Kevin Rudd has just announced that none of the applicants for the NBN have met the requirements of the Federal Government and so all have been rejected. He continued on to announce the largest single infrastructure project in the nation's history. The Federal Government will majority own and partner with the private sector to build a fibre-to-the-home network (100Mbit/s). I think he said it will be built over the next 5 years. This is huge and will shake the industry up in a big way.

Not a lot of detail out just yet but here is the news.com.au story.

It looks like the build will be over 8 years. They intend to use wireless and satalite for remote areas (no gaming for them, I guess). promoted/edited forum item

FTTH is awesome, but the Govt going it alone :S

That's great news. We were running out of infrastructure to privatise.

100Mbit/s

*salivates*

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/national_broadband_network

Sounds good. Let's hope they can pull it off in the time frame which I notice is will be 7 to 8 years and not the 5 mentioned in the OP.

Yet the evaluation from the DBCDE says a 5 year roll out, so I guess it'll be done when it's done.

last edited by Triamks at 09:21:24 07/Apr/09

Haha, sounds good? Pffft. It's a f***n joke.

What would you prefer Pinky?

Simon Hackett summary

Simon Hackett

I am little scared for two reason... after it built the government will sell it like they did with telstra... it give them a stronger force to add internet filtering...

but the reason they did it is so they can use the telstra contractors to build it for them so telstra doesnt sue them :) that is why they are using telstra for the wireless broadband for 10% country

last edited by TiT at 09:21:11 07/Apr/09

Simon sounds excited and the prospect of more Internode DSLAMs sound awesome.

Stephen Conroy delivers the goods!

Pretty good news.....however, some of our main concerns about the internet filter have been that it will drastically slow down the internet. With FTTH it's not as if we can complain about that anymore is it? This could just be a ploy to get the internet filter in.....:(

This shouldn't have anything to do with the internet filter. This is pretty mucch the 2nd best news that we could have hoped for, and to be honest, I'm pretty shocked.

The sucky thing is that they are already planning to sell the network. I wish they'd just own it forever.

I'm stumped, this is a good outcome if it ends up going the way it has been announced (unlike other Labor election promises LOLOLOL).

Other countries I've been to which have a similar system of a single network which is then wholesaled have a f***ing awesome internet infrastructure. The only concerns would be the internet filter as this would allow the government to whack in their black list and then spout the line "Oh you don't like it? Go back to your 1.5Mbit ADSL with Dodo then".

Pretty good news.....however, some of our main concerns about the internet filter have been that it will drastically slow down the internet. With FTTH it's not as if we can complain about that anymore is it? This could just be a ploy to get the internet filter in.....:(

content filters slows things down due to the processing time it takes to apply them - increasing the bandwidth doesn't help filter speeds. if anything, it'd make them even slower due to the potentially larger amount of packets coming through them

I guess the main points to look at from this.

* 90% FTTH. Other 10% to be Wireless/Sat
* $43bn investment over 8 years. Completion ~ 2016-2018.
* Government controlled PPP. Max 49% private ownership.
* At 5 years after completion of the build, the Government will sell their stake, making it a private company. Telstra could then buy the network, and we'll be back to square one. We should hope that there is regulation which ensures the network must remain structurally separated.

FTTH is definately the way to go, we will now avoid all the legal hassle between Telstra and whoever might have been the winning shareholder.

I'm a bit disapointed that the Government aren't interested in maintaining their ownership of this new company. I personally believe that Government owned network is the way to go.

Overall, extremely good news. Unfortunately, we now have to wait AGES until it all starts happening. Bring on 2010.

Good brochure here that explains a lot in simple terms http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/national_broadband_network/national_broadband_network_policy_brochure

From the description it's pretty much the best possible outcome. The issue still though is that it's basically as certain as an election promise, in that so many things could still happen to prevent it from rolling out as described.

Also, I have no problem with the 5 year sell off factor. It's different than Telstra sale in that they are obviously going to lock down all the regs before privatising. And it's wholesale only.

I can't decide where I stand on the government owning the infrastructure.

I'd like them to hold on to it because interwebs should be a common utility that everyone has access to (much like education, health, electricity etc.. but then most of these aren't federal government owned either) but at the same time when you have tards like Conroy put in that don't fully comprehend technology it would allow the government easier access to do mandatory filtering.

Yeah i don't buy any of this bulls*** its just a cover, they build, telstra buys out rofl.

haha this will never be built.

haha. my bros gf is in charge of this. was talking to over xmas about it.

What are they doing about our international links? Is this in any way going to improve our pings/bandwidth to like the 98% of the internet that isn't Australian?

When I was at Norfolk apparently there was talk of a new submarine cable from the US to Australia via Norfolk ? ... sounds doubtful to me tho

What would you prefer Pinky?

I would prefer a proper open tendering process where they actually provide reasoned and valid costings and detailed descriptions of proposed legislative changes required for the Telstra-owned 'last mile' (copper between exchange and home/business).

Senator Conroy is severely incompetent. If the current Government doesn't recognise this and make changes then the Government is severely incompetent.

But, tell us something we don't already know, right?

Interesting. I was a launch for a project I'm heavily involved with which largely rolls out fibre to schools all over the state, we had the Minister for Broadband there to launch it and he briefly talked about having fibre rolled out to 90% of homes in the next 5-10 years, I just assumed he was full of s*** because of the sheer scope of that type of project. Also Telstra dominate with fibre reach and consequently charge through the roof in regional areas so I hope that this initiative leaves Telstra out of the loop because one thing this country needs with this kind of rollout is a competitor to Telstra.

haha. my bros gf is in charge of this. was talking to over xmas about it.

It wasn't an option at xmas.

I would prefer a proper open tendering process where they actually provide reasoned and valid costings and detailed descriptions of proposed legislative changes required for the Telstra-owned 'last mile' (copper between exchange and home/business).

I don't understand what you're objecting to though. The Government is now going to build FTTH which means that Telstra's last mile monopoly will be dead forever.

This is a great move... They obviously realised that there was no easy answer to the last mile. Excluding Telstra makes Telstra angry, Angry Telstra makes FTTN impossible with court action for YEARS.

This way, Telstra have nothing to complain about, and they too will be able to enjoy FTTH goodness, at their chosen price point.

Will be extremely interesting to see what wholesale pricing on a network like this would be.

It wasn't an option at xmas.

what?

haha. my bros gf is in charge of this. was talking to over xmas about it.

Jeez a girl in charge, is she gonna pay extra for the pink fibre because "it just looks prettier"

I don't understand what you're objecting to though. The Government is now going to build FTTH which means that Telstra's last mile monopoly will be dead forever.

I'm not objective if it happens. I question if it will.

Everything they have done so far has been wrong. So far they have had a completely useless tender process for something that can't be built.

There is no reason to believe this this proposal will be run any differently than the tendering process - completely wrong.

So Kevin Rudd gives us free money and fast internet?

Too bad about the filtering though.

Can't wait for Budget Tuesday - promises more laughs than Melbourne Comedy Festival.

haha. my bros gf is in charge of this. was talking to over xmas about it.

Can you tell her to tell conroy he is completely out of touch and get off the filtering internet bandwagon?

This is an awesome outcome. Telstra or a similar integrated company wouldn't be allowed to buy it, it is a wholesale only deal, prices will undoubtedly be heavily regulated even if privatized. Good on the Government for making the right decision, but it does reek of a keep us in power deal because no doubt the liberals will oppose it so the threat will be re-elect us or they'll scrap the network.

Still will be good to see when they turn the first sod.

Can you tell her to tell conroy he is completely out of touch and get off the filtering internet bandwagon?

ja, gave her a spray about that. she says its not gonna happen.

@infi - The smart Liberal move would be to support it - since its vitally important, and sure to be wildly popular (amongs IT circles anyway). That way, when it comes to election time, there won't be a point of difference on that issue. Why vote Labor just for broadband policy, when Liberals will do the same thing anyway?

It wasn't an option at xmas.

what?

Original plan was 98% FTTN coverage. $4.7bn Government contribution.

New plan is 90% FTTH coverage. $43bn Govt + Private investment.

This is a completely new process. The old RFP for which Optus, Acacia and Axia were involved is over. (I'd put money on Axia and Optus trying to build it though).

I think mongie is calling you out on your bs story mooby.

My sisters boyfriend drives a Gemini.

Pinky ... the only laugh at the moment is the liberal party is about to have another new leader.
Approval ratings for the merchant banker Turnbull are at the same levels they were for the ex-"doctor union boss" Nelson.

Costello for leader, or just kick everyone out of the party imho.

I think this is a good outcome for everyone. If it gets built or not is another matter as is when it will ever be completed.

I still can't see Telstra being a retail customer of this new network though. I expect them to continue to beef up their HFC network, and then use that as a starting point to roll out their own FTTH network outside the reach of the ACCC.

The existing trench, fibre loop and exchange infrastructure would enable a much quicker rollout for Telstra than the government could manage. While leaving their copper infrastructure in place to appease the ACCC and their DSL competitors/wholesale users.

i was pretty interested to read that there is already a community in qld with ftth, paid for by the developers of the comunity, with inode onboard!

that would be some sweet interneting axn!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/brisbane-gets-the-jump-on-broadband-network-20090407-9w48.html

Yeah, node did some deal with the developers - its at redbank plains.

Telstra have a lot of them as well.

this is terrible news

got central control over all our intertoobs?
the govt will have.

Everyone one know's telstra is going to win with this...
The government is going to use there contractors to build it.
Telstra will supply the wireless 12mb with there Next G
Then they will have the money to buy all it back when they sell it

The Government may very well use Telstra to build the network, but there are a variety of options available to them. NextGen, Pipe etc. will all be trying to get at least part of the contract. Axia, who bid for the original NBN plan will surely try and get in on this too, its even more up their alley, since they don't have to own the network, or provide funding, just rock up and build it.

