dollar that this LTE network will be exactly like Telstra's NextG network, with them putting bullocks figures of 21mbits into the world.

You seem to be coming back again and again and again. Your persistence at pushing your points, throughout other peoples threads and your own wouldn't be acceptable in real life conversations, nor is it here! We understand the alternatives, and quite frankly, it's like offering someone who bought a Tesla, a HUMMER, and saying "But, It's Cheaper now!"

Go the pfartgl away. Please.

Why guys like Merari Schroeder are even allowed to post here? The guy is obviously on Telstra payroll. The amount of rubbish he is trying to sell here is unbelievable. Just look at him arguing that we dont need NBN because it is going to be too expensive(which is BS) and then promoting wireless at the same time. Which IS already ridiculously expensive and total CRAP which nobody wants but his bosses at Telstra force people into it particulary in new estates(RIM Port Hell)

Seems the OP doesnt know much about history.
The original copper based communications system we now have was built entirely by the Govt using taxation to pay for it, and up till 1975 when telecom Aust was created
it was run directly by the Govt via a Govt dept , the PMG.
It didnt run at a profit.
All the roads and the railways were again built by Govts using taxation revenue, so was the Snowy MTns scheme.
None of these projects was built for the purposes of making profits, but to fill a need.
The point being that taxation as a method to fund Govt projects has been going on since federation, and theres no reason why it cant keep going on.
Also, plenty of precedents of Govts owning telecommunications infrastructure.
Just have a look at what the Singapore Govt owns.

What exactly do you think we pay taxes for.

mauried writes...

What exactly do you think we pay taxes for.

Thanks for stating that mauried. The government isn't a corporation, looking for ways to make money back (maybe the Howard Government was), but they are a group of elected officials appointed to provide services to the Australian community, profitable or not profitable. Maybe you want to sell all our hospitals to MBF and Medibank Private, Merari?

Webby. writes...

but they are a group of elected officials appointed to provide services to the Australian community, profitable or not profitable.

Such services need to be sustainable.

Well NBN , will never get to my area , east gippland in vic , is way behine when comes to adsl , thank goodness for wideband , the idea of NBN will make jobs , so all is good , cheers .

golftee writes...

the idea of NBN will make jobs , so all is good , cheers .

Yes, this is another good thing about NBN.

As discussed everywhere, the most expensive part of NBN cost is labour cost (digging trenches, installation, engineers, etc), the fibre itself while expensive, it is still not as expensive as labour cost.

Whether you build the FTTH now or in 10 years or 100 years, the labour cost components will be there, unless we are using robots in 100 years time. And in 10 years time, labour cost will be much more expensive, and if the NBN happens during a boom time, the labour cost will be double whammy expensive.

Building NBN, during an economy downturn is a good idea. It provide employment and the cost of labour at the lowest possible cost...

golftee writes...

Well NBN , will never get to my area , east gippland in vic

actually it most likely will get to Gippsland
Gippsland is part of the blackspot backhaul upgrade that is being tendered atm ...

That might be west gippsland , not east , guess there is no way of finding out where . cheers

Merari Schroeder writes...

yet FSO does not have such limits and is as "future proof" as Fiber Optic

FSO requires LOS, has a range of 2km and requires an optical unit at each end. There is no way this could even be considered a possible alternative to fibre.

As for the wireless argument

If im not mistaken the limit with any wireless technology is that bandwidth avaliable for a cell at any one time is always shared. Before you say that (G)PON suffers the same problem let me state that so long as the pipe at the head end is big enough each user can be assured of the full transmission rate.

what are the health implications for installing such high powered wireless devices? or the towers in residential areas?

+1

You know what im glad that someone mentioned this point.

Whats the bet he disappears for a week or two then starts it all over again in anther or new thread?

ausfatcat writes...

Whats the bet he disappears for a week or two then starts it all over again in anther or new thread?

All signs point to yes.

Which just illustrates what a troll he is.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Well yes the price is in the end the biggest point. So you're eager to accept any solution, because you're eager to get off RIM? (i'm not sure what that is – is that for remote users in contract with telstra?).

Maybe you should have done your research before posting your disillusioned view here.

Merari Schroeder writes...

So you're eager to accept any solution, because you're eager to get off RIM?

RIM threads
/forum/?action=threads_search&q=rim&f=

Rim port hell
/forum/?action=threads_search&q=rim+port+hell&f=100

Merari,

Just a little example of what I personally pay for my telco bill currently (excluding mobile).

Landline – $25 (HL Budget with CND, Msgbank, Silent Number and a staff discount on calls)
ADSL – $89 (ADSL2+ with Internode)
FOXTEL – $131

That adds up over $200 per month, and all this will be over the fibre once installed.

Considering the state of some of the copper, it is definitely a good thing. And I am sure the fibre will have a longer lifespan too.

Edit: And we are miles behind other countries in relation to speed.

Every time I read Merari's posts my brain feels like its being wrung out like a sponge inside my skull. It's like hes trying to drag everyone backwards.

That adds up over $200 per month, and all this will be over the fibre once installed.

Considering the state of some of the copper, it is definitely a good thing. And I am sure the fibre will have a longer lifespan too.

Edit: And we are miles behind other countries in relation to speed.

Excellent post! totally agree. In fact I'm paying alot more due to being on a Telstra only DSLAM. We DEFINATELY need this NBN.

Melbourne Skywalker writes...

In fact I'm paying alot more due to being on a Telstra only DSLAM.

Is there no space in your exchange for other ISPs to install DSLAM ?

mauried writes...

The original copper based communications system we now have was built entirely by the Govt using taxation to pay for it, and up till 1975 when telecom Aust was created

it was run directly by the Govt via a Govt dept , the PMG.

Absolutely correct, I started there as a trainee techo in '73...

It didnt run at a profit.

The PMG did not run at a profit, correct. There was certainly also no mandate for it to do so, it's job was to provide telecommunications infrastructure and communications services (inc Postal) for the Australian nation...

The point being that taxation as a method to fund Govt projects has been going on since federation, and theres no reason why it cant keep going on.

And this is a crux of our questions here: All this quazzle about the NBNco needing to make a specified level of profit? The last time I looked the government was not yet fully privatised... (The gov changed before they could sell off any more... lol)

The gov will sit down and negotiate with the existing carriers etc on assets, buyins and terms. So totally normal that it is amusing that some people argue that this will not happen...

The Telstra folks have been beating the new and friendly path to Canberra and the DCBDE since the new NBN announcement and when Sol the Troll left our Atoll... The negotiations began long ago, whether publicised or not... (naturally we all knew that, right?)

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

Is there no space in your exchange for other ISPs to install DSLAM ?

Telstra often quotes "future planning requirements" to keep third party DSLAMs out of their exchanges, even when space is available...

• T h i n k *** into the Telstra mentality for a moment.

SecurityGuy writes...

Telstra often quotes "future planning requirements" to keep third party DSLAMs out of their exchanges, even when space is available...

The exchange in question could be in a acreage area. ISPs prefer to install DSLAMs in densely populated exchanges.

T h i n k *** into the Telstra mentality for a moment.

You should think on how other ISPs go about their business.

I wonder how much it will cost to connect a house/appartment to the fiber that runs outside the street. I doubt it will be cheap ie thousands perhaps as quoted http://business.theage.com.au/business/a-lot-is-riding-on-how-we-choose-to-take-our-fibre-20090702-d6mr.html

anyone have an idea?

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

The exchange in question could be in a acreage area. ISPs prefer to install DSLAMs in densely populated exchanges.

How likely is Telstra going to be holding space for future DSLAM expansion in sparcely populated exchanges?

Also. They are known for declaring exchanges full despite the fact they are only full because Telstra leaving decades old equipment racked up.

Ivanhoe Exchange in Victoria is a case in point of this.

Funny, how after 2 years of saying there is no space, there is suddenly space

hobbbs writes...

I wonder how much it will cost to connect a house/appartment to the fiber that runs outside the street.

If it's overhead cables – just throw the cable over to the flat then "staple gun" on the outside of the building to each flat. Simple.

A wack of paint and you'll never – errr – notice it?

hobbbs writes...

I doubt it will be cheap ie thousands

$500 to $1500 with $500 being the most common figure.

https://www.bicsi.org/archive/2007SpringDallas/presentations/Guy%20Swindell.pdf

http://www.budde.com.au/presentations/content/An%20Industry%20Vision%20for%20the%20National%20Broadband%20Network%20Plan%20-%20Supplement%20v5.0.pdf

The NBN process/goals are incredibly flawed yet all that 98% of people can see is ZOMG 100mbit!!!!!1111111

..RC.. writes...

The NBN process/goals are incredibly flawed yet all that 98% of people can see is ZOMG 100mbit!!!!!1111111

Same could be said about teh Opposite, "OMG, $43B dollars spending spree, why do we need 100mbit, why do we need FTTP, ZOMG!!!!! Labor you SUCK".

Do we need this thread? All of this has been hashed over in the NBN forums.

It's just a troll really.

Even if the NBN costs $43 billion, which I doubt, that amount of money is almost insignificant compared with what the govt spends on other items.

Compare $43 billion over eight years with what gets spent on defense every eight years.

A one off cost to fibre up the whole country is an oppurtunity not to be missed.

..RC.. writes...

The NBN process/goals are incredibly flawed yet all that 98% of people can see is ZOMG 100mbit!!!!!1111111

Wake up call.

Ten's of thousands of Australians cannot get fixed line broadband. I am one of them.

Its not just a 100 mbit. Its a stop to a shit situation that the Howard Government put people like me in the day they sold Telstra.

UZ3R writes...

Ten's of thousands of Australians cannot get fixed line broadband. I am one of them.

And I am another, and I am not expecting to be covered by the NBN either...

Its a stop to a shit situation that the Howard Government put people like me in the day they sold Telstra.

If Telstra was still govt owned you still would not have broadband...

In fact if Telstra was still govt owned NextG prices is what DSL would be priced at and there would be no internode or iinet either...

..RC.. writes...

And I am another, and I am not expecting to be covered by the NBN either...

You may or may not, but that does not mean it should still not continue to go ahead with it, at least solving the short coming's of the copper.

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

You should think on how other ISPs go about their business.

I am working with/on six of them right now, how much thinking am I supposed to do...?

I get their feedback on a semi-daily basis.

Spent 4 years working in ISPs.

I have sold various technology and business solutions into myriad ISPs over a 10 year period...

Built an ISP once...

But I will make an effort to think about how they go about their business. Thanks for the suggestion.

sssputnik writes...

Compare $43 billion over eight years with what gets spent on defense every eight years.

A one off cost to fibre up the whole country is an oppurtunity not to be missed.

Right on the money, hits the nail on the head...

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

The exchange in question could be in a acreage area. ISPs prefer to install DSLAMs in densely populated exchanges.

Soz, the exchanges are in various locations.

SecurityGuy writes...

I have sold various technology and business solutions into myriad ISPs over a 10 year period...

Built an ISP once...

Look. I have no problem with your ISP experience. It is just you seem so carried away with Sen Conroy's ability to build a new super duper Telco.

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

It is just you seem so carried away with Sen Conroy's ability to build a new super duper Telco.

so you would prefer same lot of nothing like we've had for the last 11 years?

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

Look. I have no problem with your ISP experience. It is just you seem so carried away with Sen Conroy's ability to build a new super duper Telco.

That I can understand.

The NBNco planned network infrastructure and an industry-wide "equitable access" wholesaler is the super duper part... Re-organising Telstra to be a powerful positive force for the overall Australian economy is also a motivating prospect.

It will sometimes be rough, we will have several "one step back – two steps forward" developments, they will make mistakes and wrangling as well.

However, Conroy and his team at NBNco (and some good folks coming...) are the only entity that can actually take on this project and "build" the whole shebang. By build I mean organise, aggregate (equity partners), hire and fund the people to assemble, connect, build and maintain the SNN initially...

Sometimes we just want to jump behind the best opportunity we can identify, and give the greatest push we can to get it going, whilst still keeping a watchful eye on how it is being done... With pollies involved, I also never lose a degree of wariness.

SecurityGuy writes...

With pollies involved, I also never lose a degree of wariness.

The Conroy pollie has shown a singular level of intransigence over the ISP filtering issue despite already having his nose rubbed in the dirty end of it.

It has also been suggested that the "my way or the highway" technique and displays of temper have been used to silence/stifle debate inside his department.

What suggests that his current and future involvement in the NBN is not going to end in detrimental technical compromise leading to a less than up-to-the-minute network falling far short of world-class performance and upgrade provisioning?

There will be many who have deep misgivings about politicians meddling in vital technical areas. Count me in that number.

I'm starting to believe anything they do is going to be more expensive than what we've currently got. However this is all based on assumptions that none of us or the media or the so called "experts" really know much about.

Until someone submits a complete proposal and makes it available to the public, I think it's a bit soon to be saying anything about the current NBN concept.

Dellwood writes...

Until someone submits a complete proposal and makes it available to the public, I think it's a bit soon to be saying anything about the current NBN concept.

Heheh. What? And deprive people of countless hours of claim, counter-claim, discussion? Everyone has an opinion, no matter how accurate the information it is based on. I mean some people can even see alternate realities ....
@19871434 ..RC.. writes...
["If Telstra was still govt owned you still would not have broadband..."]
["In fact if Telstra was still govt owned NextG prices is what DSL would be priced at...."]
So it's never 'a bit soon'. ;)

I also think there never will be a 'complete proposal' submitted. Not for something of this scope and complexity. It's not as though its a 'Snowy Mountains Scheme', which while a large and complex project, was limited in variables (build a dam here, put in a tunnel there, and some pipes and turbines there). At best we will probably know a management/finance/regulatory/price structure, preferred technology and network elements. The rest will probably be an ongoing decision making process dependent on many other variables.

someone42 writes...

FSO requires line-of-sight.

True. But that's not a disadvantage, it means you have 100% control over the communcations channel.

This presents a huge political problem as it would require the construction of (at least) tens of thousands of towers spread out over suburbia.

I don't think you understand the design for an FSO mesh. Every house has a node which is both the connection into the network and also IS the network. No need for "towers".

Such construction would no doubt be met with opposition. Obstruction due to obstacles (trees, buildings etc.) is also a problem as these obstacles can change over time.

Trees wouldn't be a problem, the links are from neighbor to neighbor.

Furthermore, FSO has problems with some atmospheric phenomena such as rain, fog and dust[1]. These can degrade (or completely cut) connections. Such reliability problems would be considered unacceptable to many sectors, such as business and medical.

Not in an FSO mesh, the link distances are 10-50m. Yes, at 1-2km fog and rain etc is a problem, but it is also with multi-mode fiber. A short FSO mesh link is like a multi-mode fiber optic link but without the fiber.

By using small links the limitations are handled and the potential is as good as fiber optic at a fraction of the cost.

XTCGoo writes...

Merari, what are the health implications for installing such high powered wireless devices? or the towers in residential areas? You work at hospital, you must know the danger of high powered transmission devices, like mobile phones, that can cause cancer...

You're right, this is commonly a concern. However the biggest threat has always been the actual towers not the mobile phones them selves. But you're actually in more danger by having WiFi equipment in your house which runs at 2.4Ghz (your microwave frequency for cooking – at this frequency, water resonates). The licensed and ISM bands which the wireless towers operate at are much safer, also an upgrade from 3G to 4G wouldn't increase the exposure as the existing towers would be replaced (in the best case scenario). Also wireless isn't restricted to RF.

The more wireless devices, we put it, the higher is the risk...

You're not going to stop consumers using mobile phones and mobile internet, it's consumer driven. According to your concerns we should be making sure that such installations are done so safely and with ample research etc..

While being mobile is amazing, I rather sacrifice the mobility to ensure my health and my children...

Well I think your children are safe. Have you already sacrificed your mobility today?

ausfatcat writes...

I just thinks it crazy that someone has taken this "no nbn" so far so early without knowing any of the true facts (no-one knows them).

What not even the government? :)

Sprouting a non – existant shared technology (4g) as a alternative with costings???

The technology is already being tested by a carrier in Japan

And hinting at doing it all over again in the origonal FTTH format 10 years later....

I'm not pushing one solution, i've listed a list of alternatives which can all be mixed and matched. The idea is that there are alternatives which provide faster speeds for less cost. And if we did FTTH in 10 years it would likely be less than half the cost and we wouldn't do it with PONs, as the industry standard for installation is already changing.

Please expose your true agenda here, their is obviously a self interested reason going on here that you are not devulging.

Nope, just some spare time.

Are you a telstra shareholder? Nope
Are you a telstra employee? Nope.
'ya know, telstra might actually do well with the NBN. They would get money for duct renting and would be able to undercut the expensive $100/month avg. subscription costs.

Or is it just about money by asking for donations? and a lot of money Wanting a full time webmaster? 100,000 for advertising?

Yer, we'll there's a prioritised list which states what the money would be spent on depending on the amount of financial interest.

School project?

Hardly.

Website is owned by Alivate Pty Ltd (and according to website sponsered) which is registered to a small residential address in Geelong I doubt they are a actual running business.

I'm a contractor programmer.

ausfatcat writes...

After anther 5 mins work (yes thats all I spent) Todd or Merari Schroeder (as everyone here knows him as) has completed a It course and wants to try and make a name and some money for himself by trying to run this campaign.