The fees available to network builders will mean that MANY companies put their hands up and stretch themselves to be able to build the network. Nobody will want to miss out.

The good part is that since Telstra will not own any part of the network, there is nothing wrong with them building it. I do hope however that when it comes time for it to be sold, there is no chance that Telstra could buy it.

As for the wireless, I'll assume it will be WiMax. For the sake of the country 10%, I hope so. God help them on a 14.4Mbit NextG connection that is really 1.5Mbit. "Third Generation Satelite" was also mentioned, I assume that would be two way...

last edited by mongie at 14:45:43 07/Apr/09

I'll believe it when I see it.

Early days yet, but I think Government ownership is a good thing.

Who cares? it's a way forward. The politics of the industry so venomously distort the reality on the ground, so it's f***ing excellent to see *anything* resembling progress. What a comical waste of time this whole last year++ has been.

Also 850 scales to over a Gig, & current mobile devices (iphone etc) are the limiting factor not the network. Get a 21Mbps modem and you'll see better speeds!

Sounds like we're buliding Telstra 2.0. I don't have an issue with this being built by the government, but if it does go private it needs to be strictly regulated otherwise we're going to be in the same position where we are now with Telstra.

So it will only have taken us about 15-20 years to catch up with the rest of the world...

Sounds like we're buliding Telstra 2.0. I don't have an issue with this being built by the government, but if it does go private it needs to be strictly regulated otherwise we're going to be in the same position where we are now with Telstra.

Don't worry, it'll never end up like Telstra *

(" I promise)

40 billion dollars for an Internet network, eh. I haven't read all the stuff closely yet, but let's see how 40 billion dollars over 8 years compares to some other stuff the government is spending money on:

- $5.9 billion over five years for education
- $3.2 billion for public health in the National Health and Hospitals Reform Plan
- $2.3 billion over five years to tackle climate change
- $12.9 billion over ten years for Water for the Future

oh and

- $46.7 billion of personal income tax cuts over four years (that money might have come in useful right about now)

Once I've read more about this and digested it I'll be back to heap scorn upon it all I'm sure (even though this was the exact thing I said the government should do). At this stage it seems like a disproportionate amount of money to be spending to me; I'd rather other infrastructure got improved before the Internet, but whatever.

At least they're doing it in a way that sounds pretty good; the separation etc discussed is definitely positive.

Fast internet
Free money

I'm beginning to like this Rudd guy

You have a differing view on internet infrastructure to most people in your industry trog. I think you're the odd one out.

@dranged.

Also 850 scales to over a Gig, & current mobile devices (iphone etc) are the limiting factor not the network. Get a 21Mbps modem and you'll see better speeds!

Dude, have you used NextG? Its fine... Coverage is good etc. But using 7.2Mbit hardware and getting 700kbit down, 300kbit up does not seem like particularly great performance to me. (We have over 2000 cards).

You have a differing view on internet infrastructure to most people in your industry trog. I think you're the odd one out.

Doesn't make me wrong; just because something is popular doesn't make it good or right.

I love fast Internet as much as the next guy, but seriously, spending $40 billion on an infrastructure upgrade that THE SAME GOVERNMENT wants to cripple with filtering? It seems a bit weird.

s***, we're only spending $10 billion to try and break us out of this economic crisis thing that everyone is so worked up over. I know, I know - tax money isn't even real money. It comes from fairies or somes***.

I didn't vote for Rudd, but if I did, I'd be pissed that all of a sudden what he decided to spend on Internet infrastructure has increased 10 fold. Yeh, I know, election promises, right? Who'd believe them!

I guess they see all that as dead money, where as they will sell off the network at the end.

40 billion dollars for an Internet network, eh. I haven't read all the stuff closely yet, but let's see how 40 billion dollars over 8 years compares to some other stuff the government is spending money on:

I think you should start by getting a better understanding on where all the money is coming from.

From http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2536953.htm :

LYNDAL CURTIS: And the cost has grown from an estimate $10 to 15-billion, to $43 billion.
So where's the money coming from?
The Government is putting in the same amount it has promised; $4.7-billion into the new company that will be set up in the same way as Australia Post is set up – a Government business enterprise.
The private sector will put in up to 49 per cent of the costs, about half the rest will be raised by the company, and the other half raised by selling infrastructure bonds to investors.

So to simplify it, the gov throws the already stated 4.7 in and the rest is raised by investors banking on a very long-term ROI. A longer wait on return than would probably be viable for a private company.

On top of that, the country stands to reap the economical benefits of finally catching up with the rest of the developed world on broadband capability.

Yeah, that's what you want, a company based on the Australia Post model.

Mail gets delivered sure, but from a business standpoint that place is a COMPLETE joke and utter failure.

last edited by CHUB at 16:40:16 07/Apr/09

So to simplify it, the gov throws the already stated 4.7 in and the rest is raised by investors banking on a very long-term ROI. A longer wait on return than would probably be viable for a private company.

Oh, right, so it's even better - a $40 billion plan with only 1/10th the investment! I guess it's only day 1, I'm sure they'll find people willing to put in the other $36 billion

On top of that, the country stands to reap the economical benefits of finally catching up with the rest of the developed world on broadband capability.

yes, all those other countries enjoying all those economical benefits at the moment... where's their precious Internet as all their banks collapse, EH!#!@!@#!#@!#@

Dan, I don't think thats correct. You'll note that the part about the same $4.7bn being spent is not a direct quote.

Its not all going to be Government money, but I'm positive that the Government will contribute more than the original $4.7bn. Much more.


Trog, I guess you should vote for the greens or something? Someone who isn't into progress?

Obviously the estimated 25,000 jobs, and 37,000 at the peak of construction have something to do with it. They need to be seen to be doing something about unemployment, and this is a good start. With the added benefit that we end up with something at the end, and then can sell it.

last edited by mongie at 16:49:36 07/Apr/09

Mongie prattling on about things he doesn't know much about again

HAHHAHAHA

All you peons thinking your going to get 100mbit when we have 1/500000th the required backhaul interstate, innerstate, and internationally to sustain 100mbit more than likely 1/6th of 100mbit is the service you will get. Thats a positive estimate probably more like 1/7 or more.

last edited by Corrupt at 17:01:56 07/Apr/09

NBN the new meaning to higher contention ratios :D

Trog, I guess you should vote for the greens or something? Someone who isn't into progress?

I just wrote a big reply but just deleted it; I can't be assed rehashing these conversations again. Your asinine, insulting comment about the Greens notwithstanding, at the end of the day I just think it's not worth spending money on when there's other things that, to me, are more important than fast Internet. And yes, that's me saying that as someone that is plugged into the Internet almost all of the time and helps run a couple companies that do exclusively Internet things.

that sure is some backward thinking!

Feel free to educate me oh wise saint. What are you talking about?

I think that whether you think it's a valid use of public funds or not trog, obviously -someone- thinks there Is a need for this network. Someone who the government listens to.

china?

i assume the government will provide this internet access at reasonable rates

$1000 says they go to the street next to mine and miss my street like every other ISP has done and I'll still be stuck on telstra cable.

I'm a bit disapointed that the Government aren't interested in maintaining their ownership of this new company. I personally believe that Government owned network is the way to go.

Yeah like they can afford to. The costs will blow out. 4.7billion? It apparently cost 1.8billion to lay coax in the early 90s for pay TV. Yeah, the plan is for the new company to raise its own funds, but given that in the current climate state governments can't even raise funds, how likely is it that? As if the vast majority of the funds aren't going to be coming from the federal government.

$43 billion dollars is a lot of cash, and for what? 4-10 times faster internet?

Money well spent! Better than giving it to those old c***s and school kids, and those sick people. Forget them.

Look the Rudd government is involved so you can be sure it will run over budget and provide plenty of photo opportunities while offering inferior service.

look at all the job service providers who just lost their jobs due to the government's manic policy roll out.

the budget deficit will be over $30b i guess and the sky's the limit on how much extra spending they are going to roll out, plunging our economy into debt when it simply isn't necessary.

i want decent internet too but i don't want to saddle this country with $43b of debt to achieve it (sorry mongie).

it should be built by private sector, or if the govbernment really wants to then lend the money to a corporatised TelstraCable company and then eventually privatise and float.

Government should def not be running it cos they can't run jack s***.

ok, the news told me tonite, that hte government is going to own 51% of the network, im going to take that to mean its only gonna cost hte government 22 billion

that doesnt sound so bad now does it?

so only $1k for each australian, that's alright

Whats the interest on $22 billion Spook?

Government should def not be running it cos they can't run jack s***.

They couldn't run something as basic as a tender process - and now they want to try their hand at the largest infrastructure project in our history.

*signal alarm bell ringers*

Prolly around 1.5b/year.

Prolly around 1.5b/year.

Fail.

Or Pinky, the government ran the tender process properly (rightly so) and the tenders failed to submit good tenders. As a result, the government has done the right thing by the people (oh imagine that) and gone ahead with the project in a better form. Imagine a government that rejects tenders that are poor value for money. I think I may die of shock.

Pink, would you be so kind to explain how the government did the wrong thing by rejecting tenders from a single company (of a group of 5 iirc) on the basis that they alone couldn't raise the money to build the NBN and instead communicated that it would form another company where those 5 companies, plus Telstra, plus retail investors could all join forces to finance said company?

Pinky, you basically sound as if you're quoting the Coalition's Communications spokesman. I had great respect for you after the Churro thread but that's slipping with every post you make in this thread.

f*** I just worked it out. Kevin 747 needs to fly everywhere but within his own country and the best way to do that is on Frequent Flyer points. So to get enough FF points to go to America, England and China several times a week he needs to spend big on his AMEX.

Thus we now have a $47bn FTTH network charged to Kevvys AMEX.

What's the point? Wireless is where the future's at.

Triamks: I don't think the problem is that they rejected tenders that weren't in the best interest of the nation, it's that they created a process that did not encourage sufficient tenders.

Seriously, before today's announcement EVERY press body was talking about FTTN solutions as if they were the only possible outcome. So many articles used the explaination of nodes as if they were the given solution.

After the months of research and feedback from experts, the pollies finally realised that FTTN was not the right option for the future of the country but it was too late because the RFP they'd laid out had encouraged bids skewed by that path of thought.

It's awesome that they rejected the FTTN tenders, but they totally f***ed the process.

What should have happened is proper open discussion, proper research and proper advice in the first place before they moved into the secret NDA ridden tender process.

A request for solutions first, to determine the best solution and _then_ a request for tenders on the best solution.

They're on the right path now (admittedly after a year of wasted time and hundreds of millions of wasted dollars) but you sure as hell can't blame people for not being confident that they can actually make this vision come true. It's some real fingers crossed kinda s***.

What's the point? Wireless is where the future's at.

Wireless tech today has nowhere near the bandwith capability that fibre has and nothing in the remotely near future puts it anywhere close.

It's not the speed of the medium, they both carry data at the speed of light, but wireless has a far narrow spectrum than fibre (and even then, one network can't use it all because wireless spectrums are divied up among many applications).

Wireless tech will undoubtedly get faster and faster to a point where it might be worthy of this kind of application in say 20-30 years time, but fibre is king for big data right now and in the immediate future and that's what our country needs to stay in the game.

last edited by Dan at 19:54:34 07/Apr/09

Kev should have got the top 100 of Australia's intellectuals together for a summit to discuss issues like a national broadband network.

Kev should have got the top 100 of Australia's intellectuals together for a summit to discuss issues like a national broadband network.

That's a good idea, but honestly, he should have just asked Obama.

They couldn't run something as basic as a tender process - and now they want to try their hand at the largest infrastructure project in our history.

The snowy river scheme was bigger. The national highway project probably was too.

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6568185,00.jpg

From All Angles

Just fyi... its costing the government $7.7 billion to give us all $900, and thats not even buying anything! (yes I know it is our money)

Half of the reason the Government is doing it is just to spend money and save jobs. Also remember that once its completed, they will sell it and we will get some amount of that back.

It always sucks that even though something awesome has been announced and is a great decision to benefit all there's still a select few who have to say it sucks and throw around random names and words because they can't stand the fact that someone or some people they don't like came up with something brilliant. omg da govanment sux day dun kno wat day r dooin lol

Or Pinky, the government ran the tender process properly (rightly so) and the tenders failed to submit good tenders. As a result, the government has done the right thing by the people (oh imagine that) and gone ahead with the project in a better form. Imagine a government that rejects tenders that are poor value for money. I think I may die of shock.

Pink, would you be so kind to explain how the government did the wrong thing by rejecting tenders from a single company (of a group of 5 iirc) on the basis that they alone couldn't raise the money to build the NBN and instead communicated that it would form another company where those 5 companies, plus Telstra, plus retail investors could all join forces to finance said company?

Pinky, you basically sound as if you're quoting the Coalition's Communications spokesman. I had great respect for you after the Churro thread but that's slipping with every post you make in this thread.

The tender process was a joke.

They asked for tenders for systems that required Telstra's 'last mile' to complete (FTTN). Well, Telstra owns that. Telstra bought that off the gov't not so long ago - remember?

Ok, so if Telstra owns that copper, they have to be involved, right? Or, the only other option is that the gov't is required to legislate appropriate use of this infrastructure (associated cost) so that successful applicants can include this cost in their tender, right? But Telstra bought this stuff fair and square anyway. Why the f*** should the gov't legislate use of that infrastructure. They shouldn't have sold it in the first place if that were the case.

So that's one issue. Borked tender process.

Next issue: the cost. When you go to buy a car from a dealer you can do one of two things: tell them how much money you have in which case the dealer will show you cars at that rough value, or tell the dealer what car you want and the dealer will tell you how much. The Gov't did both with the NBN. Yes, we want this, and at this price. Without discussion, without debate, without involving anyone at all. Where did the $4.8bn come from? Speculation has it, a final year uni student's project (I don't have a source).

Next issue: who can do it. Imagine you're a gov't and you need this massive infrastructure built. Who are you going to get to build it? (Rhetorical question)

Next issue: s*** business model. Once upon a time the gov't built a telco to lay cable to give people telephones. Then they sold it off in pieces. That didn't work very well. And now they are suggesting to do the same again.

Today Telstra's ordinary share price rallied (in Australia - but fell in NZ). Why? Because everyone knows they will get a big piece of the pie when the time comes to build this bastard in total or in part, because they have the people that can do it.

The peeps that lose out are your iiNet's and so on that are actually genuinely trying to create competition. They will yet again be a step behind because of a gov't that acts before it thinks.

well said Saint :/

Next issue: s*** business model. Once upon a time the gov't built a telco to lay cable to give people telephones. Then they sold it off in pieces. That didn't work very well. And now they are suggesting to do the same again.

Today Telstra's ordinary share price rallied (in Australia - but fell in NZ). Why? Because everyone knows they will get a big piece of the pie when the time comes to build this bastard in total or in part, because they have the people that can do it.

I agree with most of your criticism, except these last parts.

Yes, the sale of Telstra was a screw up, they should have been split prior to sale. But to suggest that the present government (a different party and one that opposed said previous sale no less) has learned nothing from that past mistake is an unfairly low expectation. I mean, they've done some seemingly incompetent things of recent, but c'mon - you really think they're going to repeat that particular same mistake? Rudd's speech this morning openly recognised the problem that is Telstra as one of the things they are addressing with this approach.

Secondly, Telstra's share price may have gained, but of course it's going to increase after the reason for it's biggest recent dive (the exclusion from the RFP) will now, unexpectedly, not be going to have as big an impact on them as analysts would have thought (because they're now in with a chance to do some of the building).

The people at the iinets and the internodes are actually over the moon about this result, read that post for the many reasons.

last edited by Dan at 21:54:57 07/Apr/09

Corrupt do you think that international and national transit caps are going to stay the same throughout the build and once the build starts to light up more and more fibre cabinet nodes?

Don't think in todays capacities with a project that won't even light up it's first tail for at least 8 years, possibly 10 from the people with real experience in the industry.

Just saw on lateline senator nick minchin from the libs has said the libs will be opposing what the government are wanting to put in place. They'll go through everything and will try to pick everything apart so it wont go through..

The people at the iinets and the internodes are actually over the moon about this result, read that post for the many reasons.

Except hes wrong on so many points.

Regulatory changes: This is the first national wholesale only broadband network, not controlled by Telstra (or anyone else). Solves once and for all the core problem with privatisation, blocking competition due to failed policy around Telstra and network access. This draws a line under a decade of a policy of neglect.

It'll be owned by a ~51:49 public:private owned company. After 5 years (after completion) we have a privately owned monopoly of high speed broadband in Australia. A company that will be very heavily leveraged, and will squeeze the f*** out of the consumer to recover that investment.

New network will connect 90% of homes, schools, workplaces with optical fibre to the premises (FTTP/FTTH). Will provide fibre optic backhaul links to cities and major rural towns as well.

Up to 100 megabits per second speeds.

ADSL2+ realistic peak speeds are ~20mbit. So this 100x faster bulls*** is a blatant misrepresentation. Its 5x faster, unless we want to compare to dial-up, then its upto 2000x faster. For $43 billion, i'd expect a bit more.

My prediction, it'll be a tollroad that goes unused. There are new ADSL technologies that can perform better than ADSL2+, and at an even longer range. And they won't require rolling out massive infrastructure, and presumably won't be carrying the same ridiculous amount of debt. (Unless of course the Telcos who invest in NBN raise the prices on ADSL plans to promote the uptake of FTTH and to pay down this debt. Which of course WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.)

It always sucks that even though something awesome has been announced and is a great decision to benefit all there's still a select few who have to say it sucks and throw around random names and words because they can't stand the fact that someone or some people they don't like came up with something brilliant.

Be careful not to fall victim to the messiah trap which America has fallen into with Obama (once again see South Park). Australians have thankfully treated all politicians with the skepticism they deserves up until Kevin Rudd for some reason. Politicians are just regular dudes like you and me who won a beauty contest one day and find themselves in charge of the country.

This program is a step in the right direction because at least Australia will get some lasting legacy from the taxpayer's money spent as compared to a cash handout which vaporises instantly on contact.

However if, as Malcolm Turnbull has suggested, the private sector cannot make it viable because the project is too expensive then why should it be built at all?

If the tenders from the private sector are too dear, it suggests to me that the long-term gainswill be outweighed by overall cost to the community, and we will end up with a product so expensive, consumers will not be able to pay for it and the capacity will then sit there idle, or remain under heavy taxpayer subsidy.

So the public policy question will then be: "Should government be susbidising taxpayer's internet in a similar fashion to subsidising public transport?"

Given the majority of this bandwidth will be for downloading porn, watching youtube funnehs and torrents (which don't me wrong are all wonderful things), I would answer no.

Good debate Dan but I agree with nF that there is a lot wrong with that article.

My prediction is that 8yrs to 100mbit is too slow and that other companies can compete in metro areas at the very least in that time-frame. I think the announcement is generally good for internet service in Aus because it is a deadline of sorts and will fuel some kind of infrastructure race that can only benefit consumers (in terms of speed, maybe not in terms of cost - we will see).