Huh? I graduated from Deakin University in 2006 completing the Bachelour of Business Information Technology with Honors and went straight into a programming contract.

And is true you were trying to campaign against the NBN project over a year ago? So you were against the FTTN rollout and started up a website against it but a year later you want something similar?

Huh? Google? Try whois.net the date is in May this year!

MicroNinja writes...

at least solving the short coming's of the copper.

except it won't be solving the short comings of copper...The shortcomings of copper is distance....Anyone with a long copper line negates them from ever getting DSL sure as hell won't be getting fibre...

Chris Griggs writes...

I was about to submit a massive reply to this post you made but in the end I decided to delete it and respond with what is here now. I think you clearly have missed the points everyone has made to you in this thread and in the previous thread from both very technical and non-technical standpoints. You clearly do not read what people have been posting to you and instead go off on your own tangent.

Actually Chris you keep ignoring a central point. That the NBN is unaffordable. I've only listed a few alternatives – i'm not claiming to have the formula, just stating that rather than tumble down the unaffordable FTTP path, look at LTE or WiMax or FSO Mesh or whatever. They are all 10 times more affordable and most importantly commercially viable.

My suggestion would be this: If you really are serious about your wireless network, get off of Whirlpool and go and get a proper feasibility study done. Find out what is really required. Provide a real plan of where towers will need to be located, tackling buildings that block wireless signals, LoS issues, installation, maintenance, power requirements, costs, fees and schedules. Once you've done this, have the study independently analysed by someone like KPMG, Deloitte's, etc...

Well i am serious, that's why i'm following the FSO Mesh path (other companies are already researching 4G-LTE). Two universities are interested in researching the ideas involved.

Webby. writes...

Merari, are you being recruited by Minchin or something to infect these forums?

Your case for against FttP is centered around one technology (LTE)

It's not centered around LTE. It's centered around the fact that FTTH is unaffordable.

DBNADM writes...

Why guys like Merari Schroeder are even allowed to post here? The guy is obviously on Telstra payroll...)

I've got nothing to do with telstra – never have.

Dellwood writes...

Until someone submits a complete proposal and makes it available to the public, I think it's a bit soon to be saying anything about the current NBN concept.

Valid food for thought...

mauried writes...

The original copper based communications system we now have was built entirely by the Govt using taxation to pay for it, and up till 1975 when telecom Aust was created

What alternatives were available back then?

All the roads and the railways were again built by Govts using taxation revenue,

What alternatives are available? We need transport, and that supports primary and secondary industry, unlike an NBN, which only "compliments". Farmers need water.

Snowy MTns scheme.

Yes, that cost <$7bn in today's money, and it's starting to fail today. It needs to be fixed.

So you're saying, today we can get internet for <$30/month, but because we NEED 100Mbp/s internet, everyone should have to pay $100/month even though there are more affordable options? That's what i'm contesting.

Merari Schroeder writes...

It's centered around the fact that FTTH is unaffordable.

To maintain some objectivity:

It's centered around **my personal assertion** that FTTH is unaffordable.

canon1d writes...

Such services need to be sustainable.

Precisely.

golftee writes...

the idea of NBN will make jobs

That's right, whether using FTTP or an alternative.

Merari Schroeder writes...

commercially viable.

The lack of spectrum means wireless will fail in an urban environment..

XTCGoo writes...

As discussed everywhere, the most expensive part of NBN cost is labour cost (digging trenches, installation, engineers, etc), the fibre itself while expensive, it is still not as expensive as labour cost.

Yep.

Whether you build the FTTH now or in 10 years or 100 years, the labour cost components will be there

Nope.

unless we are using robots in 100 years time. And in 10 years time, labour cost will be much more expensive, and if the NBN happens during a boom time, the labour cost will be double whammy expensive.

Nope.

I've already said, councils have already realised that they should be laying conduits as they lay down infrastructure (roads, bridges, utility repairs etc..). So in 10 or 100 years time the labor component will be less. And I only suggested that FTTP MAY be still pursued in 10 to 100 years – I actually believe that alternate technololgies will fill the void. Fiber optics will be used for backhaul and some limited consumer cases (eg. Universites)

ph00ns writes...

FSO requires LOS, has a range of 2km and requires an optical unit at each end. There is no way this could even be considered a possible alternative to fibre.

It uses the exact same components as in Fiber Optics, but doesn't need the Fiber. And the LOS is from house to house, hardly a challenge. The links are <50m, so that 2km limit isn't a concern.

topher1976 writes...

Just a little example of what I personally pay for my telco bill currently (excluding mobile).

Landline – $25 (HL Budget with CND, Msgbank, Silent Number and a staff discount on calls)
ADSL – $89 (ADSL2+ with Internode)
FOXTEL – $131

That adds up over $200 per month, and all this will be over the fibre once installed.

Well you should be happy to save $150/month with an alternative to FTTP.

Considering the state of some of the copper, it is definitely a good thing. And I am sure the fibre will have a longer lifespan too.

Yer it's a good think – but not affordable.

Edit: And we are miles behind other countries in relation to speed.
Okay, if you believe that, then you don't want to totally abandon an NBN, you should support an alternative to FTTP.

SecurityGuy writes...

The PMG did not run at a profit, correct. There was certainly also no mandate for it to do so, it's job was to provide telecommunications infrastructure and communications services (inc Postal) for the Australian nation...

49% of the equity is from private investors who want a return. The rest is from TBonds who you must pay the >5% coupon. This is what the costing estimates are based on.

You can't just say, we can do it because we want it. There's a cost involved to subscribers which are unaffordable.

hobbbs writes...

I wonder how much it will cost to connect a house/appartment to the fiber that runs outside the street. I doubt it will be cheap ie thousands perhaps as quoted http://business.theage.com.au/business/a-lot-is-riding-on-how-we-choose-to-take-our-fibre-20090702-d6mr.html

anyone have an idea?

I'd guess from $100 for connection, especially if the routers are bought on large scale. But also, everytime they sped up the Fiber, eg. to 1Gbps, you would need a new router (need new faster and more expensive Laser Diodes and Photodetectors every upgrade)

Of the installation cost...

ausfatcat writes...

$500 to $1500 with $500 being the most common figure.

What!! So that would have to be spread out in the monthly cost, increasing it yet the more (for a year or so – but then when you upgrade to a faster speed...)

..RC.. writes...

The NBN process/goals are incredibly flawed yet all that 98% of people can see is ZOMG 100mbit!!!!!1111111

Exactly – hey I want fast speed too – but at an affordable price. And FTTP is good but simply not affordable for every australian.

sssputnik writes...

Even if the NBN costs $43 billion, which I doubt, that amount of money is almost insignificant compared with what the govt spends on other items.

What? You can't say that! "Oh they spend $50bn on health care so let's spend $43bn on a project where the monthly prices are unaffordable by the majority of australians"

That's not logic.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Actually Chris you keep ignoring a central point. That the NBN is unaffordable.

You keep ignoring the central point: There is currently no cost associated to the NBN OTHER THAN an UP TO $43B FTTP network. We don't know how much the network is going to cost. For every person you quote who has priced the network at $200 a month to consumers, I can find others who can cost it at $25 a month.

Until we know what methods, technology and a multitude of other variables there is no definitive cost. Picking the doomsday scenario and running with that as your figure for how much consumers are likely to pay is not a true representation of how much the network will cost to consumers.

You're not credible. As I said before, if you care that much about this network of yours, go away and work on all the information and plans backed by independent analysis and come back with your findings.

@19877976sssputnik writes...
["Compare $43 billion over eight years with what gets spent on defense every eight years.

A one off cost to fibre up the whole country is an oppurtunity not to be missed"]

SecurityGuy writes...

Right on the money, hits the nail on the head...

But the nail flings off into the air....

That "one off cost" has interest and dived ends to pay, and this has to be payed by the customers. This means >$100 / month for every australian, is this "an oppotunity not to be missed?".

Dellwood writes...

Until someone submits a complete proposal and makes it available to the public, I think it's a bit soon to be saying anything about the current NBN concept.

Only that the Australian Govmt. is refusing to provide the details. Which is why there is a debate. Judging purely on the $43bn of debt going in it's easy to see that it's unaffordable because it equates to >$100/month avg. per customer.

..RC.. writes...

The lack of spectrum means wireless will fail in an urban environment..

Yes, amongst other legislation, the govmnt is using their power to over rule councils planning processes to expediate the NBN process. They have more than enough power to provide more spectrum.

And yes the RF spectrum looks like it has a ceiling. But with that ceiling not being reached yet it still has much potential for the sparsely populated Australia.

Pursuing an RF wireless solution would reach rural users at full speed too – up to gigabits.

Chris Griggs writes...

There is currently no cost associated to the NBN OTHER THAN an UP TO $43B FTTP network.

Actually analysts and industry have said it might cost more.

We don't know how much the network is going to cost.

But we have a good idea. Even if FTTP is $5bn cheaper, the monthly fees will still be around $100/month.

For every person you quote who has priced the network at $200 a month to consumers, I can find others who can cost it at $25 a month.

Well you should show those people where the X button is.

Until we know what methods, technology and a multitude of other variables there is no definitive cost. Picking the doomsday scenario and running with that as your figure for how much consumers are likely to pay is not a true representation of how much the network will cost to consumers.

I used very generous estimates. 5% for TBonds is the current market value and it's expected to go up, because there's an oversupply in the debt market (lots of governments trying to raise capital). Also, I didn't include the market rate dived ends.

You're not credible. As I said before, if you care that much about this network of yours, go away and work on all the information and plans backed by independent analysis and come back with your findings.

I'm not credible? You attacked my credentials before and I told you of my degree and job. What are your credentials?

Merari Schroeder writes...

[b]Of the installation cost...[/b]

ausfatcat writes...

What!! So that would have to be spread out in the monthly cost, increasing it yet the more (for a year or so – but then when you upgrade to a faster speed...)

Nice way to change what was actually spoken about, the question was how much to connect the home from the pillar/trench this is a once off cost that is part of the deployment and would be the same regardless of speed (which can be software based changed in the future for minmal amount)

This post exactly highlights your problem you only see what you want to see, not what is written. You believe because you have done a IT course (one of 10,000 in Australia) you know more than anyone else, what deployment experience have you had? (what networking experience have you had?) what actually says your rollout would be cheaper?

When you have people like stephen davies who have worked years in the field in network rollouts and planning saying the cost would be significantly lower than 48 billion but you refuse to acknowledge and go off on a untired shared medium rant with no idea if it will work or how much it would cost?

What happens when one of these nodes goes down that's on a house? the whole chain disappears?

Merari Schroeder writes...

I'm not credible? You attacked my credentials before and I told you of my degree and job. What are your credentials?

And they have nothing to do with network rollouts or costs at all. It's like a train signaller quoting on building a road.

Another question, how are these wireless transmitters going to be installed on each house (yes I know the physical aspect of installing them)?? How are they going to be powered (buggered if I will pay for it)
Will the home owners have any say? How are you going to monitor each point? you seem to put a lot of trust in the jo bob at home to A) allow access to install/keep working and B) Not pull out the wire cutters. What if I wanted to charge rent for the use of my home as a base station?

double post. Mods please delete.

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

Is there no space in your exchange for other ISPs to install DSLAM ?

Well I have had a look at the actual exchange building and it certainly looks big enough. Who knows. I think the old argument of ISP's not finding it "cost effective" has something to do with it. But on the other hand Security Guy's comment makes some sense

I thought ausfatcat was talking about the cost of setting up the connection to the home (including the router)...

ausfatcat writes...

Nice way to change what was actually spoken about, the question was how much to connect the home from the pillar/trench this is a once off cost that is part of the deployment and would be the same regardless of speed (which can be software based changed in the future for minmal amount)

Oh. Yer the street to house would be once off. So the router would be more around $100.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the software based speed increase? I've been looking at the FSO components and talking to suppliers. The photodetector and laser diodes come in different speeds. The 100Mb/s PON ones are just that, limited to 100Mb/s (or close to that). The NBN could use a system which uses gigabit components and slow it down to 100Mb/s, but they are a lot more expensive today and obviously the more affordable 100Mb/s components have been chosen.

What happens when one of these nodes goes down that's on a house? the whole chain disappears?

The idea of the mesh is that if one goes down the traffic is routed around. There would be 3+ links per node.

And they have nothing to do with network rollouts or costs at all. It's like a train signaller quoting on building a road.

Acually more like a car/truck driver who has done research into the ideas of buildilng a road. And technically a road is a mesh topology, with highway backhaul – one of the alternatives i'm suggesting.

You would ultimately own an FSO Mesh node. Although, just like a mobile phone, you could go on a plan to spread out the $300 cost.

upNdown writes...

Another question, how are these wireless transmitters going to be installed on each house (yes I know the physical aspect of installing them)?? How are they going to be powered (buggered if I will pay for it)

I recharge my mobile phone. You would pay for the node power – which would be very low. <1W. Just like you would pay to power your internet router. The node is both your internet router and the infrastructure.

Now you're just getting into nitty gritty details....

Will the home owners have any say?

Yes and if you don't want one, you don't have to. You can use the >$100/month FTTP if you want. (Rather than ~$30/month, 1Gbps connection).

How are you going to monitor each point?

Monitor what? No need to. Internet backhaul usage will be metered at each internet POP.

you seem to put a lot of trust in the jo bob at home
to A) allow access to install/keep working

Actually they would hire a technician to install – just like you will when you would install FTTP. Ultimately a NFP organisation would facilitate maintenence and insurance of the node, for part of the $30/month fee. If you bought the node outright and didn't want maintenance, you would only be paying for backhaul costs which with the city of Geelong covered would cost $10/month and you would be sharing 3Gbps (Soul). So here you can see that backhaul is quite expensive today. You would get 30Gbps for the same price in US, but that's because they have a bigger market.

B) Not pull out the wire cutters.
Why would they do that? They would lose their internet.

What if I wanted to charge rent for the use of my home as a base station?
Well you only have a node on your roof if you're using it. And you buy it outright, like a mobile phone, or you pay it off over a year. So you wouldn't be charging your self rent.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Now you're just getting into nitty gritty details....

Nope just trying to understand what your trying to get across.

Ok so each home has to buy a wireless node to access the net (understandable) which will receive and transmit (ie continue the connection to the next node). So this will also need to have a reasonably high uptake to work and more importantly have redundancy.

How much are these devices BTW????

Merari Schroeder writes...

I'm not credible? You attacked my credentials before and I told you of my degree and job. What are your credentials?

Been in the IT industry for 10 years (since I was 18) no degree, never needed one. Been on Whirlpool since around 2000/2001. Followed the NBN thread since the very first one way way back many moons ago.

Have worked in all parts of IT from Helpdesk to Network Administration to IT Management. Have been following the state of internet access in Australia since ADSL came out, was actually one of the first few thousand people in Melbourne to get access to it.

Have followed multiple peoples commentary both good and bad on the NBN. I choose to sit in the middle with a slight swing towards the positive.

The difference between you and me is that I am willing to wait for a process to run and some further information to be released before claiming the sky will fall. Instead, you have come up with some rather lacking in detail auto-magical network ideas which you have provided no research for but have said will work. From what I've read of your posts most of the stuff you want to implement hasn't even been tested in a commercial environment yet but you want to roll it out to everyone.

Let me put this to you. What happens if in 12 months time, the figures come out with residential customers being charged as low as $40 a month for phone connection and a basic internet plan? You'd look rather stupid for claiming your $200 because of some back of the envelope maths.

On the other side of it, I would be happy in 12 months time if they came out and said it will cost $200 per month to the user. You guys can point at me and say I told you so but at least the process ran and we found out for sure. Until that happens though, none of the figures that have been thrown around are anywhere near accurate.

Now, it sounds like you're a couple of years out of Uni, around 23 or 25 years old. My suggestion would be to get some experience in the IT industry first, get a feel of what's going on out there in the Australian environment, listen to what business want and then provide it. Business, Corporate and Government will be the biggest customers on this network and will subsidise it for the rest of the country. That's how I know prices will be a lot less than $200 a month.

+1

nice post

Yep, pretty damn good post. I agree. Until we have the full facts regarding this NBN rollout there is no point debating on things like costs. The debate in this thread is over until we have these facts.

Merari Schroeder writes...

where the monthly prices are unaffordable by the majority of australians"

What? You can't say that!

That's not logic.

Touche

Merari Schroeder writes...

You're right, this is commonly a concern. However the biggest threat has always been the actual towers not the mobile phones them selves. But you're actually in more danger by having WiFi equipment in your house which runs at 2.4Ghz (your microwave frequency for cooking – at this frequency, water resonates). The licensed and ISM bands which the wireless towers operate at are much safer, also an upgrade from 3G to 4G wouldn't increase the exposure as the existing towers would be replaced (in the best case scenario). Also wireless isn't restricted to RF.

Where is the research to back your claim?

You're not going to stop consumers using mobile phones and mobile internet, it's consumer driven. According to your concerns we should be making sure that such installations are done so safely and with ample research etc..

Yes, we should. We have an obligation to protect the health of our children. Do you believe a 10 year old has any idea on the danger on mobile phone? Some research has linked mobile phone to brain cancer. Reasearch takes time and the effect may not known for many years. Take a look for example on asbestos or cigarette, where the health implications were unknown for many years after they were introduced.