I reckon Telstra will roll-out an interim solution while being heavily involved in this project.

What I will be interested to see is how much engagement companies like Singtel will actually get these days. 20 years ago they wouldn't even have a look-in - but in this day and age it's anyone's game.

I watched Telstra research get demolished outside my office window so I don't hold great hopes for new communications technology (as in significant company IP as opposed to university research).

I think iiNet is in a very strong position now - gaining steadily. They have made the most of what they have and they have a solid long-term plan. I think PIPE Networks cable through Guam will be the really interesting thing to happen in the 'next phase' of internet service for Australia.

100mbit is the base speed, being fibre it has a much much greater speed upgrade capability than copper ever will. To assume it'll never be upgraded to faster speeds is silly. hi2u gb fibre home connections in other countries.

ATTN: nF and Charlie Brown.

The government's mention of this network being 100x faster was comparing it to "what most people use". Most people are on slow telstra 256/512/1500 connections. Not 20mbit. Even looking at what people might average on ADSL2+... It's not 20mbit.

Further note for Charlie Brown: you're an idiot and I hate you.

Thank you

when they say 100 times faster, obviously they are comparing it to the average broadband speed, which is typically a 1500/256 connection;

What's the point? Wireless is where the future's at.

lols

It'll be owned by a ~51:49 public:private owned company. After 5 years (after completion) we have a privately owned monopoly of high speed broadband in Australia. A company that will be very heavily leveraged, and will squeeze the f*** out of the consumer to recover that investment.

Again, like in my reply to Pinky, I think you're completely discounting what the gov has learned from the Telstra sale. They just aren't going to let that s*** happen again, that much is clear right from yesterday's announcement. Even the brochure on the dbcde site says this.

We will introduce legislation to ensure that the new network company always operates as the Government intends. The legislation will give the ACCC a strong, independent oversight role in ensuring the access terms offered by the company are fair, and that the company treats of all of its customers equally. As well, the legislation will make sure that at no stage can a customer of the network control the new network company.

Then this.

ADSL2+ realistic peak speeds are ~20mbit. So this 100x faster bulls*** is a blatant misrepresentation. Its 5x faster, unless we want to compare to dial-up, then its upto 2000x faster. For $43 billion, i'd expect a bit more.

I don't know where you're getting this 100x faster crap from. Again that brochure is a non-technical description of the announcement and nowhere does it mention 100x. There's a realistic comparison of how long it takes to download 1GB on various connections. Anywhere that is using 100x to describe this (was it news.com.au?) is deluded.

As for DSL alternatives, I'm sorry, but you really have no understanding of the technology.

When the proposals were working on FTTN solutions (hundreds of thousands of new little node boxes that would have peppered every suburb across the country) the tech that was to be used was VDSL2. Now yes, VDSL2 is faster than current DSL2, but it's only useful because of this node deployment system that brings the connection bottleneck closer to the users, the current copper network and 3-5km exchange distances doesn't cut it. From the XDSL2 wiki article:

VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at 'source' to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1640 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3280 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mile) its performance is equal to ADSL2+.)

DSL solutions without nodes has even less of a future in it, speeds just drop off to fast. The most important thing to understand is that THERE IS NO UPGRADE PATH TO FTTN. If Australia deployed FTTN we'd spend billions on the deployment of all these nodes, still be using the 100 year old copper network that is already falling to pieces and we'd be stuck with a second rate network for the next 20-30 years while they tried to re-coup the investment.

This is the reason you can't let the average person vote on these kind of matters, because you just can't expect them to have a decent understanding of the technology. It took the labor gov a year of deliberating to realise this (FTTP) was the necessary solution, but the libs have only had a day to consider the options, of course they're going to oppose (based only on day one analyst predictions), it's what they do.

For the person saying i'm not in the industry your assumption made an ass out of you. Secondly they won't have the bandwidth for a 1:1 contention ratio hence it won't be 100megabit it probably won't even be 20. Most content is overseas and just how are they going to have enough backhaul to maintain a proper contention ratio sure there are some work-around but seriously real world thinking here. My calculation indicate for a full 100megabit connection for 24 million aussie users is 2.4 million TBPS Thats if the network was designed properly to give all users the quoted actual 100mbps. Where-as its more likely to be done half-ass and oh but we won't need that much because it varies... I'm not going to actually argue with that but a network should be designed to perform at its intended speed not at some fiddly arse variable here and there thing.

Corrupt... I've never heard of anyone having a 1:1 contention ratio?

won't be 100megabit it probably won't even be 20.

urr... stfu.

I know I'm gonna get rubbished for this as I'm in the minority, but IMO FTTH is stupid. FTTN is totally sufficient :/ There's nothing about FTTN that dictates the 'last mile' needs to be copper, it's just that's what gets talked about.

This is the reason you can't let the average person vote on these kind of matters, because you just can't expect them to have a decent understanding of the technology.

I don't think we need to remind you of Senator Conroy's understanding of technology.

I know I'm gonna get rubbished for this as I'm in the minority, but IMO FTTH is stupid. FTTN is totally sufficient :/ There's nothing about FTTN that dictates the 'last mile' needs to be copper, it's just that's what gets talked about.

So what would you put in instead of fibre, assuming that you aren't going to assert rights over Telstra's assets for the last mile?

If we're going to dig trenches to every house in the country, why would you not cough up the extra and fibre the lot?

Is this 'last mile' really a mile? Because didn't the stuff Dan just posted show that VDSL2 when you're a mile away is the same as ADSL2+? So that'd be exactly what I have now? So why the f*** would I want that? FTTH ftw

My last mile is about 5KM.

VDSL2+ works great if your node/exchange is only 500m away. There isn't much of an upgrade path at this point though?

I think the main issue causing the move from FTTN to FTTH would have been the legal battle when the Government tried to force Telstra to cutover to the nodes.

urgh, that would have been nasty.

It always sucks that even though something awesome has been announced and is a great decision to benefit all there's still a select few who have to say it sucks and throw around random names and words because they can't stand the fact that someone or some people they don't like came up with something brilliant. omg da govanment sux day dun kno wat day r dooin lol

You're right, everyone should blindly swallow what the government tells us is good. Like the filter.

Oh, unless you mean we should only question stuff that you don't find good?!

There are some really excellent points brought up by naysayers in every discussion that serve to make people think more critically in general. You shouldn't ignore valid negative points about this project because you're blinded by the light shining out of the end of fibre optic cables coming into your home.

Heh, even old Barnaby disagrees with Minchin.

But Senator Joyce said the Rudd blueprint mirrored a Page Research Centre proposal released in 2005. "How could we disagree with something that is quite evidently our idea?" he said in a statement released jointly with NSW Senate colleague Fiona Nash. "This delivers a strategic infrastructure outcome."

Senator Nash said the Page proposal had recommended the Government retain a stake in telecommunications infrastructure by making a capital investment. "As I said in 2005, rolling out fibre-optic infrastructure across Australia would be like a Glass Snowy. Mr Rudd has used the same analogy today."

The Greens cautiously backed the plan, but leader Bob Brown vowed to place it under scrutiny.

"The fact the Government has had to go it alone is evidence that the privatisation of Telstra in the Howard years has failed Australia in its time of need," Senator Brown said.

link

ADSL2+ realistic peak speeds are ~20mbit.

If you are sitting right outside the exchange. Not to mention alot of people don't even have plans above 512 or get adsl2. Heck ... if you want you could pay for dark fibre to be run to your place and get 10 times the government offering .... its a downgrade by your bent logic.
And completely misses the point that this is fibre, there is 10gig technology for fibre, who says there won't be 100gig or 1tb ?

At work we get 8meg on a good day, 4meg most of the time. And we aren't that far from the exchange (about 1.5k as the crow flies) on ADSL 2.

For us as a work place to get fibre drawn in is near on 100 grand. Why ? because there is no infrastructure in miles, the aarnet pipe that runs through the Chermside parks is the nearest one.

And yes we do "need" it. We have have 500 concurrent users hanging off a 2 meg SHDSL and an ADSL2+ that runs at 4- 8meg. And we deliver content to people off campus, and a lot of teachers user online content. Not to mention they have played with the idea of delivering guest speakers to remote schools (or to the schools they run for troubled kids). It is a major complaint that we have to deal with on a daily basis.

Wireless is where the future's at

Put 100 people in a small room how many times will someone say pardon or sorry I didn't hear that.
Give those same 100 people a booth each and a nice clear telephone. How many times will those same words be said ? Wireless has its place (but no doubt it probably it rotting our brains or giving our pets cancer).

It always sucks that even though something awesome has been announced and is a great decision to benefit all there's still a select few who have to say it sucks and throw around random names and words because they can't stand the fact that someone or some people they don't like came up with something brilliant. omg da govanment sux day dun kno wat day r dooin lol

Don't know why you wouldn't name them saint.
infi, pinky and nf are never going to approve of anything krudd or a political party other then the LnP/Libs/Nats comes up with. It highlight what's wrong with Australian politics rabid one eyed voters who can't look at Political Parties or Policies critically. The opposition must oppose! The government must never work with the opposition! all because we have retarded News media.

a network should be designed to perform at its intended speed not at some fiddly arse variable here and there thing

Yet you claim to be in the industry.
Ethernet is not 100% efficient. Quick get rid of it.

red, as for your picture... 6billion ? when I plug 400pound (it cost 400mill) into the RBA inflation calculator, and tell it 2008 I get 18313 (mill). Or 18billion. (Don't always believe wiki) But that's purely inflation.

If I use say average income (a standard used when they talk about things like housing affordability). In 1947 the average weekly wage was just under 7 pound. In 2008 it was $1109. (according to the abs at least)
So ...
400,000,000 / 7 ~ 57,000,000 ie. 57 million average weekly wages
44,000,000,000 / 1109 ~ 39,000,000 ie. 39million average weekly wages
This scheme is smaller.

Lies, Damn lies and Stats ... Two perfectly valid stats that tell 2 very different stories.

Can someone please talk about how economically viable the proposal is? And not just about how awesome it is?

The taxpayers have to pay for all this whacky-doo stuff. It's not free you know!

infi, pinky and nf are never going to approve of anything krudd or a political party other then the LnP/Libs/Nats comes up with. It highlight what's wrong with Australian politics rabid one eyed voters who can't look at Political Parties or Policies critically.

Give us a break, Obes.

We ARE being critical. We ARE outlining our responses and backing up with logical reasoning and sources where possible.

And as for your morbidly incorrect assessment that the gov't never works with opposition - that is just not true in a two-party preferred system. The opposition constantly allows anything that is reasonable to pass through the lower house - and when the opposition comes to power they will expect the same. That's how it has always been - the opposition lets the gov't govern when it's in power.

Yet you claim to be in the industry.
Ethernet is not 100% efficient. Quick get rid of it.

Ethernet being inefficient is a totally different discussion - what was being said was, why lay fibre if you're going to artificially limit people to only using a small percentage of it's capacity. The Ethernet analogy is using Ethernet but forcing everyone through 10mbit hubs.

(Of course, there's good reason why you don't want to give everyone full capacity - all the rest of the links (between Australian cities and internationally) would immediately be congested!)

. It highlight what's wrong with Australian politics rabid one eyed voters who can't look at Political Parties or Policies critically. The opposition must oppose! The government must never work with the opposition! all because we have retarded News media.

I find it somewhat ironic you'd say that given it was written to support the position of someone who is saying we should just blindly accept this government plan

Can someone please talk about how economically viable the proposal is? And not just about how awesome it is?

This is something we can't do at present because the details haven't been nutted out yet. Until there is, we just have to hope that because they've arrived at this conclusion that they are confident that it's a workable solution.

This is my problem with the opposition's stance, they're complaining about their projected end-user costs, but nobody is signed on yet and they can't possibly know what the costs will be like.

There's still so much they have to work out and so many industry deals and contracts that have to be made. All the telcos that want a piece of the action will be lobbying their ideas and competing against each other.

(Of course, there's good reason why you don't want to give everyone full capacity - all the rest of the links (between Australian cities and internationally) would immediately be congested!)

You realise that this NBN is not just about the fibre tails from exchanges to premises, it's a national backhaul as well, right?

EDIT: and further to that, the proposed backhaul will improve so many other services too. Things like speeds between wireless towers and the cost of providing those kind of services Australia wide. The current state of backhaul in Aus is the prohbitive factor in a lot more than that. It's the reason that Google decided not to set up data centres locally and a contributing factor to why Blizzard don't have an aussie WoW server. There's so many other facets to this network improvement that most people seem oblivious to.

last edited by Dan at 10:26:38 08/Apr/09

Heh, success has a thousand fathers. Step right up!

I'm with nF, I think it might be a bit of a white elephant.

Back in the dot com days, AT&T et al were busy laying intercontinental cables everywhere, then the bust came, a glut of fibre hit the market, and now India leases it for pennies.

My opinion is that Oz density is too low, and not enough population for private sector to afford to install a high speed FTTH/C network, and not have the undesirables - vertical content markets, lack of competition at the IP layer etc.

We can run 10G over copper - but that's 40m over cat5e/cat6 and 100m over cat6a. That's a potential upgrade path after FTTN VDSL2+. (User pays).

The major issue is that 80% of our content is from OS.

You realise that this NBN is not just about the fibre tails from exchanges to premises, it's a national backhaul as well, right?

For sure, but that won't help our international bandwidth, which is where a lot of our data comes from.

What are the local upgrades though? I haven't seen anyone talk about this. If everyone has 100mbit they will need to be somewhat massive.

The international links aren't presently saturated, and as PIPE have recently shown, you don't have to be a major player to lay more international cable. When the need arises, more will be built.

The current bottleneck is local backhaul, and the NBN aims to address that.

What are the local upgrades though? I haven't seen anyone talk about this. If everyone has 100mbit they will need to be somewhat massive.

Did you see that brochure? Read page 5. It's obviously not a technical document and doesn't go into great detail, but it illustrates that this isn't just about the last mile, the rest of the network will be padded out to support traffic increases.

last edited by Dan at 10:34:48 08/Apr/09

The opposition constantly allows anything that is reasonable to pass through the lower house - and when the opposition comes to power they will expect the same. That's how it has always been - the opposition lets the gov't govern when it's in power.

Which parallel universe are we talking about? You obviously aren't keeping up to date with the current opposition shenanigans.

We ARE being critical. We ARE outlining our responses and backing up with logical reasoning and sources where possible.

Unfortunately for you, I bundle you, infi and nf into one big bundle of redneck joy...
But to be fair, I only scan your responses, and prejudiced in that I doubt you are, perhaps if you didn't post political joke threads I might be inclined to even give your posts more then a cursory glance.

And infi ...

Can someone please talk about how economically viable the proposal is? And not just about how awesome it is?

The public health system and schools are not economically viable either ? Government's aren't private businesses, they sometimes do things for the "public good" not because they will make money.

The public health system and schools are not economically viable either ? Government's aren't private businesses, they sometimes do things for the "public good" not because they will make money.

Then those things should be kept as public services and not half-sold and run as private companies, surely

The public health system and schools are not economically viable either ? Government's aren't private businesses, they sometimes do things for the "public good" not because they will make money.

the difference here is from the outset they plan to privatise the entity after 5years of operation. ergo, the entity needs to have a sound economic viability otherwise who is going to buy it?

Or is the idea the government pay for it to be built then flog it off at a fraction of the price? i am so glad my tax dollars could help some private company out.

I don't know where you're getting this 100x faster crap from. Again that brochure is a non-technical description of the announcement and nowhere does it mention 100x. There's a realistic comparison of how long it takes to download 1GB on various connections. Anywhere that is using 100x to describe this (was it news.com.au?) is deluded.

Haha, I got it from Rudd's speech.

ADSL2+ realistic peak speeds are ~20mbit.

If you are sitting right outside the exchange. Not to mention alot of people don't even have plans above 512 or get adsl2. Heck ... if you want you could pay for dark fibre to be run to your place and get 10 times the government offering .... its a downgrade by your bent logic.
And completely misses the point that this is fibre, there is 10gig technology for fibre, who says there won't be 100gig or 1tb ?

I'm ~4k from my exchange and sync at 8mbit. I'm sorry but the idea of spending $43billion (~$5000 per household) to make my internet 10x faster than it actually is doesn't impress me.

This is my problem with the opposition's stance, they're complaining about their projected end-user costs, but nobody is signed on yet and they can't possibly know what the costs will be like.

Lets look at the numbers then. As I said, capitalisation is ~$5k per household (~9m households in Australia). I did a quick search to find revenue per customer on broadband (ARPU). iinet's numbers ~$50. A year.

Haha, I got it from Rudd's speech.

That was already justified and explained by others before your reply, I admit I was off the mark.

I'm sorry but the idea of spending $43billion (~$5000 per household) to make my internet 10x faster than it actually is doesn't impress me.

This is about more than your home internet speed, the benefits are so much farther reaching to how fast and how many linux isos an individual can download and it's these benefits that are (indirectly to the cost of the network) going to pay off for the country. See here for a decent description of some of these, in an article that still crticises the choice of FTTP no less.

It's not reasonable to just do basic maths on the deployment costs per person on this one, because this has the potential to positively impact the country in so many more ways than we can reasonably calculate like that.

I'm not going to come out and say it's going to be cheaper. But affordability is so obviously a factor that the gov _must_ have considered before announcing this and is surely a part of their initial projections.

If we accept the govt timeline, and add some padding before this actually gets started - we are looking at a completion date around 2020.

The govts position is still that it will spend $4.7billion with the rest coming from private enterprise - the same amount already intended to be spent.

If the costs start to balloon, the Australian public will have ample opportunities to vote out this government well before the project reaches completion.


From what I can see, the only thing you can reasonably criticise at this point is a lack of details; presuming these are delivered in due course I see very little to be wary of here. On face value, its a far better plan than the previous NBN.

bam

o/s bottleneck is local backhaul? really?
I thought it was latency

It's not reasonable to just do basic maths on the deployment costs per person on this one, because this has the potential to positively impact the country in so many more ways than we can reasonably calculate like that.

Agree.

But try and find a source that the gov't has done some numbers with regards to the impact and financial viability. They just say general bulls*** like 'it ticks all the boxes'.

I'm ~5km from the exchange and I sync at 2400/600 kbps *sigh*

But affordability is so obviously a factor that the gov _must_ have considered before announcing this and is surely a part of their initial projections.

I hate to say it Dan, but no, I don't think they have done enough here - at least from any prepared statement they haven't mentioned anything about affordability like, "We expect this service will costs consumers..." - I have not heard or read any statement like that yet.

I'm ~4k from my exchange and sync at 8mbit.

I'm 1.7kms from the exchange and synch between 5 and 6mbps. Can't say I'm thrilled.

Hihgh speed broadband is eseential to my work and all my colleagues, without it it would cost susbtantially more to be 1) on site 2) travel costs 3) lost productivity. The higher the throughput the happier I am.

I hate to say it Dan, but no, I don't think they have done enough here - at least from any prepared statement they haven't mentioned anything about affordability like, "We expect this service will costs consumers..." - I have not heard or read any statement like that yet.

It's a lot to trust on I agree, but it's just hard to imagine they would announce something so massive without being confident that it's somehow possible.