Well I think your children are safe. Have you already sacrificed your mobility today?

You can have your children to use mobile phone as much as you want, not my problem. But forcing every other children to be exposed to high powered transmission is another thing.

Maybe we should roll with our friends point here.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Thinking from different angles, what's wrong with the current NBN plan? Those who don't like the NBN can post here. There seem to be a lot of NBN Pro threads.

If you think you have a new angle, put it in quotes at the top of your post, and i'll edit this original post to collect them all. Each of the angles can also be debated.

Don't get me wrong, faster internet isn't bad and fiber is a great technology, but let's do it right.
Alternatives:
1. LTE (Strong)
2. WiMAX (Medium-Strong)

What I want from an internet connection is:
- An absolute minimum speed of 21Mbit at all times.
- No noticable traffic congestion (even if 100's of users were using the service in my area).
- 20-50GB data quota allowance (or 40-100GB if including upload metering).
- 99% uptime, no dropouts.
- $50 – $80 monthly spend.

I would support your alternative proposals if you could guarantee it can tick all these boxes and get it to my premisis in 2 -3 years. Otherwise I am happy to wait and pay more for FTTP.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Where do you get this information from? Not this article I think: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25770/1231/1/1/

You are talking about broadband takeup by the populance. This is the uptake of BB, not the speed of downloading, and the monthly quota. Do you disagree that we have some of the world's slowest average speed, and smallest quotas? The article that you have quoted doesn't even talk about speed or quota.

No I'm a choose a solution that we can afford – that will work.

What is that solution? Tell everybody on here all about it. How it will be implementd, how it will work, who will receive it, including the areas that these people live in, and how much it will cost. Back up your bald statement with some pertitent numbers and facts.

Edit: In other words, put up, or shut up. Which is it to be?

Merari Schroeder writes...

But the nail flings off into the air....

That "one off cost" has interest and dived ends to pay, and this has to be payed by the customers. This means >$100 / month for every australian, is this "an oppotunity not to be missed?".

Now you have a golden opportunity Merari...

Following your logic and calculations, no business in Australia could ever afford to invest in any business growth or modernisation, unless they had the cash in the bank or guaranteed pre-orders based on non-cancellable contracts...

Considering that we have an approx. $800billion+ GDP in Australia, and the maximum $43billion is spent over 8 years, that will represent an averaged $5.4billion per annum investment. (whoops, rounded up to $5.6 bill instead of $5.4bill, soz – numbers below based on $5.6billion per annum spend...))

GDP will grow by (averaged, as we will have a dip this year and strong growth over the next 2 years) approx. 3% per annum. But let's ignore that for the moment.

Upgraded and high speed communications has always grown advanced economies, always. Anywhere from 2% to 5% per annum. But let's ignore that as well...

Our $5.6billion per annum investment represents 0.07% spend against GDP. That creates an averaged $392.7million repayment per annum per $5.6billion spend, if we were to calculate 5% interest and principal payments over a 25 year period.

That then, ballpark averaged numbers here, grows by the said $392.7million per annum repayment level, to a total $3.124billion per annum after 8 years... That represents 0.3928% of a static 2007/2008 GDP number.

But GDPs are seldom static, especially when you implement a national FTTP infrastructure...

But let's not take a 2% growth based on a national fibre roll-out, let's start with just 0.2% GDP growth per annum due to the SNN...

That would give us, once again in averaged and naturally not detailed numbers, a GDP growth of $1.6billion in Year 2, growing to $11.267billion in Year 8. (assume no SNN related GDP growth in Yr1)

That then gives us the following national gross profit margin, based on only 50% margin on the GDP growth for replacing high maintenance cost copper with low maintenance cost (per $$ earnt) fibre:

Y2: $210,860,000
Y3: $1,012,460,000
Y4: $1,619,283,200
Y5: $2,227,712,806
Y6: $2,837,752,032
Y7: $3,449,404,096
Y8: $4,062,672,224

This has been based on subtracting the national debt principal and interest payments from minimum GDP growth, then extracting a 50% margin, Y2 margin has been reached after subtracting Y1 and Y2 costs.

Now, are the assumptions accurate? 50% playroom to remain nationally cash flow positive...
Are the minimums viable? Proven time and again in many markets.
Is it this simple? Nope, but the fundamentals are....

The point: >$100 per month for every Australian is $24billion per annum... Soz mate but that number lacks any connection to any reality. The economic effects of such an investment washes across the whole economy, reduces manifold business, communications and social costs in myriad sectors.

Simply calculating some extra debt costs and trying to average that across every Australian is lacking in any understanding of national economics, market dynamics and efficiencies/productivity/revenue-margin/P&L calculations...

No business of any format can survive and invest if they only count their costs, that is too primitive to believe...

Total up the manifold benefits across all facets of our private, business and social activities, calculate the resulting costs savings, correlate that across the multiple economic dependancies, and you may start to get an inkling why a small business invests $10K in a new phone system, why higher speed internet gave us free phone calls, why internet banking saves us $billions per annum nationally etc etc...

Summary: Be man enough to give both sides of the calculation, not just the costs.

This is also specifically for you Merari: Get a good grip on your cajones and work both sides of the NBNco costs/benefits analysis, not just the doom and gloom prophecies from the rooftop...

This country cannot afford NOT to build an SNN...

Have a nice day.

(edit – typos)

upNdown writes...

Another question, how are these wireless transmitters going to be installed on each house ....... What if I wanted to charge rent for the use of my home as a base station?

That's not going to happen ! Lets speculate on other dreams.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Ultimately a NFP organisation would facilitate maintenence and insurance of the node,

Why cant this same NFP organisation faciliate maintenance and Insurance of the SSN? I am hoping the NFP = Not For Profit.

Merari Schroeder writes...

I graduated from Deakin University in 2006 completing the Bachelour of Business Information Technology with Honors

Hmmm... – Spelling...

Read the whole thread. This whole NBN is analogous to the deployment of the original telephone lines and national highway yonks ago.

Not everyone had phones – I bet there were some folk that would have said " bah – what's with all this phone stuff – we dont need it!! – she'll be right"

Not everyone had cars – I also bet that some folk would have said " all these roads goin places – you've got to be mad to get a car – too expensive – she'll be right!!"

Now, fast forward to the present.. "we don't need this National Broadband network, my internet works at the moment. This fibre stuff will cost too much – just leave it as it is – SHE'LL BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

but...

Nearly everyone has a phone. Nearly everyone has a car.

This is just a next logical step in the evolution of a society. We need to communicate and the current system is holding us back. Email and IM and even VOIP is dated technology. Video conferencing, simultaneous large file transfers of data, complete synchronisation of multiple digital devices, gaming, entertainment and more will all come to life with a decent internet infrastructure.

There is a downside to the "she'll be right" Aussie attitude. They are happy with what they have because they know no different. We are seeing a prime example of it with the NBN – most people couldn't give 2 rats about it because the benefits have not been shown to the layperson. All us Whirlpoolers know what it is all about.

Australia seriously needs to get a boot up their dairy air and a massive dose of STFU and just get on building this. FTTH to as much as possible and then high speed wireless to pick up the rest where it is not viable. Done!!

aussiegeek

edit – typo -typed FTTN instead of FTTH!! :-S

aussiegeek writes...

FTTH to as much as possible and then high speed wireless to pick up the rest where it is not viable. Done!!

And that folks, sums it up...

Three big "yes's" to The Geek and he progresses to the next round...

upNdown writes...
Another question, how are these wireless transmitters going to be installed on each house ....... What if I wanted to charge rent for the use of my home as a base station?

DenisPC9 writes...

That's not going to happen ! Lets speculate on other dreams.

Just a moment Denis...

upNdown charges $50 per month rental...

His provider takes that $50 "buy price", adds his 20% margin and has a base resell price of $60 per month, plus 10% GST, and upNdown can buy the antenna service back for a mere $66 per month...

Now, if you can buy the rights for antenna space rental from everyone in town upNdown, at a wholesale rate of $10 per roof, and sell it to the provider at $15 per month, and they sell it to the users for $19.80, the users might not notice that they are being shafted... lol

That, would be a deal worthy of Sol...

edit...typo

SecurityGuy writes...

And that folks, sums it up...

Three big "yes's" to The Geek and he progresses to the next round...

:p

While I'm not opposed to the NBN... people seem to have false ideas about it.

We will still have quotas. I personally will not pay more money for 100mbit internet than my current ~10mbit internet if the quota is the same. (Unless it offered a serivce I wanted like HD TV over IP, that was unmetered)

You will not get 100mbit speeds for everything. Mainly things from the ISP's internal network will achieve those speeds. International data will be just as fast as it is today, unless there is a significant increase in undersea cabling.

And yes I know there will be more investment in international cabling in the future with NBN creating demand for this, but international data will always be more expensive/more limited than local data. And since NBN will be the driving force for more cabling, this cabling won't be complete for a couple years after the demand is created by the NBN. And a few years following that we will probably have 1gbit services and suddanly international bandwidth is lacking again.

AfroTrance writes...

And a few years following that we will probably have 1gbit services and suddanly international bandwidth is lacking again.

And by then the 10 Petabyte cache satellite will be in operation for our region and international bandwidth will be used only for traffic flagged 'immediate'.

It is easy to be pessimistic about the future of the local internet scene.

It has had the dead hand of Telstra at the tiller for so long that, just like the slave expecting the lash, we begin to expect more of the same.

Personally, I think the NBN will be exactly what is needed to 'break the mould' and enter a new era. IMHO, the less of the NBN that is connected in any way with the past incumbent the better off we will all be.

Merari Schroeder writes...

49% of the equity is from private investors who want a return. The rest is from TBonds who you must pay the >5% coupon. This is what the costing estimates are based on.

You can't just say, we can do it because we want it. There's a cost involved to subscribers which are unaffordable.

Soz Merari, looks like you have been receiving your costs estimates in emails from Mr. Godwin Grech... If they have been vetted by Senator Abetz and Malcolm Turnbull I would begin to harbour some doubts as to their veracity...

Otherwise I have yet to see a shred of "evidence" to support the statements relating to "There's a cost involved to subscribers which are unaffordable."

Now you could be Senator Conroy ghost writing with an alias, and have already discussed wholesale and retail pricing with all the providers, otherwise again, your ststements stand in conflict with the objective economic analysts...

And all logic...

And all objective baseline calculations...

And history, which does not support your models at all...

But then again, lesser men than you have changed the course of history as well...

Mandatory viewing folks: Senator Conroy, like him or not, presenting some answers to media questions:

http://tv.misaustralia.com/video/7406

Merari Schroeder writes...

Huh? I graduated from Deakin University in 2006 completing the Bachelour of Business Information Technology with Honors and went straight into a programming contract.

Having 'wizzed through the thread', I understand your frustration about the cost of the NBN investment and the expected ongoing operating costs, and that is what I always expect from a person that has done a BBIT, or an MBA with a 'limited' industry experience. (no offence intended)

The problem is that unfortunately the course is extremely 'right wing' because in the late 1960s the Monetarists / Capitalists in the USA systematically removed all socialist teachings and litrature from the uni courses (and branded such teachings as seriously flawed, and blacklisted any lecturers that persisted).

The consequence is that you and most like you (nothing personal) with recent Uni degrees and less than say 15 years of industry experience can only see the Capitalist approach, and can't see that there needs to be an even keel of Government (Infrastructure) Business – and the accounting practices (P&L sheets) for this is External – not Internal.

External Acconting works like this: – as competitive businesses profit from utilising the telecomms, rail, road, planning, electricity, education, defence, water etc infrastructure – these competitive businesses pay more tax which in turn pays hansomely for the infrastructure utilities. (Best if the infrastructure utilities are kept as government commissions as the maintenence is done proactively instead of reactively. Nothing wrong with competitive retail reselling – except the Capitalists hate it as this is a rather level competitive playing field and therefore the profits are 'limited'!)

Like as has been said much earlier in the thread – Australia is really up near the top with BB penentration (especially when you compare like-size land masses – Victoria and NSW are good matches for many Eurpoean countries – or groups of countries!!)

Our big problem is that ADSL has a short urban reach and the sooner it is removed and replaced with FTTP the better, but the metro already has FTTN HFC, so it does not need FTTP for several years, and oh, yes; beyond the metro is a financial desert and that is why commercial telecomms infrastructure businesses were never there, and never will be – and that is why the Telstra non-metro (at least) needs to be nationalised and brought into the NBN (another twist!)....

AfroTrance writes...

And yes I know there will be more investment in international cabling in the future with NBN creating demand for this, but international data will always be more expensive/more limited than local data.

Yes, but what if international data went down 10x and local data went down 100x? Can easily happen. Since the cost of data as it stands now has little to do with the cost of provisioning it.

What I don't really understand is why, if the Government wants to create a NBN, doesn't just buy Telstra's 3G network and turn it into a national wireless broadband network (NWBN?).

To my mind this would be a very cost effective way to get the infrastructure in place, if you take a really long term forward view I think it's quite likely we will all be on wireless anyway, so why not just do this?

Then the Govt could subsidise the cost of 3G to homes to its heart's content, extend the network to regional areas which do not yet have coverage, and save a whole lot work in building the fibre to the home infrastructure.

Can anyone out there explain to me why this couldn't be achieved?

Because 3G wireless technology has a long way to go before it is even up to ADSL standards. With that I mean no drop outs, constant reliable speeds and limited congestion issues. Wireless will never match the performance of a fixed cable service.

CaptainCaveman writes...

What I don't really understand is why, if the Government wants to create a NBN, doesn't just buy Telstra's 3G network and turn it into a national wireless broadband network (NWBN?).

Nothing stopping Telstra and the NBNco/DCDBE negotiating on the 3G Network becoming a part of the overall SNN.

A wireless component is foreseen to extend the core fibre based NBN in any case.

However, you cannot replace the cake with the icing... Wireless broadband, just about anywhere on the planet (well our's anyway) is forseen for and operationally implemented to extend terrestrial, wired (fibred) data network infrastructure.

Growth in mobility based networking and communications increases the significance of wireless broadband, and in specialised implementations is often the only option.

But it is still simply not capable of providing the overall data transmission performance and volumes required by the SNN model.

Now if you think and extra cable on the poles in many suburbs is ugly, wait until you see a 3G tower every 1km in every direction, pulsing yet more high powered radio waves though the ether and our brains etc ....

But it would be excellent to have that network as a component!

Wireless also unfortunately needs radio spectrum to operate in , and unlike fibre cable where you can simply lay more and more cables side by side to get more bandwidth, the radio frequency spectrum is finite.
You simply cant make more spectrum if you need it.
The radio spectrum also has to obey some pesky laws of physics, which set basic minimum spectrum efficiency, ie how much bandwidth you need to transmit a given bit rate.
Ever wondered why existing mobile wireless broadband has so many congestion problems and lousy speeds.
Basically not enuf spectrum available to meet the needs of the number of consumers signing up, which causes tower congestion.
See if you can buy a Microwave Link with 5 GBits of thruput.
Good luk.

SecurityGuy writes...

Growth in mobility based networking and communications increases the significance of wireless broadband,

And it is possible that within 10 years there will be more wireless mobile connections than fixed line broadband. That is my view anyway.

ClickHere writes...

Business will not subsidize broadband for anyone else

Actually they do already.

ClickHere writes...

If business were such big subsidizers of broadband then don't you think that by the same logic all home customers would already be benefiting with cheap broadband?

Oh and I love that logic. You're ignoring the possibility that there is one entity (Telstra) ripping everyone off and that noone is getting a fair deal.

ungulate writes...

You're ignoring the possibility that there is one entity (Telstra) ripping everyone off and that noone is getting a fair deal.

Telstra is not the only entity.

You're ignoring the possibility that there are other entities, like Optus, for example.

And don't forget either that both Telstra and Optus were originally created by the government. Will their third attempt be any better?

ungulate writes...

Actually they do already.

By how much? How much are they saving me?

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

And it is possible that within 10 years there will be more wireless mobile connections than fixed line broadband. That is my view anyway.

I like your foresight! :) Agreed that wireless Internet will be highly predominant in the metro areas – but the number of Mobile (access) base stations will have to drastically increase to provide the bandwidth and minimised geographic coverage.

Can't see the same outside the metro areas – could be useful in towns instead of FTTH, but that would be as useless as ADSL (and that is rather useless – judging by the continuing whinging on Whirlpool).

CaptainCaveman writes...

What I don't really understand is why, if the Government wants to create a NBN, doesn't just buy Telstra's 3G network and turn it into a national wireless broadband network (NWBN?).

Well, before Howard sold out, the Govt had a majority holding in Telstra and so the Govt. could do that then – but not now – in any case Telstra's 3G network is far too small and does not have a solid enough backbone structure in its backhaul to manage 3G network and Internet FTTP, and Foxtel via FTTP too.

Unless you get creative in the land of Bacardi (DBCDE) and arrange for a split in the TLS shares to introduce Bigpond (BPD) shares, say 1:4, so for every 5 TLS shares these ar replaced by 4 TLW (Telstra Wholesale) shares and 1 BPD (Bigpond Retail) share all of equal value. Assuming the Govt has a 45% holding of the original TLS shares, they can then offer to swap their BPD shares for TLS shares, and the TLS Board moves out of Telstra and directs BPD, and leaves the Govt. commission under the DBCDE to manage TLS – which when the Govt swaps out of BPD, they will then have a majority holding in TLW shares, and BPD will be wholly in the private sector.

The TLW Commission can then move on NBN and integrate the networks and Australia will get by far the best bang for its bucks. The Wholesale price will drop in time and BPD will increase its profit without raising end user costs, and its tax component will also increase – which goes into consolidated revenue to build other infrastructure!

Everyones' a Winner Babe!

Then the Govt could subsidise the cost of 3G to homes to its heart's content, extend the network to regional areas which do not yet have coverage, and save a whole lot work in building the fibre to the home infrastructure.

Sounds good in principle – but you would need a 3G radio tower on every street corner to carry the bandwidth and minimise the geographic coverage so that the bandwidth can be functional, and in realising that – FTTP is a far 'cleaner' solution that would be very considerably cheaper to impliment than high density 3G.

t1t2t3...t4? writes...

And it is possible that within 10 years there will be more wireless mobile connections than fixed line broadband. That is my view anyway.

That is a distinct possibility in 10 years, and I have no doubt the market and operators will adjust to that development as infrastructure is built and expanded.

With mobile devices and smart phones acquiring broadband capabilities at an exponential growth rate, I expect that they will almost all have this in 2019.

Just about every individual will have a mobile device with access I expect... However the data transmission loads will remain miniscule compared to the terrestrial connections.

So agreed...

However the usage patterns and applicability for the differentiated personal or business applications will still see the "fibred" infrastructure delivering the majority of the traffic and ever-higher performance services that will also develop and be used...

ClickHere writes...

And don't forget either that both Telstra and Optus were originally created by the government. Will their third attempt be any better?

When created, Telstra was a pretty darn good national provider in a period of transition.

The sell-off into privatisation was not handled well and an aggressive, profit driven monopoly was created with far too few effective regulatory controls.

There is a distinct difference between requiring healthy profits to maintain and grow, and being aggressively driven to maximise monopoly exploited profits at the expense of the industry equity standards, regulation and the national economy.

That was Telstra post privatisation.

Will the third attempt be any better? Well live in hope and garner some cautious optimism, because it's coming... And it's coming due to Telstra's own behaviour...

Enjoy.

Ever wondered why existing mobile wireless broadband has so many congestion problems and lousy speeds.

Basically not enuf spectrum available to meet the needs of the number of consumers signing up, which causes tower congestion.

See if you can buy a Microwave Link with 5 GBits of thruput.

Good luk.

Bingo...!

This post is a good read, thanks mauried.

mauried writes...

Ever wondered why existing mobile wireless broadband has so many congestion problems and lousy speeds.

Basically not enuf spectrum available to meet the needs of the number of consumers signing up, which causes tower congestion.

It could also be a backhaul issue. But mobile wireless broadband is still relatively new. The technology is getting better each year. Also, some spectrum are not being utilised like the one that Hutchison 3 have and also the one that AAPT bought for their planned CDMA which did not eventuate. We need all those spectrum as the demand is there.

And don't forget either that both Telstra and Optus were originally created by the government. Will their third attempt be any better?

I know Telstra was created by the Australian Government but Optus?

I think optus is owned by singapore government or so i have told

Optus was originally the Australian Governments satellite company from memory. Optus still own lots of satellites now, probably as a carry over from those days.

Melbourne Skywalker writes...

I know Telstra was created by the Australian Government but Optus?

They were origonally Aussat an Australian company created by the federal government which was sold to a American consortium and renamed Optus

ausfatcat writes...

They were origonally Aussat an Australian company created by the federal government which was sold to a American consortium and renamed Optus

OK, that sounds pretty logical and right.

I am still mystified why ClickHere thinks that was a failure?

And don't forget either that both Telstra and Optus were originally created by the government. Will their third attempt be any better?

Melbourne Skywalker writes...

I know Telstra was created by the Australian Government but Optus?

Yes Optus too, was created out of Telecom Australia and OTC as a directive of the Federal Government of the time (under extreme duress from the WTO).

Telecom Australia was created out of the Post Master General's Departments as a direct threat from the USA Capitalist controlled World Trade Orginisation (WTO) to privatise the Australian telecomms 'utility' or face financial 'sanctions' (exclusion from international trade) – so the Federal Government's hands were tightly tied by Uncle Sam (USA).

The WTO applied the same directives to virtually all developed countries, and that is why so many countries 'freed up their telecomms infrastructures' – so that USA based telecomms manufacturers could capitalise on WTO-constructed Global trade agreements.

When it became apparent that Telecom Australia was a commission and not privatised onto the ASX, the WTO again approached the Australian Government and 'advised' them to privatise Telecom Australia or lose significant international trade relations around the world, so again the Federal Governments hands were tied and they moved Telecom Australia as a Commission into a corporation (company) with listings on the ASX (with a majority government holding) and much later rebadged Telecom Australia as Telstra as Telstra.

The argument used here was that the word 'Telecom' was 'generic' and therefore could not be used in the name of the corporation infrastructure!

The WTO was still unsatisfied that the telecomms market had been significantly 'deregulated' to align with USA standards of corporate 'freedom' to be openly pillaged, so they (WTO) instigated yet another round of 'advice' to the Australian Federal Government to create another competitive business in telecomms and pit this against Telecom Australia, or face further trade sanctions, and so the Federal Government set a course to create a competitive telecomm infrastructure in Australia.

Getting a float on this new business (Optus) was rather difficult to say the least as Telecom Australia was an efficient telecomms infrastructure and retail reselling business, so the Federal Government had to make some very nasty decisions in allowing a fire sale in Telecom Australia / OTC to provide certain working infrastucture for Optus – such that it could provide a return for its international (basically USA-based) investors in a much shorter timeframe.

And so it came to pass that OTC lost its Satellite business to Optus (for about $80 M if I recall correctly), and Telecom Australia lost its optical fibre network transmission carriage of ABC distribution (which went onto the satellites), and NDC were 'awarded a contract' to install and commission significant exchanges for Optus at prices that were about half installation costs of that done by other similar businesses then commercial rates (and at a standard that had never been approached by other international commercial businesses)!

Telecom Australia then had another sale of its infrastructure as securities (TLSCB) and it became Telstra and with this change in holding, Telstra then became agressive as it focussed on returns for its shareholders as per the original WTO 'advice'.

In recent years (I am not sure of the involvement of the WTO, but I know that Howard was on a mission that was not for the Australian people – but for big business), such that the last trance of TLS share scripts ensured that the Federal Government no longer had a majority holding in Telstra, and Telstra is highly focussed on maximising its returns for investments – no thanks to the WTO for meddling with the highly social Australian way of life.

Meanwhile, there were rumblings in the Optu$ camp and with the notion that several USA based multinational telcos were going under because of too much competition and not enough service standards (or return on investments – I mean: how much do these investors rerally want – everything)??

Certain large transactions of Optu$ shares happened so that Optu$ was no longer majority Australian owned and the Australian Federal Government realised that their 'laws preventing Australian ownership slipping overseas' were as useless as used toilet paper, and Optu$ ended up in the hands of the Singapore Government – effectively as a commission.

BeenThere writes...

NDC were 'awarded a contract' to install and commission significant exchanges for Optus at prices that were about half installation costs of that done by other similar businesses then commercial rates (and at a standard that had never been approached by other international commercial businesses)!

very comprehensive.

NDC was Telstra's maintenance arm just renamed when they tried to sell it off but couldn't find a buyer?

I always laugh at the Free trade who haw a few years ago, byt the Howard government it effectively removed all the Tariffs for American business entering Australia but the Aussie business entering the US esp wheat and steel still had to compete with Tariffs against them. The whole thing was very hypocritical.

Thankyou guys, especially you Beenthere. I never knew the full story behind Optus that's why I asked the question. Very informative.

ausfatcat writes...

NDC was Telstra's maintenance arm just renamed when they tried to sell it off but couldn't find a buyer?

No! Network Design and Construction (NDC) was / is part of Network Technology or National Network Business Unit (depending on how you look at the Telstra structure). The role of NDC was / is to design the network augmentations and install equipment in the right places to construction specifications.

From about 1992, most telecomms equipment manufacturers saw that they could make a killing by providing turnkey (completely installed and operational) solutions to telecomms owners (who were by then largely privatised and didn't have a clue on what they needed in their infrastructure businesses to make them profitable!

So the 'competitive' NDC businesses in the USA and elsewhere charged like wounded bulls and did a very mediocre installation standard job – full of defects. When Optus contracted NDCto nstall their exchanges they were stunned because the prices wereliterally half that offerd by the USA competitive businesses and the workmanship was clearly superior to which they had ever seen – literally no defects first time inspection.

Several years ago I heard the comment from one Optus exec "If we did not have NDC doing our installation then we would have gone bust very early, because they were half the USA rates and the workmanship was by far the best I have ever seen!" Maybe this shows how competition really does not fit a Utility company!

Telstra's Maintenance Arm (as you put it) is somewhat disected! Maintenance for the Backhaul is managed via the Global Operations Centre (GOC) in Melbourne (Clayton) and in the most cases is handled by Telstra staff that are part of Networks and Technology Business Unit, with some of this maintenance subcontracted to a range of (usually ex-Telstra) businesses that also sub-contract to install telecomms infrastructure.

The CAN is a slightly different structure where most of this nstallation and maintenance work is directed out of Brisbane? and Adelaide? (could be wrong here as I have not been in there since about 1996), where the Fault Dispatch Centres for Consumer, and Business and Governement direct their Telstra (Bigpond labelled) staff, and /or subcontractors to perform maintenance on the ever-failing pair copper CAN. Unsuprisingly – this is a competitive market and the work practices are poor – again this is another reason why competitive regime has no place with infrastructure (utility) businesses!

I always laugh at the Free trade who haw a few years ago, byt the Howard government it effectively removed all the Tariffs for American business entering Australia but the Aussie business entering the US esp wheat and steel still had to compete with Tariffs against them. The whole thing was very hypocritical.

And you ask yourself: "Why would a country be motivated to fly a plane or two into the side of the WTO building after their oil busineses had been ransacked?

Interesting to note that the WTO played a major part in the downfall of Australias' One-Desk Wheat trading arrangement (AWB) – the Iraq debacle – because this arrangement was world powerful and was providing stiff competition to the USA farmers. Now that the AWB is split, Australia cannot command controlling prices on grain!

Merari Schroeder writes...

Actually analysts and industry have said it might cost more.

And as usual, we have the flip side:
http://www.misaustralia.com/viewer.aspx?EDP://20090708000031323235§ion=news

CitiGroup and Deloitte. Hmm.

I'm tempted to register NoNoNBN.org, though I guess YesNBN.org is a better choice
(If you're seriously interested in helping out with such a venture, whim me)

Disclaimer: I am not an expert.
A few problems I can see with 100% wireless:

- Shannon's channel capacity law: LTE, WiMAX and other 'radio' tech like DVB-*2, DOCSIS 3 etc are nearing the spectral efficiency limit, i.e the only way they get more bandwidth is by more and more spectrum.
- Guess what a fully fledged LTE network needs? Fibre. Are we seriously going to get several backhaul networks >100mbit to each tower (probably 1Km apart in metro areas)? You might as well build the current FTTP NBN, the wireless carriers might be the largest customers. (Lets bear in mind each mobile tower usually has 2 carriers)
- Internet utilization up 3% per month per user (source: John Lindsay 2008 presentation 'Impact of increasing residential speeds and traffic, jslblog.com), in line with figures from overseas.
- Gen X,Y members like myself are rapidly adopting the internet video (legal or not) as entertainment over TV. This will explode even more as quota falls.

Merari Schroeder writes...

1. High projected monthly subscription cost (strong)
This depends on build costs and ROI %, and the only problem I can see with the plan is that it's planned for NBN P/L to be privatised after 5 years. This is a stupid move – I'll explain my reasons later – the rest of the plan is good. But the build costs have been mentioned by people on here who have significant experience as being pessimistic – that they have overbudgeted, not underbudgeted. That it could be significantly less. And, of the $43B you keep mentioning, at least $4.7B will not require a return. Quite possibly more.

2. Australia is not behind the rest of the world (strong)
You don't act when you're behind the field, if you do, you're too late. Our take-up is high, but our costs are very high for our speeds and data allowances.

3. The private sector will easily compete taking needed market (strong)
I live in a suburb where the developer tried to get the private sector to build Greenfield FTTH. No one was willing, so Telstra put in RIMs, and I live on a slow, expensive wireless connection. My little section of the development currently houses 10,000 people, with well over 50% take-up of broadband (how do I know? There is enough ADSL supply (ports) for 50% of the houses, and they're all gone, and the Optus/Virgin/Vodafone/3 networks are heavily congested – to dial-up speeds), so it's not like there wasn't a market. The private sector acts to make money, not for the national good.

3. The project is not "Nation Building" (strong)
You could argue the same thing about Road, Telephone lines, power lines... I mean, roads are there so we can visit family as much as so we can transport food. Phones are for calling your mum (as Telstra keep on saying) as much as for business.

Look, I use VOIP (Voice, not Video) every day. I would love to have a better quality connection than my wireless 1Mbps/512kbps connection. I send many MB/month of emails – I'd love for them to be faster.

4. Most productive tasks use a small amount of bandwidth (medium)
Productive tasks use what's available to them.

5. Not mobile (medium)
So? Neither's my default wireless connection from home.

6. Does not provide equal access to rural users (strong)
Neither does any other current technology. However, if we're honest, FTTH has better potential for rural areas than any form of Copper-based internet could dream. The only issue is cost. And even then, it's no dearer than putting up new copper. The problem is that Telcos have already installed the vast majority of rural copper, and for some rural customers, they are fulfilling the USO with NextG and huge antennas... So, being realistic, FTTH is not really that far different fro CTTH. It's just a matter of cost and will.

7. Untimely – in 8 years public construction may be inflationary (weak)
Why is that an issue here but not with road, rail, etc..?

8. There are other more affordable technologies (medium)
They are ultimately more expensive. Because they have a much shorter lifespan, and therefore will need to be upgraded many, many years before we rip out any functioning Fibre in a quest for better speed. Building 5 solutions over 50 years when we could build 1 is short sighted and expensive.

9. The private sector can build it over longer time for cheaper (medium)
Firstly – see point 3 part 2. The private sector works for profit, not for private benefit. Telstra's actions in this market should more than demonstrate to anyone that they will withhold technology to ensure ROI and profit from existing infrastructure for as long as possible.

And build it cheaper? Sure, costs went down when Telstra was privatised. It's because things like Pair Gain became more commone and contention ratios worsened.

1. LTE (Strong)
Not available yet, ultimate potential well behind FTTH. So you build LTE, then FTTH. You pay for things twice.

2. WiMAX (Medium-Strong)
Again, its ultimate potential is much less than FTTH, so you're hoping that another government will come along in another 10 years and make big plans.

3. FTTN (Strong)
Not actually that much cheaper than FTTH, carries massive legal issues due to Telstra's ownership of the copper network.

4. Use of alternative for short term needs, allowing long term rollout of FTTP by private companies (Strong)
Again, private companies will not do what's in the national interest, they're here for profit. There's no guarantee they'll ever roll out FTTP, and there's no point in paying ROI on two networks, when we could just pay it on one.

5. New Technologies (Medium)
Namely..?

Think of it this way:
- Australia isn't a big enough market – stop trying to compare us to the rest of the world.
Think of it this way – Australia is a big place, and this is something our kids will be using. It's not about the market, it's about the national good.

- We can't afford FTTP – It would cost $200 / month per premises

- Therefore another direction should be pursued
Your website says that Rural areas will have slow internet under the NBN, yet describes Rural, Mobile and City access as 'Ultra Fast' done wirelessly. So, either 'Ultra Fast' isn't anywhere near as fast as FTTH, or you're misleading people. Rural, under either NBN, will be done wirelessly. There's nothing to say it won't be every bit as good under the NBN as it would be under your alternative.

The NBN, much like the current copper network, the power grid... It's a monopoly asset. We complain about the Fuel Cartels, the Woolies/Coles grocery Duopoly... Yet we are willing to privatize a pure monopoly? Something that – according to both the Government and Telstra – is a national security issue? We should build this thing, we should run it as a wholesale only venture, and we shouldn't ever privatise it. That way, it can be run the same way as the copper network was run – with engineers making network decisions, not accountants – for the national good, instead of for foreign investors' profit.

And before you shoot me down as a socialist, I am a capitalist. I'm all for people making money. I'm all for free trade. I don't associate myself with Chairman Rudd. However, even the US realizes that, whilst a monopoly is the ultimate situation for a trader to create, it's far from being in the national interest and the public doesn't benefit from it, so they set up anti-trust laws. I realize that Australia is a small country in terms of population, so some monopolies are required, but I believe that these monopolies should be run by government.

And, whilst I'm not a greenie, I believe in using the most efficient technologies available. My understanding is that FTTH is far more energy efficient than wireless technologies (and of course copper). Plus, of course, it's much more resistant to changes in atmospheric conditions, isn't affected by topography...

Merari Schroeder writes...