I guess I'm so supportive of it because the previous proposals were so poor and because there's been so many delays already and if we're looking at near on a decade before completion then I'm against any opposition to it that would potentially only serve to make things take even longer.

I'm all for constructive criticism, but a lot of what people are seemingly claiming to have against it is just plain missinformation and a lack of understanding of the technologies at play.

last edited by Dan at 11:40:09 08/Apr/09

So what would you put in instead of fibre, assuming that you aren't going to assert rights over Telstra's assets for the last mile?

If we're going to dig trenches to every house in the country, why would you not cough up the extra and fibre the lot?

It doesn't necessarily have to be instead of fibre, you can still run fibre from FTTN. It's just that there's then a cheaper option that can be implemented in much less time by using existing copper in the short term, until such a time fibre (if ever desired) is run from the home to the node.

FTTH basically dictates that you don't have that flexibility.

Raven here is a prime example of my last sentence there.

So it averages out to $5000 per household, over 10 years or so, $500 a year. To put that in perspective, I probably pay about $600 a year for electricity, $800 a year for internet, $1200 a year on public transport, $600 a year on home phone bills, $800 a year on mobile phone bills. It doesn't really seem like a disproportional expense.

I'll admit, I'm not really interested in politics or the economy or any of that, I leave it to other people who know what they're talking about to argue money matters. From the viewpoint of someone who's sick of feeling like I live in a country thats stuck in a technological stone age as the rest of the world moves forward, I'm pretty excited to see this happening, its really a far, far better result than I think anyone was expecting and I don't think the impact it will have can be over-stated.

I'm not going to come out and say it's going to be cheaper. But affordability is so obviously a factor that the gov _must_ have considered before announcing this and is surely a part of their initial projections.

In no way can a totally new set of infrastructure be cheaper than the existing one. To assume that the department has done all the costings and believes it to be viable or else they wouldn't be going ahead with it is laughable. And I say that because just about everyone reading this thread would agree that the very same departments plans for a clean internet feed are not.

Also that article is terrible.

Broadband on the scale envisaged by Rudd and Conroy goes very close to duplicating human contact, albeit electronically.

Teleconferencing already exists. It doesn't replace human interaction. If you are buying a house you'll still want to inspect it. If you run a business and want to inspect a new machine, a new process or interview a new staff member you're going to do it face to face. Teleconferencing doesn't need 100mbit. Shared whiteboards or not. 100mbit hasn't replaced eyes or hands.

If a machine breaks down currently, experts must fly in. Now they will be able do the job from Australia.

The internet can turn spanners now?

And so a surgeon in New York can carry out an operation in Hobart.

And scalpels? 100mbit links already exist if hospitals want to try this. I think I'd rather my surgeon using his own hands myself, rather than a mouse.

Suddenly, the international community will be able to see our services and goods. New markets will be opened.

So we can just .rar up our fruit and veges and email them now?

Jesus, turn the hyperbole down a notch.

Shouldn't it be last kilometre?

Anyways, FTTH is not just about interwebs. Don't be surprised that once its up and running you will have phones and TV piped through it. Then open that up to video on demand services from Blockbuster or Video Sleazy, high quality digital music streaming from radio stations or iTunes, etc. Fibre is capable of a lot more than than 100Mbit but as a start, it's a good amount of bandwidth to have.

There is no need for 1:1 contention ratios and anybody that says otherwise is not in the industry and doesn't comprehend average usage. Throw in proxies, distributed services, mirrors, etc (like Akamai) and the reliance on OS bandwidth is reduced further to the point that it would have a very negligible impact on the online experience.

Jimmles nailed it but his comment was overlooked.

Dan, while you have well and truely jumped on the NBN bandwagon, others are not ready to lap up the early spin. Like all things this government has done thus far a healthy dose of skepticism is required.

They like to announce initiatives and then have them fail due to lack of planning/forsight or lack of support from other parts of parliament combined with a lack of negotiating ability.

Your criticism of people not understanding the technology makes me smile. While you may have read a PDF front to back and accepted it all as gospel that doesn't make you an authority the technology, merely an repeater of Krudd/Conroy spin. You need to remember the same department who drafted these documents also pushed the internet filter ones.

Lets see how this develops and whether it gets support from the key senate players before we all get too carried away.

the difference here is from the outset they plan to privatise the entity after 5years of operation. ergo, the entity needs to have a sound economic viability otherwise who is going to buy it?

Or is the idea the government pay for it to be built then flog it off at a fraction of the price? i am so glad my tax dollars could help some private company out.

Ara, you are spot on.

Obes, are you comparing a national fibre network which essentially facilitates business as a public service? We don't pay for schools or hospitals so should our internet connections be free?

This proposed network must prove how it will be profitable and it must prove why from an investment perspective it is a good idea. Building s*** that won't make money is a sure way to financial ruin (even for a government).

From the viewpoint of someone who's sick of feeling like I live in a country thats stuck in a technological stone age as the rest of the world moves forward, I'm pretty excited to see this happening, its really a far, far better result than I think anyone was expecting and I don't think the impact it will have can be over-stated.

I don't understand why people think Australia is such a technological backwater just because they can't get 100mbit fibre already. Barely any counties in the world can! More countries are sliding back TO the Australian state of broadband (instituting caps, etc) because they've oversold their bandwidth and the # of users getting onboard is screwing their network.

There's about a billion things I'd rather have from overseas that people have that we don't before I'd choose high speed Internet. Especially after just coming back from the US. I guess I'm lucky in that I've always lived in an area that has decent Internet access (first cable, then ADSL, then ADSL2 - although I never bothered upgrading to ADSL2 because I was happy with my lousy 8mbit connection that did everything I wanted it to and more).

There is no need for 1:1 contention ratios and anybody that says otherwise is not in the industry and doesn't comprehend average usage.

Contention ratios are still super-important for people to understand, and they'll definitely exist (if not more so) when everyone has 100mbit. No matter how fast the pipes are to everyone's homes, it's still going to be a SHARED RESOURCE and usage limits can and should and probably will be put in place.

I listened to Hack last night about this; some guy called up and said "oh its going to be so good for gaming because people will be able to play international games because of the increased speed". Any real game knows its going to really make f***-all difference because of latency.

There is no need for 1:1 contention ratios and anybody that says otherwise is not in the industry and doesn't comprehend average usage. Throw in proxies, distributed services, mirrors, etc (like Akamai) and the reliance on OS bandwidth is reduced further to the point that it would have a very negligible impact on the online experience.

You are confusing back haul contention ratios with OS links. One would expect, but this has not yet been clarified, that the NBN would work like other wholesale broadband systems, where aggregation is done at local or state POPs and then the customer (the retail ISP) takes over the termination of customer connections.

If this works like Telstra Wholesale ADSL, the retail ISP pays for the client connection and an amount of backhaul bandwidth for traffic from the CPE to the POP. This is where the contention ratios for back haul come into play. At the local/state POP the retail ISP's clients are then handed over and the retail ISP deals with providing the connection to the internet for them and associated local/OS bandwidth.

OS bandwidth isn't a NBN issue. It is an issue for the retail ISP to deal with.

I think everyone is missing the benefits of fibre, its wont be just internet that comes down it, it will be everything, internet, phone and tv.

Maybe not straight away, but eventualy, whether its delivered over IP technology im not sure, it probably will.

Obvioulsy we have international link issues, but PIPE networks are doing alot of things to fix that, im sure we will have more bandwidth in ten years.

Alot of the content will also get mirrored to australia, like it already is through places like akamai, tv stations will have an increased presense online, which is a bit pointless now with people on 256k connections.

FTTH is the best way forward, its totaly future proof.

Im not sure what people expect the govenment to do, its seems that everyone tech savvy has always cried for ftth and now that it has been announced, people are still crying, whatst the deal?

What do you propose they do trog?

Your criticism of people not understanding the technology makes me smile. While you may have read a PDF front to back and accepted it all as gospel that doesn't make you an authority the technology, merely an repeater of Krudd/Conroy spin

Oh f*** off, give me some credit, christ. I've just referred to that doc as it's a simple way of explaining a lot of stuff.

I wholeheartedly agree that this needs a lot of skepticism. But that implies constructive critism, not this outright slagging of the anouncment as completely unviable before we have a lot of the facts and figures.

I accept that I don't understand everything about it, I'm merely just trying to rebutt some of the blatent misinformation regarding some of the things that I do know a thing or two about.

What do you propose they do trog?

I'd just rather the money get spent on other things that I think Australians need more than Internet, is all

It just smells all wrong. So the government has identified it as a good plan but no private contractor wants to run it. Well if no private contractor can justify running it, then why should the government?

1. Has the government done economic modelling of the project?

2. How do they know it will cost $43b?

3. What assumptions have they made on the amount that consumers would pay?

4. What is the projected cost to supply the service on an ongoing basis after it is constructed?

5. Has government factored any annual shortfall in running costs into its budget forward estimates?

6. Has government identified a likely sale price once the company is privatised? If so, what price have they assumed it will sell for? And what market data do they have to backup that price?

If the government hasn't done economic modelling then they are completely negligent and focused purely on spin.

it sounds to me like they just want to brag about building an 8 lane freeway to everyone's house instead of a local 2 lane street. now wouldn't that be nation building!?

So Ara, are you saying that National backhaul is going to be an issue? I don't really understand what point you are trying to make.

although I never bothered upgrading to ADSL2 because I was happy with my lousy 8mbit connection that did everything I wanted it to and more).

I'd kill for an 8mbit connection. I get 4, and I live in suburban Brisbane. Imagine what people outside of the city get... The 90% rollout means basically towns with 1000 people or more.

Teleconferencing already exists. It doesn't replace human interaction. If you are buying a house you'll still want to inspect it. If you run a business and want to inspect a new machine, a new process or interview a new staff member you're going to do it face to face. Teleconferencing doesn't need 100mbit. Shared whiteboards or not. 100mbit hasn't replaced eyes or hands.

There is no replacement for real contact, sure. Just fyi tho, lots of companies interview staff via video conference, or at least... Mine does. Teleconferencing doesn't need 100Mbit. But if you have a shared connection (between multiple users) someone using 20Mbit for a 4-way teleconference is going to take a big chunk out of an ADSL2+ connection.

So Ara, are you saying that National backhaul is going to be an issue? I don't really understand what point you are trying to make.

I am not really sure. It will be an interesting aspect though.

If back haul is part of the NBN rollout or not, if other companies can access that back haul for non-NBN related purposes etc, the pricing model for back haul for NBN connections. The business impact on others that have already laid back haul infrastructure (Telstra, Uuecom, Optus, Pipe, Powertel etc) and if you can use non-NBN back haul. That is, if established players can compete with this new entity.

I think back haul contention ratios will be one of the big differentiators between ISPs.

My previous post on the subject was trying to bring light to the fact that the suggested solutions by the poster (caches, proxies, local mirrors etc) were not solutions to backhaul issues, but to international connectivity issues. Things that are, or should be, out of the scope of the NBN.

I'd kill for an 8mbit connection. I get 4, and I live in suburban Brisbane. Imagine what people outside of the city get... The 90% rollout means basically towns with 1000 people or more.

Actually I had 1.5mbit for ages - I only bothered upgrading to 8mbit cuz it was the same price as what I was already paying. I was downloading between 11 and 20gb a month on average during the time. Heh.

i agree infi, i would love the see the answers to those questions.

Well if no private contractor can justify running it, then why should the government?

Can't really offer a proper opinion on this one, but the argument for this is that no private contractor, at least from the bidders can raise the funds. Telstra were the only ones that would have been able to, and that's only because they already own so much infastructure. The problem is that Telstra is (understandably for a private company) unwilling to loosen their grip to allow real competition, which has caused the stalemate that has stalled progress in this country, (since their privatisation) meaning their terms for building and owning the NBN are unacceptable.

So the gov steps up and builds it themselves. Because they can't give it to Telstra and because no other company can afford it. From my understanding, the gov can afford it because they can:
a) front more money with a much lower ROI
b) within reason, groom regulations to protect the investment from Telstra

The way I see it, it's more about the gov having direct control over the construction and regulation process so it can be built in the best interest of the nation.

Well if no private contractor can justify running it, then why should the government?

Because private companies look at the short term. Our government can (and should) look well into our future.

If this project breaks even 20 years after deployment while solving all of Australia's telecommunication issues, whats wrong with that?

i agree infi, i would love the see the answers to those questions.

So would everyone, but the fact is that this information hasn't been disclosed yet. So just completely writing the process off before having all the details the way the opposition has is just premature arrogance and only makes them look like dickholes in my eyes.

So the gov steps up and builds it themselves. Because they can't give it to Telstra and because no other company can afford it.

Here's a question then - how much would it cost for the government to buy Telstra back?

Their share prices suck so I assume they'd still have made a hefty profit. Then a) they own the last mile of copper b) they can do the rollout for this new platform.

whats wrong with that?

It's wasn't a Liberal Party Policy or idea so of course that's what's wrong with it for some.

Today's Mark Knight from the Herald Sun

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9758/06569408002980213.jpg

Here's a question then - how much would it cost for the government to buy Telstra back?

According to someone on Hack, less than 43 billion (although as noted, thats not what the govt is spending - its the total cost)


Even if it was 43 billion the govt was spending, say we buy back Telstra for 40 billion. Then what? We still haven't laid any fiber.

Here's a question then - how much would it cost for the government to buy Telstra back?

I couldn't tell you and doubt anyone else on this forum seriously could. You'd think that's something they'd have considered but (admittedly not knowing anything about what the process would be like) I'd imagine the craziness of such a process would make it a legal minefield not worth venturing in to.

Even if it was 43 billion the govt was spending, say we buy back Telstra for 40 billion. Then what? We still haven't laid any fiber.

Oh yeh I just remembered I can look up their market cap (which I assume is some indicator into how much its worth as a whole, though I can't imagine anyone would pay full market cap price for a company(?))

But if they owned Telstra, they could then start spending Telstra's 4 billion dollars a year profit or whatever obscene amount they're making. 10 years of that and they'd have paid for the whole network (out of profit, that's not even counting Telstra's cash reserves which I must also assume are obscene).

Because private companies look at the short term. Our government can (and should) look well into our future.

If this project breaks even 20 years after deployment while solving all of Australia's telecommunication issues, whats wrong with that?

I agree with you... but... since they've already stated they'd look to sell it within 5 years of completion, it indicates they'd expect a return within those 5 years. Nobody is going to buy a company thats losing money.

agree with you... but... since they've already stated they'd look to sell it within 5 years of completion, it indicates they'd expect a return within those 5 years.

Sure, which is 5 years after its finished presumably, putting it like 15 years from the start of the investment.

My point is private enterprise is driven by short term profits. The govt should not.

So would everyone, but the fact is that this information hasn't been disclosed yet. So just completely writing the process off before having all the details the way the opposition has is just premature arrogance and only makes them look like dickholes in my eyes.

That is just a matter of perspective. You think the opposition looks bad because they bother to ask the question but why does it even need to be asked?

Why hasn't the Govt knocked up a pretty PDF with the fiscal justifications and modeling to go with their spin one? You would hope the modeling was completed some time ago and this isn't another case of policy on the run, but you never know.

My point is private enterprise is driven by short term profits. The govt should not.

I disagree with this generalisation. Telstra was willing to put up the cash and was in for the long haul.

I'd just rather the money get spent on other things that I think Australians need more than Internet, is all

OK, so what should they actualy do then? IF they should do ftth, you think they should be doing just fttn?

Obes, are you comparing a national fibre network which essentially facilitates business as a public service? We don't pay for schools or hospitals so should our internet connections be free?

Yes we do infi ... its why I chose them. Good luck sending a kid to school with no out of pocket.
And I do think a very basic internet service should/could be free. If only so that everyone had no excuses for being able to get government forms online, or to get phonebooks. Save a tree, free (but crappy) internet for all.

Public health costs, there are very few bulk billing doctors, and any perscription you get will most likely cost. x-rays cost. Go to a hospital and its free... you can get free internet at libraries ...

I could have picked public transport if you'd prefer. They still run a loss every year don't they ?

But who cares about what you have to say infi ... seriously anything a labor government does is going to be wrong in your books. Even if the rest of world says it was right. So nothing I or anyone else says will change what you think (unless Costello says its good).

the difference here is from the outset they plan to privatise the entity after 5years of operation. ergo, the entity needs to have a sound economic viability otherwise who is going to buy it?

Think you missed the point actually. They are going to try and sell it, it may not be at a profit and the big cost is in the creation not the on goings. So there will be buyers depending on how they deal with the debt from creation of it.

Governments aren't always about making a profit. Sometimes they are sometimes they aren't.

Why hasn't the Govt knocked up a pretty PDF with the fiscal justifications and modeling to go with their spin one? You would hope the modeling was completed some time ago and this isn't another case of policy on the run, but you never know.

That's a fair point, but because they're really going to have to work with the industry first in order to derive the real costs, imo it deserves optimistic caution (like the Greens have done) rather than Minchin and Turnbull's flatout arrogant denial.

last edited by Dan at 14:29:22 08/Apr/09

Thats why I hate the liberals, theyve come out with angry opposition, wheres therre proposal? thats right they sold telstra, nice move there.

I agree with you Viper, but I guess they did have a proposal before the last election - Commercially funded FTTN in metro cities, and OPEL for the bush.

The Liberal policy at the last election was far superior, and affordable.

immediately affordable undoubtedly. Far superior? No way in hell - not in terms of technology at least and not more affordable in regards to long term benefit to the country and our place in the digital world.

FTTN relies on Telstra and Telstra is a problem due to a hasty sale that now needs a costly solution to be fixed.

last edited by Dan at 15:09:07 08/Apr/09

not in terms of technology, i agree, but in terms of logistics of roll out and value for taxpayer dollar. i mean srsly, rolling out fibre to every remote town with 1000 people in it? sheeet

The Liberal policy at the last election was far superior, and affordable.

LOL

It doesn't necessarily have to be instead of fibre, you can still run fibre from FTTN. It's just that there's then a cheaper option that can be implemented in much less time by using existing copper in the short term, until such a time fibre (if ever desired) is run from the home to the node.

So you suggest we launch a legal stoush to make Telstra play ball? Rather than spend lots of money and time laying fibre, we give a lesser pile of money to lawyers?

The Liberal policy at the last election was far superior, and affordable.

At the moment it's the common choice between s*** and s***ter in Australian politics

Here is the libs website: http://www.liberal.org.au/

Now try and find a policy on it.

Same with Labour here: http://alp.org.au/

Don't think Political parties have policies anymore!?

If I compare it to state gov't in VIC: http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/

At least they have a link to 'Policies' on their home page which goes to something which remotely resembles their stances on issues.

But the libs: http://www.vic.liberal.org.au/

Nothing again. Just more 'platforms', 'beliefs' and 'constitutions'

i mean srsly, rolling out fibre to every remote town with 1000 people in it? sheeet

Cost wasn't a problem when it was rolling out copper for phone lines.

Fibre to the node would ok, but then you have to deal with telstra, and realy, they are never gonna play ball.

They are always gonna say it costs them way more for last mile than it does, then theres the issue of telstra not giving a f*** when its not a retail customer of theres on the end of the copper when there is a problem.