How many plans are available in 256k download these days? And ADSL2+ is cheaper than ADSL these days. Maybe 2% of that 72% have a 256k speed because they haven't swapped ISPs yet. The fact is that the service is there and people are using it.

Maybe they live in RIM Hell where your only option is re-sold Telstra ADSL, and therefore the only way they can afford a DSL connection is to buy the cheapest possible.

Merari Schroeder writes...

So you're eager to accept any solution, because you're eager to get off RIM? (i'm not sure what that is – is that for remote users in contract with telstra?).

You're telling us how the internet should progress, when you don't understand the current architecture?!?! A RIM is a Node – it's a local cabinet. They are deployed in existing and new suburbs, not in the bush. They provide DSL connections (sometimes DSL2, but this is not a listed ACCC service, so Telstra is not required to wholesale access to it or provide access through it to competitor DSLAMs), but often only to 50% of phone lines connected to the RIM.

Tadhg writes...

Maybe they live in RIM Hell where your only option is re-sold Telstra ADSL,

and they live in RIM Hell with NO option whatsoever as NO ports available

Tadhg , Huge Plus 1 for your post! :)

rudebutt1 writes...

and they live in RIM Hell with NO option whatsoever as NO ports available

That's the rest of us, mate. :-( I was just explaining why people would have 256k instead of DSL2+. ;-)

Huge Plus 1 for your post! :)

Thanks mate. Some people – and especially governments – can't see more than 5 minutes in front of them. Or past the next election. It's the mentality that makes people on massive money rent, because they think they'll end up paying less than buying a home. When in reality, rather than investing the difference, they squander it, and end up with no assets. It's just a shock that Rudd did think past the next election. I'm not a fan of his, but credit where it's due, and big credit to him for listening to people who knew what they were talking about. Hopefully he'll continue to do so.

Merari Schroeder writes...

I don't think you understand the design for an FSO mesh. Every house has a node which is both the connection into the network and also IS the network. No need for "towers".

OK, so you're going with a mesh topology. How do you propose to add new nodes to the network?

If your transceivers are omnidirectional (which would make the addition of nodes easy), you will run into severe problems with ambient light and free space loss degrading your SNR, ultimately limiting your channel capacity to below that of optical fibre. Ambient light is a problem even at short distances.

If your transceivers are not omnidirectional, then the addition of nodes will require configuration (alignment) of neighbours' systems. This adds to the installation cost by requiring roof access to multiple households per installation. A remotely-steerable system (which would circumvent this problem) would add to the system cost and impact overall reliability.

I'm not trying to say that FSO is useless; it just doesn't have the potential of guided optics. If it did, then telecommunications operators around the world (eg. Verizon) would be saving money by deploying FSO mesh networks instead of fibre networks.

Anti-FTTP campaigner Todd Hubers, creator of NoNBN.org, said the Government should focus on rolling out substantial backhaul links to encourage the private sector to make their own ‘last mile' infrastructure investments.
Well the last time I looked many ISP's have been fighting for years to get access to "last mile" infrastructure. But instead where always let down by doppy politicians and Telstra greed!

These could encompass FTTP, fourth-generation wireless technologies such as long term evolution (LTE), or more "far-fetched" options such as a free space optic mesh.
Yea lets all jump on wireless with its limited frequencies, bandwidth and speed.
Not to mention tuff titties if you have no LoS (line of sight) to the wireless tower!
So instead of paying telstra $27 line rental, we now pay the government a fee to use that particular frequency spectrum.

The private sector might take care of the last mile itself if backhaul becomes cheaper. FTTP is a good technology but it can be funded entirely by the private sector [in my opinion].
Once again, do these fools even understand?
ISP's would of installed FTTP themselfs if Telstra was not in the way!

Free space optics is a line-of-sight technology that uses light beams to transmit data between two points. Its origins were in NASA and Defence in the late 1960s.
Ow thats right, everyone lives in the desert where its all nice and flat with nothing more than 1m high salt bushes around them!
How stupid!

It is often promoted as an alternative to laying fibre optic cables, but detractors say the beams can be subverted by atmospheric conditions such as fog, reducing its reliability.
/Fail beams anyone?
*Pew Pew*

Although testing of the concept was required, he said it promised gigabit-speed internet "for only $30 a month".
Gigabyte speeds if your 1m from the tower!
lol, its like any poxy wireless system. They promis the world but can never deliver it where needed!

Hubers said his objection to the $43 billion NBN is that "the general population can't afford $200 a month [for internet services]".
Since when will it be $200/month! Nothing has even been put in writing as yet.
But hey, if people are happy to have Telstra as their provider and pay $150/gb then I guess $200 to dumb people is small change!

Sources: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/149670,anti-fibre-activist-tells-businesses-to-foot-nbn.aspx

Are these people for real?

BTW this Todd Hubers is Merari Schroeder he is just around to make money and spread misconception and untested ideas.

Tadhg writes...

:-( I was just explaining why people would have 256k instead of DSL2+. ;-)

i realize that ... i was pointing it out for Merari :)

but credit where it's due,

+1

ausfatcat writes...

BTW this Todd Hubers is Merari Schroeder he is just around to make money and spread misconception and untested ideas.

Looked at the website. noticed a very interesting fallacy
apparently fttp will have heavily restricted download limits, however wireless technologies are capable of unlimited internet.

...how is this possible given the defining limit on our downloads is the cost of getting data from Australia to everywhere else. which will be no different regardless of the technology used as we will still have the same international links
*pats nonbn.org page screenshot* and ill hold onto this just in case

xyz-50 writes...

Since when will it be $200/month!

Turns out these claims were deliberately fudged by the researcher picking the highest available Internode FTTH plan!

http://ozftth.blogspot.com/2009/06/more-on-ergas-claim-of-ftth-to-cost-215.html

This interesting as well
http://ozftth.blogspot.com/2009/05/ftth-in-rural-japan.html

Tells the problems Japan had going down the 3G path.

ausfatcat writes...

This interesting as well
http://ozftth.blogspot.com/2009/05/ftth-in-rural-japan.html

Tells the problems Japan had going down the 3G path.

In reply I give you
http://ozftth.blogspot.com/2009/06/ftth-advertisements-from-around-world.html
Some nice adverts.
:-)
Oh and blowed if I can get that story to load ausfatcat, must be something to do with my slow 1500K connection.
:-(

Am I the only one who thinks that Conroy isn't that bad? Once you take out his Internet Filtering policy, and go and watch a few of his speeches on MIS Australia, he's not so bad. Better than that last person we had. I really think he can do it.

EDIT: Link: http://tv.misaustralia.com/#/video/7406

The Internet Filter is a good thing, it just needs to be implemented with the right philosophy in mind.

He should also push forth an agency to stop internet crime and fraud, which is just as important as the net filter, yet no plan or word at all. That makes Conroy lousy.

This is typical of his style, hes got little understanding of a digital economy, and unfortunately he is surrounded by parasites that he calls advisors. Not to exclude businesses such as telco's and ISPs that contiunually feed him crap. That makes this lousy.

The 43Bn FTTP plan is a horrid idea; only the ignorant actually believe it is achievable. It leads me to question the credibility of his advisors, and it would seem that instead of reviewing things in great detail, Conroy is one who likes to forge ahead and create tenders and companies, only to have them collapse like a house of cards, that makes him lousy.

Apart from knowing the difference between a 'bit' and a 'byte' which Coonan had no chance of, he isn't that much more educated than the former minister, the bad thing is that he is more opened minded to people who are seeking to benefit at the expense of the taxpayer, meanwhile wasting time and effort which should be directed at other infrastructure projects.

You can spot the Telstra Shareholders from a mile away!
lol.

xyz-50 writes...

You can spot the Telstra Shareholders from a mile away!

oi! do not put all of us in same boat please!
i'm a shareholder (what a mistake that was) and am hoping against hope that Telstra will finally change its ways of the last few years and maybe then shares will finally rise in value

rudebutt1 writes...

and maybe then shares will finally rise in value

Unlikely, Telstra didn't get used to compete

iSpy writes...

That makes Conroy lousy.
This is typical of his style, hes got little understanding of a digital economy, and unfortunately he is surrounded by parasites that he calls advisors.

In other countries one cannot get position like this without proving first what one is capable of. In AU you can.

Orenthi writes...

Looked at the website. noticed a very interesting fallacy...etc

+1. Welcome to Whirlpool, excellent way to start :)

Synaptic Cleft writes...

Unlikely, Telstra didn't get used to compete

am hoping structural separation eventually happens – where the Retail entity actually competes and Wholesale/Network entity actually works WITH the industry , instead of against it.
i can only but dream ....

Webby. writes...

Better than that last person we had.

Better in what sense, does he sound better?

upNdown writes...

Ok so each home has to buy a wireless node to access the net (understandable) which will receive and transmit (ie continue the connection to the next node). So this will also need to have a reasonably high uptake to work and more importantly have redundancy.

That's right. The more dense the rollout the more effective a mesh is. A government led rollout could replace all TV antenna and foxtel dishes with nodes.... but of course this would be considered more radical than a fiber rollout and more risky.

How much are these devices BTW????

I would suggest the use of RF directional wireless links, which could be as cheap as $50 per link (x 3-4 links). The switching fabric ASIC/FPGA, PCB assembly, casing and power supply would all collectively cost $100 – $150 (of course this is also with mass adoption – although international market would facilitate such mass demand. Installation would take between 1-2 hours costing between $100-$200 in labor costs.

This equates to <$450 for the node plus installation (<$200), then $30 / month for POP access, node insurance etc.. giving you gigabit speeds. Compare this to the $500 termination from the street to the home of FTTP PON, then $100 / month subscription, to share 622Mbps between 128 users.

Merari Schroeder writes...

RF directional wireless links

directional would mean pinpointed, wouldn't it

Chris Griggs writes...

Instead, you have come up with some rather lacking in detail auto-magical network ideas

FTTP PON is unaffordable and therefore it is only natural to talk of the alternatives. I've only mentioned wireless mesh technology to demostrate that future research will yield technologies which are more competetive than FTTP PON in the domestic consumer market.

hasn't even been tested in a commercial environment

Wireless meshes are used in the real world but not prolifically. In fact the internet is a mesh, it's only the last mile which is traditionally not. POTS – Point-to-Multipoint, Cable – shared medium bus. The ideas for latency savings are also used in commercial line switches – they use a switch fabric to achieve very low latency.

yet [but] you want to roll it out to everyone.

It's one option – but i never said it's ready for national deployment. It is certainly worth considering as it has more potential than FTTP PON.

What happens if in 12 months time, the figures come out with residential customers being charged as low as $40 a month for phone connection and a basic internet plan? You'd look rather stupid for claiming your $200 because of some back of the envelope maths.

I wouldn't believe them, I would look into it further and find that it was political spin quoting the cost from their easiest implementation in tasmania who have the cheapest duct access.

What will you say to the government when the figures come out that it will be costing $100/mnth? The fact is the govment is quoting the $43bn price tag, you hope a lower cost, others predict a higher cost (especially with GPON), i'm debating what we know today.

On the other side of it, I would be happy in 12 months time if they came out and said it will cost $200 per month to the user.

I don't think I need to say that, that statement makes you look like a rich boy.

et a feel of what's going on out there in the Australian environment, listen to what business want and then provide it. Business, Corporate and Government will be the biggest customers on this network and will subsidise it for the rest of the country. That's how I know prices will be a lot less than $200 a month.

...Get a feel of what's going on out there in the Australian environment, listen to what business want and then provide it.

Residents will make up 80% of the market.

Business, Corporate and Government will be the biggest customers on this network and will subsidise it for the rest of the country.

Most governments and corporate companies already have fiber. And they will not be the biggest users. Residents will be using the highest bandwidth application – HD video. Business may transfer large backup files, but this will happen off peak.

Of wifi equipment being more dangerous than 3G or 4G wireless...

XTCGoo writes...

Where is the research to back your claim?

I saw it in a news article once. If you searched the internet you would easily find the facts. http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/free-internet-wifi-wireless-lan-health-danger.htm

While i was there, I also saw a title of an article saying that water optimally resonates at 22Ghz. I think telstra NextG is at around 900Mhz, very far from the dangerous 2.4Ghz frequency.

UZ3R writes...

What I want from an internet connection is:
- An absolute minimum speed of 21Mbit at all times.
- No noticable traffic congestion (even if 100's of users were using the service in my area).
- 20-50GB data quota allowance (or 40-100GB if including upload metering).
- 99% uptime, no dropouts.
- $50 – $80 monthly spend.

I would support your alternative proposals if you could guarantee it can tick all these boxes and get it to my premisis in 2 -3 years. Otherwise I am happy to wait and pay more for FTTP.

Well FTTP PON cannot guarentee that minium speed – 622Mbps shared between 128 users gives about 7Mbps per user (for concurrent usage). That doesn't even allow you to stream HD video streams when everyone gets home and wants to watch TV at the same time. Uploads contest for 155Mbps.

A point-to-point mesh can potentially provide all of that and more but further research would be required.

RealAusTech writes...

Do you disagree that we have some of the world's slowest average speed, and smallest quotas?

Yer you're right there. The US have a bigger market and therefore lower backhaul costs. They are also the center of the internet (arguably), they don't have to build international links to other countries, other countries build to them.

What is that solution? Tell everybody on here all about it.

The point of this thread is to debate that. I never said in the original post which way we have to go. The fact is that if the FTTP PON NBN is unaffordable then an alternative needs to be considered. Now I realised a few days ago that I can't edit the orginal post to add more alternatives, but here's another: FTTN using VDSL2+ for last KM giving 300Mbps (Active optic network could be deployed by private or govmt when 300Mbps is not enough).

And don't try to tell me that it's a waste, we should just build a FTTP in the first place. Because it's not affordable, FTTP PON would also need to be replaced by the superior Active optic network....

..How it will be implementd, how it will work, who will receive it, including the areas that these people live in, and how much it will cost. Back up your bald statement with some pertitent numbers and facts.

How much spare time do you think i have? It's obvious that FTTP PON is a bad choice. The government should be looking more closely at the other alternatives doing their job, not me. That aside, OECD recommend that the govnmnt don't control the last mile and most importantly that it is properly analysed with cost benefit analysis, something their refusing to do... why? If it's going to be cheaper why not perform the analysis and score political points?

SecurityGuy writes...

Following your logic and calculations, no business in Australia could ever afford to invest in any business growth or modernisation, unless they had the cash in the bank or guaranteed pre-orders based on non-cancellable contracts...

No according to my calculations FTTP PON is unaffordable not all the other possible alternatives. Growth and modernisation is always measured by the ROI not cashflow.

[Impressive lengthy discussion about GDP and other components]

Impressive.. and.. lengthy..

I personally don't think that "we'll put it on the GDP account" approach is a good one to take...

So when other countries are saving more on communication than Australia, do you think that will be putting Australia in a more competitive position?
Do you believe that the money saved from businesses spending $10k a month on POTS voice calls is going to pay off the $43bn debt? I'd think those savings would go to customers or their share holders.

On the points of savings in internet banking and more efficiencies from such faster communication – all of the most productive applications such as internet banking, use low bandwidth. (Eg. internet banking doesn't use HD video, domestic users will (the most)). So spending $43bn on a fiber network will have less of an impact on the economy than other previous upgrades in the past. It's like VHS to DVD is POTS to ADSL and ADSL to Fiber is like POTS to Fiber – you can see the difference but it's not worth the cost.

FTTP PON is also inferrior to what a lot of other countries will be deploying – AON.

If there are such great benefits, why not use a more affordable technology which would provide all those benefits and cost less?

Have you noticed that Australias roads are poor compared to european countries? A 20% more improvement of roads would cost 80% more and so is not economically feasible. The same goes with communication (super highways), spending $43bn can increase speeds by 100 (arguably – PON is actually 622Mbps per 32,64 or 128 users), but the impact is small to productivity.

Merari Schroeder writes...

FTTN using VDSL2+ for last KM giving 300Mbps

There were some very very long discussions about this particular alternative in the main NBN thread. Sorry I can't link you to them because I merely read them and never posted about it.

I'm curious, where are you getting all these numbers from?

Merari Schroeder writes...

I saw it in a news article once. If you searched the internet you would easily find the facts. http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/free-internet-wifi-wireless-lan-health-danger.htm

Please come back when you have more substantive researches to back you claim. Research that has been done for years that can 100% dismiss the claim that wireless technology like mobile phone can cause cancer.

Check out this one...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=603579

Now you are proposing to install high powered wireless towers/devices at people homes, which is even more dangerous...

aussiegeek writes...

Not everyone had phones – I bet there were some folk that would have said " bah – what's with all this phone stuff – we dont need it!! – she'll be right"

I think the difference between week long postal to instant voice communication is a lot bigger than, going from no HD Vod to having HD Vod.

Nearly everyone has a phone. Nearly everyone has a car.

Nearly everyone has the internet.

One of the options is that we don't have an NBN at all, but I never said that we should go with that option. I'm talking about doing this affordably. If they had more cost effective alternatives to POTS those years ago, which were as effective and the same future potential they would have gone with them.

And you speak of FTTP PON as the future proof technology? Active optical networks are clearly the best solutions. PON is a shared bus.

OECD recommends that governments don't control the last mile and that they perform cost benefit analysis. Why haven't they performed such analysis? If the benefits are expected to be so good, why not go for it and score political points?

BeenThere writes...

that is what I always expect from a person that has done a BBIT, or an MBA with a 'limited' industry experience.

The course included 6 months of industry placement.

Years of experience doesn't improve judgement. Any experience doesn't make you a fortune teller. And i'm not saying I have a perfect solution.

Our big problem is that ADSL has a short urban reach and the sooner it is removed and replaced with FTTP the better, but the metro already has FTTN HFC, so it does not need FTTP for several years, and oh, yes; beyond the metro is a financial desert and that is why commercial telecomms infrastructure businesses were never there, and never will be – and that is why the Telstra non-metro (at least) needs to be nationalised and brought into the NBN

Yes there is the problem of reach in Australia and the Telstra monopoly. So let's choose a solution which is actually affordable and future proof. FTTP PON is a dead end – you are invited to research the technology further – ie. 622Mbps shared etc. Governments are recommended not to control the last mile and also to perform cost benefit analysis....

I like how you assume the fibre network will cost the full 43 billion and you think pon can only run at 622 and is always shared by 128 people.

mauried writes...

Wireless also unfortunately needs radio spectrum to operate in

Free Space optics are not radio wireless.

Ever wondered why existing mobile wireless broadband has so many congestion problems and lousy speeds.

Bad implementation. Point-to-multipoint covering ~5km radius for hundreds of people. Imagine say mobile point-to-point. Where a directional antenna moves to point at a client when high bandwidth is required (only when your downloading video content).

Also with say 4G, if you reduce the size of the cells and the number of people per cell, you increase the bandwidth per meter sq. You also reduce the per cell site cost with lower power radios, only a single directional antenna, and no requirement for high reliability equipment – as the next cell can overlap for reliability without interfering.. just yet another idea which strengthens the wireless cam.

See if you can buy a Microwave Link with 5 GBits of thruput.

UWB, GiFi, FSO.... There are other alternatives...

Of business not subsidizing other peoples broadband usage...

ungulate writes...

Actually they do already.

Yes, but they won't with the NBN. FTTP would be more reliable for everyone and domestic users would use it the most – HD video. Business would transfer large files, but that would occur off peak.

Mathew. writes...

I'm tempted to register NoNoNBN.org, though I guess YesNBN.org is a better choice

Yer not the best choice – I know – i'll have to get another domain as well which better resembles the NoFttpPon position. BTW, using that would alienate the target audience – the general public.

Tagert writes...

And as usual, we have the flip side:

Yes interesting it may well be cheaper. But it could also be more expensive – especially if GPON is used. Regardless, both PON and GPON are not very future proof, rather Active optic networks are and would also be more deer. As i have said in a prior reply, we are arguing the currently projected $43bn cost tag, it could go either way. There are more affordable alternatives which would not have such uncertainty of cost as they are more in the order of $5bn. If the cost is expected to go lower, why hasn't the government performed a cost benefit analysis to clear up the questions of cost? If it's going to better, they can put those critisisms to bed and score politial points.

ausfatcat writes...

BTW this Todd Hubers is Merari Schroeder he is just around to make money and spread misconception and untested ideas.

Name is correct. how am i making money by being totally public about all ideas? yes most of my ideas are untested, but the elements of the ideas are factual. Such ideas are there to demonstrate the potential for alternatives beyond just 4G. It's a forum, i'm contributing ideas, not forcing them.

Merari Schroeder writes...

arguably – PON is actually 622Mbps per 32,64 or 128 users

I think you've gotten a bit wrong footed with this – no one's going to build a new network using the original 622Mbps PON protocol. (In the same way no one buys ADSL1 DSLAMs). The idea that GPON is going to be more expensive is, I think, a bit wrong.

The major part of the cost (whether it's $43b or another figure) is the cost of installing the fibre. It's the important asset that will survive for 50 years or more. In which time the electronic components will change. So irrespective of the protocol now, there will be upgrades available over time. If GPON is chosen now, then 10G-EPON will be available later.

I also seriously doubt that 128 way split will be the dimensioning used. Most likely 32 or 64 at worse.

On a claim of wireless being unlimited...

Orenthi writes...

...how is this possible given the defining limit on our downloads is the cost of getting data from Australia to everywhere else

The need to differentiate internet plans with FTTP. If the monthly average is going to be $100/month. People who can't afford it will need to be offered cheaper disadvantaged plans (less volume). If a more cost effective solution means, $30/month then there's no unaffordability.

The problem still remains of that international bandwidth and too many people using it at once. Well first you would expect that the international links will be upgraded to handle the average consumer usage. Also caching would be employed to cache static content within the country. So for both FTTP and wireless there should be enough "international bandwidth". With FTTP they can't offer the needed volume for the average user on the lowest plan, as this means that everyone will go for the lowest plan and only a few will get pinched heaps for going above the lowest plan (as they have to balance the $100/month average).

So wireless would be unlimited in the sense that given normal average use – say streaming 4 HD videos per night – the user would only have to pay $30/month. Of course you would need to discourage users from using their connection more than that 4 HD per night, otherwise the network would choke. That's where shaping comes in: those downloading more than the consumer average (plus 50%) can be discouraged from loading the network by shaping if they use it too much (shaping can also be on a day-by-day use basis rather than a monthly use basis) and such high capacity users can pay more.

The freedom of the more affordable options, means that you're not penalizing people who can't afford it. It's getting late, i think i'm done in whirlpool for the night.

Of international FTTP adverts...

aliali writes...

Some nice adverts.

Lebeanon, Korea and Hong Kong are all more densely popluated than australia.

XTCGoo writes...

Now you are proposing to install high powered wireless towers/devices at people homes, which is even more dangerous...

No. the ultimate solution would use FSO.

Merari Schroeder writes...

No. the ultimate solution would use FSO.

How's that going to work?

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

The idea that GPON is going to be more expensive is, I think, a bit wrong.

The Laser Diodes and Photodiodes for PON are the current cost effective technology. GPON would require more expensive Laser Diodes and photodiodes. Higher speeds don't just mean driving the laser frequency faster, the optics need to handle the speeds. I've seen the prices, they charge more for the faster optics. We're not talking double of course, but when opponents talk about a possible blow out to $50bn for GPON, it's conceivable.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

How's that going to work?

You would have to look at the previous posts and my "personal" website.

Merari Schroeder writes...

GPON would require more expensive Laser Diodes and photodiodes. Higher speeds don't just mean driving the laser frequency faster, the optics need to handle the speeds.

The cost difference between components at that level is negligible. eg. a 622Mbps optic costs the same as a 2.5Gbps optic to produce these days. The optics (by which I assume you mean the passive splitters) are no different to produce in cost until you hit above 2.5Gbps. (*)

Certainly not going to add AU$7b for 10 million houses (ie. you're implying the difference is $700 capex per service extra which is more than the total cost of the electronics and passive optics per household in any of the technologies).

(*) Ever wonder why you can buy a multirate (622-2.5Gbps) SFP? It's the same stuff.

Merari Schroeder writes...

You would have to look at the previous posts and my "personal" website.

FSO requires line of sight. How exactly are you going to achieve that?

Has Internode and/or Pipenetworks put a tender in to contract build the NBN FTTH network?

xyz-50 writes...

Has Internode and/or Pipenetworks put a tender in to contract build the NBN FTTH network?

They're still appointing a board – they haven't figured out asking for tenders.

Merari Schroeder writes...

but when opponents talk about a possible blow out to $50bn for GPON, it's conceivable.

When you are fibre networking an entire country there are vast economies of scale to be negotiated.

Even if the cost went up a bit, in the long run it will be of little significance. A complete fibre network, cheaply upgradable for the next half century, is going to pay for itself over and over again.

All this wibbling about mesh networks and the like is alarming to *those who already have significant handicaps directly attributed to RF exposure.

This constant push toward wireless networks is going to lead to significant detrimental medical effects in the long term, many of which will require shatteringly invasive neuro surgery. The incidence of Acoustic Neuroma is on the rise and will start to peak in approx. 15 years. RF can kill – but it does it slowly.

To my way of thinking, letting a child use a mobile phone/wifi laptop without limit is a crime against those in no position to have even the smallest inkling of the risk they are running.

*Mine took nearly 25 years to bring me to a neuro surgeon. I don't wish this on anyone but it is going to happen.

Therefore I am writes...

All this wibbling about mesh networks

The mesh network idea isn't going to scale. Imagine – every house relying on every other one. A big wind storm would stop everything working with FSO. Too much rain in QLD and suddenly no phones. With FSO imagine every house having a little tower on top to reach every other house. Can you imagine the neighbor arguements about trees? My phone/internet doesn't work because of your bloody tree – cut it down.

The reality is that LTE is complementary to FTTP not a replacement (except in specific circumstances). A single fibre core to my street (approx 30 houses) means 2.5Gbps with GPON for 32 houses, but LTE isn't going to deliver anything like that kind of bandwidth unless you're spending stupid amounts of money having towers on every corner.

Merari Schroeder writes...

The problem still remains of that international bandwidth and too many people using it at once.

There is no such problem. Stop spreading lies for Christ sake.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Lebeanon, Korea and Hong Kong are all more densely popluated than australia.

Which makes no difference. Or the difference is negligible.
This lie is most popular among people working for australian ISPs and infiltrating all forums to push pathetic excuses for incredibly bad situation with broadband in Australia.

Matthew none of that relevant because it detracts from his idea/point of view.

Merari Schroeder writes...

So wireless would be unlimited in the sense that given normal average use – say streaming 4 HD videos per night

Good luck successfully rolling out a wireless network that would support full HD streaming in typical urban density. You will need towers very close as more and more people spend their nights streaming video. AND THEY WILL ALL NEED FIBRE TO THEM

Have you ever used a 3G connection at night in an inner city area?

Well first you would expect that the international links will be upgraded to handle the average consumer usage

The current international links are well below capacity. Their owners just monopolize them. PPC 1 will change this.

Mathew. writes...

The current international links are well below capacity. Their owners just monopolize them. PPC 1 will change this.

It almost suggests that cable landing rights should be tied to utilisation.

If all unused/underutilised/under-developed international/interstate capacity was subject to mandatory government leasing at pepper-corn rates there would be an almost instant increase in availability and a consequent drop in price.

Sometimes, you get better results with a mailed fist!

Therefore I am writes...

This constant push toward wireless networks is going to lead to significant detrimental medical effects in the long term, many of which will require shatteringly invasive neuro surgery. The incidence of Acoustic Neuroma is on the rise and will start to peak in approx. 15 years. RF can kill – but it does it slowly.

Precisely why we should slow down in our intake of wireless technologies until we can prove that they are save for use. We have responsibility to protect the younger generation (children) from the possible danger of wireless, no matter what.

P.S. Sorry to hear about your condition...

Can I just say, to kill your argument yet again, Merari... NOTHING is faster than light.

Hi Merari
I don't think I have missed this point, sorry if its already been covered.

On your website you state that wireless will have unlimited internet and fttp will be limited. Why is that? Why will the fttp have to be limited? Won't it be up to the retail providers to decide if they have limited plans or not?
Also for rural access. If the NBN is FTTP and wireless for rural areas why will the NBN FTTP wireless combo be slower than just wireless? I would think that the combo network will have LTE or Wimax just as a pure wireless network would.
Mark

Therefore I am writes...

If all unused/underutilised/under-developed international/interstate capacity was subject to mandatory government leasing at pepper-corn rates there would be an almost instant increase in availability and a consequent drop in price.

The issue with the NBN will be aggregation cost (ie. the cost to get to the "port" at your house). If this cost is high (ie. similar to Optus/Telstra) then that's going to limit significantly reduce the usefulness of the NBN in terms of what services can be delivered over it.

If you can put content (caches, video playout, game servers etc) at an aggregation point and be able to deliver that to customers across an NBN at a reasonable cost then the intercap and international costs become less important and the interesting things you can do becomes larger.

So, an important outcome of the NBN is not to load up the cost of aggregation, or at least make the aggregation flexible (ie. if I build out to an aggregation node the my cost as an ISP to send/recv data from a customer should be negligible).

Merari Schroeder writes...

Well FTTP PON cannot guarentee that minium speed – 622Mbps shared between 128 users gives about 7Mbps per user (for concurrent usage). That doesn't even allow you to stream HD video streams when everyone gets home and wants to watch TV at the same time. Uploads contest for 155Mbps.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

I also seriously doubt that 128 way split will be the dimensioning used. Most likely 32 or 64 at worse.

Agree with MMC here. From Conroy himself: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12032.pdf –
"put a splitter down and it can go to 32 or 64 homes".

Stop spreading FUD. Also, please stop spelling fibre as "fiber", it's hurting my brain.

MicroNinja writes...

We already have Wireless and ADSL, why do we need to short/medium step to LTE and Wimax as well as FTTN ?

Because we don't.

Let's see.. I live 35 Minutes from Melboure, Cannot get ADSL 1 here, Forced to get Wireless, I am 3.6km from the tower and the wireless is horrible.... low speeds, dropouts daily, and I have been told there is nothing I can do about it, I'm really looking forward to this NBN because it seems to be the only hope of getting stable internet here.

F?ll??Vi??u? writes...

Let's see..

I'm talking about the short term solution that the OP has been arguing about, not the NBN since he joined the forum – that is Wireless.

F?ll??Vi??u? writes...

Let's see.. I live 35 Minutes from Melboure, Cannot get ADSL 1 here, Forced to get Wireless, I am 3.6km from the tower and the wireless is horrible.... low speeds, dropouts daily, and I have been told there is nothing I can do about it, I'm really looking forward to this NBN because it seems to be the only hope of getting stable internet here.

Hmmm.
Lets see.. I live 4 hours from Melbourne, cannot get ADSL1 here, tried wireless, I am 25 km from the tower and the wireless is horrible ... low speeds (I mean low! I mean dialup is X10 faster!), dropouts hourly, and I have been told wireless is the way to go.
NO.
So I am chuffed to say that for now I am ahead of FallenVirtue with Satellite despite the latency.

BUT I too am looking foward to the NBN even tho I live on farm in true rural Australia, because it will show up just how inadequate/pathetic wireless really is in comparison to fibre, and the pressure will be on MIGHTILY to extend fibre to us all.

(Refer to "Fibre to the Farm" thread for how we are going to do it in the bush)

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

The cost difference between components at that level is negligible. eg. a 622Mbps optic costs the same as a 2.5Gbps optic to produce these days. The optics (by which I assume you mean the passive splitters) are no different to produce in cost until you hit above 2.5Gbps. (*)

A GPON requires at least 10Gbps optics. 32,64 or 128 users share 10Gbps down to get their max of 1Gbps. The receiving optics for each user must be able to receive the full 10Gbps, only taking the traffic which is theirs (and decrypting it). The users internal DL speed is only 1Gbps as a router supporting faster speeds would be very costly (as 10Gb ethernet is quite expensive).

So it could potentially add that additional $7bn as we're talking about 10Gbps optics not 2.5Gbps.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

FSO requires line of sight. How exactly are you going to achieve that?

On the roofs, 99% of your neighbours would be line of sight. Such a mesh only connects to your immediate neighbour. Those not LOS from a central mesh node can be reached. An external link can be set up, running a wired link from the node to under a house eave, which can be positioned anywhere along the side of a house. Then the .1% who still can't be solved, RF links are used.

But this is all just nitty gritty detail which has to be properly researched first.

Therefore I am writes...

Even if the cost went up a bit, in the long run it will be of little significance. A complete fibre network, cheaply upgradable for the next half century, is going to pay for itself over and over again.

Not according to the numbers... Why is the US, with 15 times our population only planning on spending $10bn on broadband upgrades?

All this wibbling about mesh networks and the like is alarming to *those who already have significant handicaps directly attributed to RF exposure.

Mesh networks would ultimately be FSO, which are not RF.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

The mesh network idea isn't going to scale. Imagine – every house relying on every other one. A big wind storm would stop everything working with FSO.

Indeed a problem. But imagine all of the Fiber which is going to be strung pole to pole, trees are equally a problem there too, as well as pole fires.

For a mesh it can be addressed. The mesh has POPs every 6km – more if there was FTTN. If the mesh was managed and properly legislated by a council, such squabbles over trees could be easily resolved. Also, I would hope the mesh would co-exist with 4G coverage providing good redundancy.

Of my addressing of another posters concerns of international bandwidth...

DBNADM writes...

There is no such problem. Stop spreading lies for Christ sake.

Ah, I said there wasn't a problem.... I was responding to another posters concerns.

I was saying that the $50 / month prices in hong kong etc. are due to population density...

DBNADM writes...

Which makes no difference. Or the difference is negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Hong Kong [4th]: 6,326 ppl per Km2
Australia [232nd]: 2.84 ppl per Km2

Just imagine, they run a 10Gbps fiber to a residential high rise where it's shared by hundreds of people.....

The difference is huge.

XTCGoo writes...

Precisely why we should slow down in our intake of wireless technologies until we can prove that they are save for use

Free Space Optics are not Radio Frequency.

And directional wireless is much safer than todays cell towers which spurt out the RF in all places, including your bedroom.

Webby. writes...

Can I just say, to kill your argument yet again, Merari... NOTHING is faster than light.

And again:
- Radio Frequencies travel at the speed of light
- Free Space Optics also use light.

Farsouthscanner writes...

On your website you state that wireless will have unlimited internet and fttp will be limited. Why is that?

That has been covered previously, I think on page 14 or 15.

Won't it be up to the retail providers to decide if they have limited plans or not?

Yes and they only have limited plans for those who need it – low income earners. Therefore if the average internet cost is already affordable by such people, then such plans need not exist.

If the NBN is FTTP and wireless for rural areas why will the NBN FTTP wireless combo be slower than just wireless?

It wouldn't. The wireless NBN could also use LTE, in fact I think that's what they're planning. Putting aside arguments about LTEs ability. If the whole nation went for an option such as LTE, and more money is invested in LTE (from what would've been spent on FTTP), then higher speeds can be acheived for both metro and rural. For "Example" : Instead of spending say $5bn on LTE and $30bn on FTTP and getting 12Mbps for rural users, you spend $10bn on LTE and nothing on FTTP and get 100Mbps for everyone.

Of splitting 128 times....

j0rgen writes...

Agree with MMC here. From Conroy himself: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12032.pdf –
"put a splitter down and it can go to 32 or 64 homes".

Ok – 622Mbps / 64 = 14Mbps. 622Mbps / 32 = 28Mbps – enough for 1 HD Video stream. The fact remains that it's a shared medium and that while your watching that HD VoD you only have 3Mbps for internet surfing....

You do realise that PON can go faster then 622mb, right?

Has the OP ever heard of editing a post or copy and pasting responses into a single reply instead of flooding the thread.

Your perceived mesh network idea is full of holes, security and privacy issues. Latency would jump through the roof, whats to stop your neighbours from doing nasty things to your connection?

Wireless methods are just not able to meet the needs for the nation.

FTTP is the best choice not only does it provide incredibly fast internet speeds it also able to offer other features and services, free and pay tv for example.

Merari Schroeder writes...

That has been covered previously, I think on page 14 or 15.

OK fair enough. I must have missed that bit.

For "Example" : Instead of spending say $5bn on LTE and $30bn on FTTP and getting 12Mbps for rural users, you spend $10bn on LTE and nothing on FTTP and get 100Mbps for everyone

Just going from that example.Why wouldn't the government spend $10bn on wireless and have it quicker than 12mbs. The main problem would be backhaul and with fibre in the area its easy to add capacity to the towers or once the population in the area gets big enough they can extend that backhaul to FTTP.

I am no expert on this sort of stuff though and its probably been covered before so I will shut up again.
Mark

Merari Schroeder writes...

622Mbps

Where did you get that number from ?

http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/fiber_home/topic03.asp

BPON – 622Mbps (ITU-T G983 – standard).
EPON – 1.25Gbps Symmetric ( IEEE803.2ah standard).
GPON – upto 2.5Gbps Downstream / upto 2.5Gbps upstream (ITU-TG.984 standard).

Kussie writes...

FTTP is the best choice not only does it provide incredibly fast internet speeds it also able to offer other features and services, free and pay tv for example

I am starting to get excited about the Xbox video on demand 1080P streaming that is comming to Aus later in the year. This sort of thing will be more and more popular as the years go by. The isn't enough wireless spectrum at the moment to cover all this stuff.

To the OP, if it hasn't been covered before: What frequencies would this netowrk run on? I would assume every house and business would need its own channel, would this be the case? If so how much bandwidth is needed per channel and can this be changed later if one user needs more than someone else.

Mark

Merari Schroeder writes...

A GPON requires at least 10Gbps optics. 32,64 or 128 users share 10Gbps down to get their max of 1Gbps.

10G-PON requires that. GPON (G.984) is 2.5 down/1.25 up. GE-PON is different again.

Merari Schroeder writes...

But this is all just nitty gritty detail which has to be properly researched first.

No kidding. But that requires EVERY SINGLE house between me and a POP to work. The ability for that kind of network to work reliability is, well, questionable at best.

Every single house will need a node capable of feeding enough bandwidth to every single other node downstream of it. How many houses will have to be between me and a POP 6km away to make it work? How much bandwidth does that represent being injected and carried across every house?

Why the heck would this be considered a good idea?

Merari Schroeder writes...

But imagine all of the Fiber which is going to be strung pole to pole, trees are equally a problem there too, as well as pole fires.

Fibre (as we spell it here in Australia) is a passive element for which aerial installation is well understood. (ie. there are aerial installations of fibre all around the world – big ones in the US for example).

A crazy "mesh" network requires every node to work between me and a POP. A fibre xPON network does not. Only that my core and my splitter works.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

A crazy "mesh" network requires every node to work between me and a POP

Not to mention who's going to pay for the power and bandwidth bills for each and every node and pop.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Instead of spending say $5bn on LTE and $30bn on FTTP and getting 12Mbps for rural users, you spend $10bn on LTE and nothing on FTTP and get 100Mbps for everyone.

LTE might give you a peak speed of 100Mbps, but the reality is it's a shared medium amongst, well, whoever can see that tower. So, Spending $10bn on LTE ain't going to give you 100Mbps simultaneously for the whole population.

Merari Schroeder writes...

FTTN using VDSL2+ for last KM giving 300Mbps (Active optic network could be deployed by private or govmt when 300Mbps is not enough).

So you're saying that FTTN, and then using VDSL2+ over Telstra's last mile copper is going to be "better" than FTTP PON? In case you haven't realized, Telstra's ownership of this copper is one of the major problems with our communications infrastructure right now. How much do you think that it would cost to buy that infractructure back from Telstra? Or are you advocating that the government could just legislate that it be confiscated from Telstra's ownership? There would be a Constitutional Challenge to the legislation in very short time indeed. By going for FTTP, the government is completely bypassing the CAN, and any problems associated with the ownership.

I see that you are claiming that VSDL2+ will deliver a network speed of 300Mbps. At what distance from the node? I would remind you that speed degradation with VDSL2+ is much higher than with ADSL2+, when compared to distance. I also seem to remember in the early discussion about the NBN, that over 80,000 nodes would be required to ensure a network speed of 12Mbps. How many nodes would be needed to ensure a speed of 300Mbps, 25 times faster?

What is that solution? Tell everybody on here all about it.

The point of this thread is to debate that.

It's already been debated, in the threads that were about the NBN. Why are you resurrecting what has been hashed over goodness knows how many times? And for what purpose?

RealAusTech writes...

I see that you are claiming that VSDL2+ will deliver a network speed of 300Mbps

VDSL2 (not +) does 300Mbps only over multiple pairs. Issue is that most houses do not have anything like 6 pairs to the pillar.

Merari Schroeder writes...

It wouldn't. The wireless NBN could also use LTE, in fact I think that's what they're planning. Putting aside arguments about LTEs ability. If the whole nation went for an option such as LTE, and more money is invested in LTE (from what would've been spent on FTTP), then higher speeds can be acheived for both metro and rural. For "Example" : Instead of spending say $5bn on LTE and $30bn on FTTP and getting 12Mbps for rural users, you spend $10bn on LTE and nothing on FTTP and get 100Mbps for everyone.

So you admit that the same technology would be used in the bush regardless of what's used in the city. What, then, proves that any extra roll out will ensure extra speed? The extra development that might, possibly be done in Australia if there were extra LTE rolled out (compared to LTE + FTTH) isn't guaranteed to have any better results than the development done in Japan, South Korea, the US, Scandinavia...

In terms of a mesh, I live in a suburb where a mesh is being connected. It's not simple. What happens when the power goes down at your POP? Or when someone moves? People can lose their internet due to circumstances beyond their control and the control of the Network. Plus, the power required to operate these is higher (you've been saying you'd rather see this money go on something green – FTTH is greener than wireless in terms of power consumption), and it's all at the householder's cost.

Merari Schroeder writes...

Why is the US, with 15 times our population only planning on spending $10bn on broadband upgrades?

Because they've already spent that and more in the past 5-10 years..? And $10B over how long..? If we roll out Fibre, we shouldn't have to touch that Fibre for 50+ years... Whereas the US will continue to spend similarly large amounts of money for many years to come. And they have varied infrastructure – out here, there are areas where you have the choice between copper and HFC. Over there, it's not uncommon to have that choice, and some places have Fibre thrown in, too.

When you say to stop comparing ourselves with other countries, then you've got to do the same. In the US, it's been economically feasible for companies to build competing infrastructre, purely because of the number of connections they can attain. They could build a customer base, then move into competing areas. Out here, you can't tell me that it was economically wise for Optus and Telstra to build HFC next to each other. Only Telstra had sufficient alternative revenue streams to be able to do it. FTTH through an NBN would give a single, cohesive network that is (basically) nationwide. Telstra would retain their copper, and be able to continue to sell DSL/DSL2+ products where people would prefer it. And HFC covers 25% of a few cities – which means that it covers less than 15% of the population.

Further, you haven't replied to any of this...

Tadhg writes...

I live in a suburb where the developer tried to get the private sector to build Greenfield FTTH. No one was willing, so Telstra put in RIMs, and I live on a slow, expensive wireless connection. My little section of the development currently houses 10,000 people, with well over 50% take-up of broadband (how do I know? There is enough ADSL supply (ports) for 50% of the houses, and they're all gone, and the Optus/Virgin/Vodafone/3 networks are heavily congested – to dial-up speeds), so it's not like there wasn't a market. The private sector acts to make money, not for the national good.
Again, private companies will not do what's in the national interest, they're here for profit. There's no guarantee they'll ever roll out FTTP, and there's no point in paying ROI on two networks, when we could just pay it on one.

Show me proof that the Private Sector will provide something broad based, not local, or, even more common, cherry-picked, that is in the national interest. Nothing Telstra's done can be considered to be in the national interest, because they've only ever acted for their shareholders benefit. They've only done things vaguely in the national interest when the national interest has aligned with profits. Which is understandable – they're a business.

And then explain to me why something that is of national security concern should be built and held by the private sector. And why they'll build it to a better engineering standard than government would. Something that won't need constant upgrading.

Tell me why we shouldn't have a fixed connection national data network, why we should invest in a wireless version instead, when there are already 3 major mobile networks which provide good competition (though not good contention ratios or necessarily good connectivity – I live in suburbia, and have 2 bars of GSM – regardless of the network)? But we only have one fixed service, which is not being developed as quickly as the mobile networks, which is a privately held monopoly?

You're telling us how the internet should progress, when you don't understand the current architecture?!?!

As someone who lives on wireless, I can only advise you to go and look at all the threads from wireless users who would do almost anything to go back to a wired connection.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

VDSL2 (not +) does 300Mbps only over multiple pairs. Issue is that most houses do not have anything like 6 pairs to the pillar.

Thanks Matthew. That makes it even more difficult to implement, and get the stated speed of 300Mbps, doesn't it? The majority of residences would be on 1 pair, wouldn't they?

BTW, what's the difference between VDSL2 & 2+? Apart from speed that is. I take it that the hardware requirements could be different, but maybe not by much?

Tadhg writes...

As someone who lives on wireless, I can only advise you to go and look at all the threads from wireless users who would do almost anything to go back to a wired connection.

+ 1 for your post, particularly this end bit. I bet the OP would not be so 'against' the NBN if they were in the same situation you, I and a shit load of others were. (RIM > wireless).

Merari Schroeder writes...

Ok – 622Mbps / 64 = 14Mbps. 622Mbps / 32 = 28Mbps – enough for 1 HD Video stream. The fact remains that it's a shared medium and that while your watching that HD VoD you only have 3Mbps for internet surfing....

HD Video isn't 25Mbps – you can do very good HD with much less if you're smart enough not to use MPEG2. Certainly in the 7-12Mbps range for H.264/MPEG4 and 1080p.

But anyway, 32 way spilt on GPON gives 77Mbps, 64way is 38Mbps as an average. So, even 64 way gives you a chance to have a few HD streams. The reality is the chance of 32 or 64 houses all using max line rate is very small.

Tadhg writes...

Nothing Telstra's done can be considered to be in the national interest, because they've only ever acted for their shareholders benefit. They've only done things vaguely in the national interest when the national interest has aligned with profits.

True

And why they'll build it to a better engineering standard than government would.

Simple to answer. Government has no skills in the area of developing engineering standards. Private business has the skills. Government has skills in one area – tax collection. When it comes to earning money, rather than collecting it, it's private business who does.

History shows that countries were governments develop engineering standards, build and own infrastructure, don't do well unless they have an oil fountain in their backyard.

Synaptic Cleft writes...

History shows that countries were governments develop engineering standards, build and own infrastructure, don't do well unless they have an oil fountain in their backyard.

You do realise that the internet was developed by a US government agency right? ARPA. And the CSIRO has just had their wifi patent confirmed.

Sometimes governments do get it right.

jendres writes...

You do realise that the internet was developed by a US government agency right? ARPA. And the CSIRO has just had their wifi patent confirmed

These are exceptions from the well known rule.

Sometimes governments do get it right

Yes, but only sometimes. Tell someone in US that government should drive technological innovations and vast majority will laugh. Minority will outline few areas like nukes and that's all. And this is the reason why US is a leader in science and technology.

Synaptic Cleft writes...

Simple to answer. Government has no skills in the area of developing engineering standards. Private business has the skills.

My point about this one, though, is that a government-run project will be built with more focus on getting things right, and less corner cutting to maximize profits. Government won't build this thing themselves, they'll subcontract it out to experts. And they'll employ experts to design it, on the advice of yet more experts (such as the people who changed this from an FTTN tender to an FTTH program).

Look at what happened when Telstra was privatized – over the years, pair gain and contention ratios increased. Why? It did the job, it was cheap. Did the job as in provided phone calls. When it was realized that we needed internet, they just threw in RIMs. Which was a short term fix, but, given their reticence to spend on network infrastructure, only created a new class division – those with internet, and those without. Talk to anyone with a good history working in telecommunications, they'll tell you the same story. I used to live next door to a bloke who worked in the industry, he'd tell me each year that Telstra was trying to cut the maintenance contracts by significant amounts, and that it forced corners to be cut constantly. Think of it this way – when Telstra was government owned, was it common for people to lose their phone service..? I get the impression it's more common now...

Government will pay for this to be built to last, private enterprise – if they were sole owners – would build something that meets the minimum criteria and returns a profit instantly. Given the comparison between Telstra and Telecomm, I'd reckon that Government will lay more fibre than private enterprise would to do the same job. Which means they'll build something that'll be more long-lasting.

I'd just like to point out that I have 2 TiVos in my household, several nights a week I might find both recording two programs simultaneously, so that's essentially 4 HD IPTV streams that my household would require several times a week. The situation would be different for VoD, but we've yet to see which way our TV networks go.

Granted my household might seem futuristic to some, but that's the point, the network has got to handle what the future holds.

Tadhg writes...

My point about this one, though, is that a government-run project will be built with more focus on getting things right

Anther example using Telstra is the 3g rollout, Erricson performed unplanned work because it was needed and the best thing to do but not the cheap way, they thought Telstra wouldn't have a problem with it (think government works they used to do for them) but they had falling out over it because Telstra wanted cheap (or cost effective).

Tadhg writes...

My point about this one, though, is that a government-run project will be built with more focus on getting things right, and less corner cutting to maximize profits.

Govt projects should follow Australian standards (like other corporate projects), but that hardly means it is getting it right. And sadly, delays and such will usually result in a cost blowout to the project. Which govt project do you know that was on schedule and on budget?

And how about the hospital in NSW where the lane was too small such that ambulances can't drive up? Among the hundreds of other deficiencies in the design. Our own collins class submarines?

As for ARPANET, yes the origins was from the govt, but the internet is hardly a govt entity.

Dellwood writes...

I'd just like to point out that I have 2 TiVos in my household, ...
Granted my household might seem futuristic to some, but that's the point, the network has got to handle what the future holds.

Futuristic? Like visiting Harvey Norman's and buying a couple of readily available consumer products somehow puts you into the future?

But maybe it is because you have one of those 1960's futurists' bubble chairs.

argamond writes...

Which govt project do you know that was on schedule and on budget?

I live in Qld – our government couldn't get the budget right for a Happy Meal!

And how about the hospital in NSW where the lane was too small such that ambulances can't drive up?

Or the new $2 million Fire Station in Bathurst (I think), where they built the thing back-to-front on the block, so the truck can't get out at night because the concrete gets too icy and they need to do 21 point turns? Don't think that doesn't happen in the private sector – I know of a company which recently built a storage facility for their equipment, only to find they didn't measure up the equipment properly, and it didn't fit. :-P

But that said, it's the planners' fault. It's quantity surveyors who miss things, engineers who don't foresee problems and miss other items. Having worked on government contracts, that's often why they blow out. Most public works projects are handled by offices which are either government-based or privatized former government departments that don't work for anyone else.

The planners on this project won't have done any work for our government in the last 10+ years. They'll be companies like Ericsson (though maybe not Ericsson themselves), who actually know how to build a network, and will put enough Fibre in the ground, rather than shortchanging us on the Fibre and putting in cheats that will save us in the short term but cost us a lot in the long term.

In all honesty, I'd rather have something like this which costs us a bit more to get right at the start (even if contracts find extras/variations and increase in cost) than something that's cheaper at the start but costs a heap more in continual maintenance and upgrades.

Synaptic Cleft writes...

These are exceptions from the well known rule.

Wait up. A well known rule now? Well the Australian Standards body was set up in 1922 and was a government organisation until 1999. So we have only had 10 years of non government defined standards. And that is only because we are moving to international standards and the Howard government was ideologically driven to privatise everything.

And this is the reason why US is a leader in science and technology.

So you have some made up anecdotes to back up your "rule". No, I would say the US is a leader in science and technology because of government funding. Mostly through the military sector but also outside.

I gave two very quick examples of how your "rule" was broken and you just dismiss it. These were examples based directly on the topic at hand. You sound a lot like this no-NBN guy. you dismiss everything that doesn't fit your ideology.

I thought that this extreme laissez-faire ideology died with the GFC. Obviously some people just didn't get the memo...

jendres writes...

No, I would say the US is a leader in science and technology

That's the only reasonable point. The rest hardly needs commenting, but I will on this one:

because of government funding.

Because for decades (but not now) US federal budget was kept at a small percentage of GDP. On contrary to nanny-state or totalitarian countries which always have been and are now in technological toilet.

ClickHere writes...

Futuristic? Like visiting Harvey Norman's and buying a couple of readily available consumer products somehow puts you into the future?

How many people do you know who have a PVR, let alone two in one household? By futuristic I mean that I have two, whereas most people don't have one. In the same way that VCRs started off as a luxury that few had, eventually many households ended up with more than one.

In any case, the point of my post was that there will be demand for streaming as many as 4 or more HD IPTV streams to a single household. I realise it depends on content providers switching to IPTV rather than regular TV broadcast, but I'm just saying that if the evolutionary progression of TV goes this way then we'll need a FTTP network to handle this. Especially if Mr Conroy is correct.

On the other hand, if it goes towards VoD instead, this number could be reduced, however a shared medium (possibly including various kinds of passive optical networks) may also not be sufficient. My household would be streaming 2 VoD streams during primetime, and if everyone around is doing the same, that could add up significantly and overwhelm the network.

You might say that these are extreme cases, but they really are not. As I've pointed out they're happening at the moment, just with a different medium.

Dellwood writes...

My household would be streaming 2 VoD streams during primetime, and if everyone around is doing the same, that could add up significantly and overwhelm the network.

A word of caution here. If everything you could wish to watch is 'on tap' there is a very strong possibility that, after the novelty wears off VOD and/or IPTV, you will watch steadily less video and gradually turn to other forms of entertainment.

There is a good chance that some of these entertainments will be web based but many will involve traditional pursuits such as reading/handicrafts and playing games/sports.

With this in mind, the provisioning of Video entertainment on the NBN will be a ticklish job with no guarantee that 'bums on seats' will be all that profitable.

Therefore I am writes...

after the novelty wears off VOD and/or IPTV, you will watch steadily less video and gradually turn to other forms of entertainment.

I was simply using myself as an example of current usage trends. TV didn't create primetime, people did. It's when most people have gotten home and can relax in front of the box. Now if the TV networks simply move their distribution method to IPTV, people are still going to watch TV at those times because that's when they're home and/or that's when the show they want to watch is on. If they move to VoD, then the shows they want to watch can be watched whenever they like, however most people still get home at the same time, so they'll sit down infront of their box to watch their show at the same time.

People are creatures of habit. It's just my habbit is watching a timeshifted show almost every night, and watching the rest that I've recorded during the week on the weekend. The number of shows I watch during primetime has increased, as I'm able to timeshift shows that are on at the same time as others I want to watch, and also the later shows that I wouldn't be able to watch to earler.

This won't change with IPTV. The shows I want to watch will still be on at the same time for me to watch or timeshift. As for VoD, I'll still only have a certain amount of time each night to watch TV, so I'll still be watching the shows I want during those primetime hours, not because that's when they're on but because that's when I'm free to watch them.

With this in mind, the provisioning of Video entertainment on the NBN will be a ticklish job with no guarantee that 'bums on seats' will be all that profitable.

ISPs are already doing IPTV, and VoD is already around. If they can do it now, why can't they do it after the NBN is built (and thus it's cheaper for them to do it)?

Synaptic Cleft writes...

That's the only reasonable point. The rest hardly needs commenting, but I will on this one:

hahaha what an ego.

Because for decades (but not now) US federal budget was kept at a small percentage of GDP. On contrary to nanny-state or totalitarian countries which always have been and are now in technological toilet.

Hmmm. I can smell a Liberal shill?
I prefer a little less ideology and more apolitical analysis thanks.

Dellwood writes...

How many people do you know who have a PVR, let alone two in one household?

Everyone that I regularly visit a PVR. In fact, I don't know of anyone who doesn't.

By futuristic I mean that I have two, whereas most people don't have one.

I have two cars. Does that make me futuristic?

In the same way that VCRs started off as a luxury that few had, eventually many households ended up with more than one.

PVRs aren't a luxury because they only cost a few hundred dollars. A luxury these days costs over $100,000. Perhaps you are living in a pricing time-warp?

In any case, the point of my post was that there will be demand for streaming as many as 4 or more HD IPTV streams to a single household.

You (and Conroy) really need to futurise your thinking. I realise you cannot go down to a shop and buy some thinking, but there must be some way.

The real future is video on-demand. In which case you aren't going to be watching multiple videos at once. The current (wasteful) method of broadcasting multiple channels which customers have to record to watch (because they can only watch one at a time) will change.

It seems that the likes of Conroy dream that there are going to be hundred of tv channels simultaneously broadcast on the internet. That is not the future.

My household would be streaming 2 VoD streams during primetime, and if everyone around is doing the same, that could add up significantly and overwhelm the network.

No, it wont overwhelm the internet.

You might say that these are extreme cases, but they really are not.

They are simply not likely cases at all.

As I've pointed out they're happening at the moment, just with a different medium.

So why isn't the internet already "overwhelmed" then?

ClickHere writes...

Everyone that I regularly visit a PVR. In fact, I don't know of anyone who doesn't.

Most people I know don't even own STB's. I'm the only person I know with Tuner cards in their computer(s).

PVRs aren't a luxury because they only cost a few hundred dollars. A luxury these days costs over $100,000. Perhaps you are living in a pricing time-warp?

Or perhaps you're living in a higher-than-average socio-economic circle?

I know people who can't afford dial-up. For a lot of these people two TiVo's would be futuristic and luxuries. The fact that Dellwood posted on Whirlpool – home to the nation's biggest geeks and nerds, as well as a lot of more normal people – is the only thing that bends the balance the other way. I think Conroy would consider two TiVo's to be futuristic... Whereas my personal opinion of TiVo is that it's an overpriced piece of consumer gear that isn't as good or flexible as a pc-based solution. But that's just my slightly geeky view of it...

Beyond all that, arguing that two TiVo's in a household is or isn't futuristic is off topic.

What is on topic is wondering where Merari's gone, and when he's going to address my questions about his extreme confidence in the private sector providing a service they've shown no interest in providing in the past.

Dellwood writes...

My household would be streaming 2 VoD streams during primetime, and if everyone around is doing the same, that could add up significantly and overwhelm the network.

ok, i may be daft, but wouldnt the nbn have some sort of multi-cast packet type, like the boring old current network has?

rhom writes...

ok, i may be daft, but wouldnt the nbn have some sort of multi-cast packet type, like the boring old current network has?

I can probably out daft that :) If the video is going to be broadcast why don't we continue to do it the way we do it now? Going digital allows for many, many more channels and people can use recorders to time-shift if they like. That leaves the SNN's capacity to be used for things that really need it.

Cain462 writes...

You do realise that PON can go faster then 622mb, right?

Yes but it uses different optical components.

Kussie writes...

Has the OP ever heard of editing a post or copy and pasting responses into a single reply instead of flooding the thread.

Yes I have, but often the different posts are very unrelated.

Your perceived mesh network idea is full of holes, security and privacy issues.

Indeed it may be, but that's why we're committing to research such issues. However, even preliminary designs address security and privacy. All traffic would be encrypted, each node would have a certificate, only the IPv6 dest field would be plain text. The destination node would decrypt the packet and present the IPv6 source etc..

Latency would jump through the roof

Again research... We've addressed this with something that resembles "wormhole" switching. You route once, then switch – on paper, you can hop 16k nodes accumulating only 1ms of latency. If there's an error in switching, the last node simply routes again. This contrasts routing at every node.

whats to stop your neighbours from doing nasty things to your connection?

A node would connect into a home, but you would have limited ability to disrupt your neighbours connection. Perhaps you could physically block it, but then you would have to go on your roof to do so, and if under a contract for the mesh node, you may void your contract etc.. But again, research...

Wireless methods are just not able to meet the needs for the nation.

That's a huge misconception.

FTTP is the best choice not only does it provide incredibly fast internet speeds
The FTTP PON only provides 28Mbps concurrently to 32 users. If a 32 PON is used. However higher multi-point PONS, such as 64 or 128 may be seen as more cost efficient.... And upgrading in the future will involve buying all new equipment at each end of the fiber. Connection will be around $500 and a router will be around $200. Also your upload will be 155Mbps shared between those 32-128 users. Use of GPON will improve speeds but of course will also increase the entire project cost.

[it's] also able to offer other features and services, free and pay tv for example.

Such applications are available with other distribution systems. Including (but not limited to), FTTN with VDSL2+ last km.

And as always, such a system is going to cost everyone $100+ / month (avg.)

Of spending, say $10bn on wireless to have it quicker than 12mbs...

Farsouthscanner writes...

The main problem would be backhaul and with fibre in the area its easy to add capacity to the towers or once the population in the area gets big enough they can extend that backhaul to FTTP

Yes, such a "$10bn" plan would include – what I believe is common to any NBN flavour – backhaul upgrades.

Of 622Mbps figure...

MicroNinja writes...

Where did you get that number from ?

Wikapedia – and yes it was for BPON. I actually believed that GPON would use 10Gbps equipment to give everyone the premise of a gigabit connection. However, as you've pointed out, it's 2.5Gbps. The 10G-PON would have the 10G links.

With that in mind, GPON would provide 78Mbps concurrently to 32 users. And 39Mbps for the more expected form of 64 users – this is not even > 100Mbps. Of course, this is much cheaper than having an AON (which is more future proof), as you're sharing bandwidth and can leverage unused bandwidth. With 39Mbps you would have enough for your street to all concurrently stream HD video. However, the equipment would increase the cost – $43bn. (Some savings may be made to that $43bn as well, meaning that the final figure may be the same).

Farsouthscanner writes...

To the OP, if it hasn't been covered before: What frequencies would this netowrk run on? I would assume every house and business would need its own channel, would this be the case? If so how much bandwidth is needed per channel and can this be changed later if one user needs more than someone else.

I still think that you believe that a 4G network is our "be all, end all" alternative to the current and unaffordable FTTP PON plan. Again, there are many other alternatives, including FTTN with VDSL2+ and the more far fetched – Point-to-Point mesh.

I'm not an expert here, i'm sure there are others who could answer this better: 4G LTE provides 300Mbps per 20Mhz of bandwidth and that's per a ~5km radius (or diameter?) cell. Cells overlap a bit for handover and would use different frequencies. With 200Mhz a cell could provide 10 lots of 300Mbps to 500 users (?), which is like 300Mbps for 50 users = 6Mbps. Hardly as much as FTTN PON, but definately affordable.

A point-to-point mesh's links don't interfere with one another (especially FSO links), they are directional, not omni-directional. If FTTN was used to better feed the mesh, then you would have up to a 50 x 50 mesh for every link to a fiber – which is over kill (you don't have 2500 premises per sq.km in australia more like half that, so more like 25x25). So 1250 premises sharing 50Gbps = 40Mbps. Also, you would have access to 4Gbps speeds as a max. compared to 2.5Gbps. A good contender against FTTP GPON and also heaps more affordable. Not to mention the addition of distributed cache in the mesh etc....

FTTN with VDSL2+. VDSL2+ enables 300Mbps for every connection within 1KM (the resolution of an FTTN rollout). Now put aside the issue of using telstra owned copper (this is more a political issue which can be dealt with). The VDSL+ links would mean, you don't have the full 1.25Gbps of EPON available, 300Mbps is the max. However copper is already there, so we can leverage that for 10-20 years before moving direct to an Active Optic Network in that time as needed.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

10G-PON requires that. GPON (G.984) is 2.5 down/1.25 up. GE-PON is different again.

Yer you're right – oops.

With that in mind, GPON would provide 78Mbps concurrently to 32 users.

And how often will all 32 users be maxing it out once?

And 39Mbps for the more expected form of 64 users – this is not even > 100Mbps.

Expected by who?

EDIT: oops. duplicated a reply....

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

But that requires EVERY SINGLE house between me and a POP to work. The ability for that kind of network to work reliability is, well, questionable at best.

A crazy "mesh" network requires every node to work between me and a POP. A fibre xPON network does not. Only that my core and my splitter works.

Remember a mesh is a 2 dimensional structure. We're not talking about a chain of links, but a mesh. If there's a 10x10 mesh and a node in the middle goes out, then the traffic is switched around that dead node. This contrasts with an OLT going out (for FTTP PON), where multiple users are put in the dark. A mesh has better reliability than an FTTP PON.

How many houses will have to be between me and a POP 6km away to make it work?

300

How much bandwidth does that represent being injected and carried across every house?

About 5Gbps. If you use 4 x FSO links, which are full duplex at 1.25Gbps.

Why the heck would this be considered a good idea?

1. It's affordable (Around $30/month). FTTP PON at $100 / month is not.
2. It's more reliable – as i mentioned above
3. It's faster – total of 5gbps potential

Merari Schroeder writes...

Wikapedia – and yes it was for BPON. I actually believed that GPON would use 10Gbps equipment to give everyone the premise of a gigabit connection. However, as you've pointed out, it's 2.5Gbps. The 10G-PON would have the 10G links.

So your using the wrong standard, and the wrong arguement.

Yes, FTTH/FTTP requires large links, but so does any fixed line network, because the nature of Fixed line networks = large bandwidth/ratio.

The reason why Wireless works cheaply (or so it seems) is because the bandwidth/ratio problems associated with a wireless network.

If you were to give me a choice of Wireless or FTTN, i'd choose FTTN over wireless anyday, if that was choice based on the money $$$ concerns...

Simply because that FTTN would not only allow better ratio between bandwidth (speed) and download allowances....

Of a point-to-point mesh alternative...

MicroNinja writes...

Not to mention who's going to pay for the power and bandwidth bills for each and every node and pop.

Power – I would imagine that the power would be the same as FTTP PON. And if higher, well we've just saved $30bn – invest that in solar thermal power which will not only power the network but will have 99% surplus to sell to the grid.

Bandwidth – Huh? Each customer owns the bandwidth. If you're talking about the POP connectivity, that's included in the $30/month.

Merari Schroeder writes...

1. It's affordable (Around $30/month). FTTP PON at $100 / month is not.

LOL $100 is so affordable.

Otherwise there wouldn't be any plans above $100 per month :)

btw, still talking about your mesh, have you got those blue-prints yet?

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

LTE might give you a peak speed of 100Mbps, but the reality is it's a shared medium amongst, well, whoever can see that tower.

It's 300Mbps per 20Mhz. And you don't have to just use 20Mhz per cell. You can have more bandwidth and this is variable per user and can be allocated etc....

So, Spending $10bn on LTE ain't going to give you 100Mbps simultaneously for the whole population.

Neither will BPON, EPON or GPON.

Merari Schroeder writes...

I would imagine that the power would be the same as FTTP PON. And if higher, well we've just saved $30bn – invest that in solar thermal power which will not only power the network but will have 99% surplus to sell to the grid.

Sure, build a few power stations with the spare $30B, just for people getting Internet :P

Power – I would imagine that the power would be the same as FTTP PON.

This is clearly well researched.

And if higher, well we've just saved $30bn – invest that in solar thermal power which will not only power the network but will have 99% surplus to sell to the grid.

And you've researched all this, right?

RealAusTech writes...

So you're saying that FTTN, and then using VDSL2+ over Telstra's last mile copper is going to be "better" than FTTP PON?

Technologically and Financiall, yes. Politically, no.

In case you haven't realized, Telstra's ownership of this copper is one of the major problems with our communications infrastructure right now. How much do you think that it would cost to buy that infractructure back from Telstra?

In case you haven't realized, the current solution of FTTP PON is there to replace the telstra monopoly with a brand new one. They're also promising to sell it in the future, so you'll kill a company only to create a new problem...

I see that you are claiming that VSDL2+ will deliver a network speed of 300Mbps. At what distance from the node?

1km.

I would remind you that speed degradation with VDSL2+ is much higher than with ADSL2+, when compared to distance.

Actually it's not. When it spans to distances of >5km it begins to degrade the same as ADSL2+.

I also seem to remember in the early discussion about the NBN, that over 80,000 nodes would be required to ensure a network speed of 12Mbps. How many nodes would be needed to ensure a speed of 300Mbps, 25 times faster?

Don't know what you're talking about there. FTTN would provide fiber to the VDSL2+ last km network. If you're talking about a point-to-point mesh, then that 80k nodes for 12Mbps is not correct of my current design.

["It's already been debated, in the threads that were about the NBN. Why are you resurrecting what has been hashed over goodness knows how many times?"