Man this is awesome and you'd have to be a sore hating life bitter twisted loser to be the sort of person to sit on the internet and nit pick and try and make it bad.

infi.

As per usual I am defending the debt our children will have to repay. Everyone else just thinks - spend now, pay later.

Yeh a lot of the problems with FTTN come down to the cocked-up sale of Telstra really. Structural separation would have cost a bit but would have saved so many hassles down the track.

However, FTTP (I don't like FTTH, this isn't just about kids playing xbox and downloading linux ISOs) will be incredible. A lot of my hazy, long term plans for my company really can radically change if this happens in anything like the timeline predicted.

I think this is important if we are to really be the country we need to be. Without killer telecommunications infrastructure we will be forever tied to resources and tourism to have any hope of balancing national accounts. Manufacturing in first world countries is dead.

With a world-best NBN we can really move our economy in new directions, and change the way we work. How many people drive hours to work every day when with enough bandwidth & tech they don't really need to? The dream of truly decentralised workplaces can really happen with enough shiny technology, which means big things for our environment.

Yes, we suffer from the tyranny of a small, sparse population. But personally, I'd much rather us to be bold and do what seems impossible or unfeasible than give up and accept mediocrity.

last edited by Hogfather at 15:55:37 08/Apr/09

hey you just described yourself to a tee fpot

Whatever I am the most easy going carefree person you will ever meet.

You f*****.

As per usual I am defending the debt our children will have to repay.

With that attitude infi we would never had gotten sewerage in Brisbane. Remember the Liberal Council until Clem Jones came in refused to implement a citywide sewerage system cause they all had septic tanks and used the argument "this will cost generations years to come". To which Clem replied "and these same generations are going to benefit so why shouldn't they help to pay for it".

So thanks to Clem (a Labor Mayor) infi you can now s*** inside your house instead of the dunny out back.

Anyways if every nation had what you propose, don't build anything if you can't pay for it this generation then most large infrastructure projects would have been mothballed and we'd still be living in a Feudal agricultural system.

Oh yeh I just remembered I can look up their market cap (which I assume is some indicator into how much its worth as a whole, though I can't imagine anyone would pay full market cap price for a company(?))

i could guarantee that if the government made a decision to buy back Telstra they would be paying a hefty premium,they would most certainly pay alot more then the market cap...

i could never see this happening though it cost to much to let go and the money went back to alot of australians in shares and super. to buy back telstra so soon after it was sold would be a terrible waste of tax payer money

to buy back telstra so soon after it was sold would be a terrible waste of tax payer money

How come? They sold it at way more than the share price is worth now, right?

I think it would be a total SCAM on the tax payers but I would have thought the government would make out like bandits (at the expense of the tax payers, of course)

they found a way to connect dunnies in your house to septic tanks in your yard, they called it a 'pipe' or something

teehee

^ yes Jim, but only those affluent enough could afford Septic Tanks. Now everyone gets to s*** in the house, not just the affluent, lol.

Yeah OK superfast 100mb broadband is up there with sanitation and eradicating smallpox. Whatever...

You are advocating a typical "we want it all now" attitude. This is why America is in the s*** it is in today.

^ no, your just making things up now, lol.

How come? They sold it at way more than the share price is worth now, right?

haha yeah thats gonna go down well.. just remember WHO the gov sold the shares too...

As per usual I am defending the debt our children will have to repay. Everyone else just thinks - spend now, pay later.

Heaven forbid we should do something that will benefit the IT/tech sector so jobs don't go to China and India.

you make it sound like if this is not built, our economy as we know it grinds to a halt. it sounds so desperate like it's a matter of life and death.

Heaven forbid we should do something that will benefit the IT/tech sector so jobs don't go to China and India.

haha, jobs go to India and China not because they have broadband (do they even?), but because the wages companies pay there are fractions of what they pay here.

haha yeah thats gonna go down well.. just remember WHO the gov sold the shares too...

If there's any better way to teach the average taxpayer about the risks of the stockmarket, I can't think of it :)

^ C'mon Trog, how many Telstra shares have you? lol

haha, jobs go to India and China not because they have broadband (do they even?), but because the wages companies pay there are fractions of what they pay here.

When do companies aggressively cut costs? Gee, maybe it's during periods of low growth.

you make it sound like if this is not built, our economy as we know it grinds to a halt. it sounds so desperate like it's a matter of life and death.

No, I'm merely pointing out if we can create future jobs with this network paying for it is less of a problem.

If there's any better way to teach the average taxpayer about the risks of the stockmarket, I can't think of it :)

Hahaha. Yeah, good one. Governments care about re-election though.

^ C'mon Trog, how many Telstra shares have you? lol

zero

^ what a disappointment.

is there any speculation as to who will be partnering with the gov for this new company? where the money comes from is by far the most important issue imo

When do companies aggressively cut costs? Gee, maybe it's during periods of low growth.

yeah, and companies have only been exporting jobs to India and China during the last 18months. OH WAIT A SECOND, they were doing it during the boom times too.

nice one.

This whole "it will allow people to work from home?" theme that is coming through is bulls***. I work from home now, I don't need 100Mbit broadband to do it. Some people in the company I work for could work from home don't. It really comes down to the business, not the availability of broadband.

Some companies like their staff in the office to collaborate, others don't require that. The point is, people can already work from home if their companies allow it. ADSL2+ speed broadband isn't holding them back.

^ I work from home and an increase in Broadband speed would definitely be a godsend for me.

It really depends on the volume of information you're pushing around and I push regularly gigs of information and many times I am RDP'ing to Technical Teams resolving production and impleentation problems. So you might not need a higher throughput but a lot of us do.

Does that justify massively increasing the capacity to every house in the country?

Copper can do 10Gbit. Why should any residential property need anything remotely greater than 100mbit...

What is the price of being 'free' of Telstra?

$43 billion of PUBLIC money to make a tiny fraction of ISPs much much wealthier, and to make us feel better about not being raped by Telstra..

or.

5-10 billion of *private* money which will achieve the same end result.

All the proponents are talking about all the gee wizz 'killer applications' (which are..) and benefits to the economy. Well, copper can do it just as well and for ZIP of the public purse.

Some are talking as Rudd is the new Whitlam. Can he bankrupt us in 3 years? Stay tuned.

Does that justify massively increasing the capacity to every house in the country?

Yep.

is there any speculation as to who will be partnering with the gov for this new company? where the money comes from is by far the most important issue imo

7.30 Report last night speculated it could primarily be big resource companies (companies in mining, eletricity, gas) who would be primary investors.

SFB, RDP'ing needs more bandwidth? please.

I am in and out of machines via RDP all day and never have a problem with ADSL/ADSL2+ speeds.

As for pushing around gigs of data, I can't speak for that, but if you were working out of an office I think if you were pushing around gigs of data to/from the internet you would have issues regardless.

I am constantly on the net and anything that speeds up my day is good for me.

RDP'ing is the least of my worries however prompt service to global clients via price effective telecommunications which I use extensivley is and if I had higher than 5mbps a lot easier.

So would 50Mps suffice?

RDP'ing is the least of my worries however prompt service to global clients via price effective telecommunications which I use extensivley is and if I had higher than 5mbps a lot easier.

One thing I do take exception to about Aussie broadband is our heavily limited upload speed. Removing this would I think make a big difference to, well, pretty much everything.

at least our internet will s*** all over new zealands

^ can you give me 50mbps? If you could I'd take it.

Copper can do 10Gbit

On cat5 it's what 10m ?, cat6 55mm ? cat6a 100m ? cat6a is about $1.50 a meter. And telephone is maybe cat3. So they'd have to replace the copper.

So we've established that we need to replace the cable's long term.

2 core om3 fibre is about the same price as cat6a but can go 300m at 10gig, instead of 100m.

So "upgrading" the existing copper is unlikely.

so is this going to affect the megapixels of my camera?

i think alot of you forget that there will come a time when 100mbps means peanuts to people

obes: 1-2 Gbps is on the roadmap for existing copper pairs, before we even consider replacement/"upgrading" to cat* cabling.

What the f*** are you going to use fibre to the home for that is so far and away better than what copper can deliver?

cloud computing

^full motion media from a vast array of suppliers who will then be able to provide a wider variety of services and new jobs, maybe.

Nay-sayers are looking at it from the basis of today's technology.

We're also seeing a lot of arguments presented from the perspective of consumer use only. The consumer's high def streamng porn is the sweetener for the project, its the industrial, government and educational use that is the payback.

Consider the pain and difficulty in linking Council offices recently during the merger, and trying to get a high bandwidth connection to support all the datas. The final result of this will eventually be (imo) the eradication of most administrative services from the junior partner of most mergers, which was explicitly undersirable and hurts the local economies.

Its just not possible to get a strong enough link to serve the purpose of decentralising offices properly for the money in Australia.

Uniquitous high speed data connctions would have made the LARGE cost for the tax and rate payer attempting to link the offices' IT systems f***ing trivial. This is one tiny example.

If this is implemented our children will thank us, not bitch about any residual debt.

The Harbour Bridge was officially opened on 19 March 1932. The total cost of the Bridge was approximately 6.25 million Australian pounds ($A13.5 million), and was eventually paid off in 1988.

!

Man, dranged's rambling just smacks of '256k ram is all you'll ever need' eh. And Hogfather is spot on, so many people get fixated on what exactly faster internet connectivity can do for them personally and immediately, not even considering the wider applications.

This is an investment in infrastructure that will pay for itself in its overall benefit Australia's economy thousands of times over during its lifetime and exactly the kind of s*** that gov should be spending bank on during tough economic times.

dan for president, hogfather for comms minister

you guys have nailed it, people are being too narrow minded.

^ me too.

i will be minister primary resources

hogfather just summed it up perfectly.


also

obes: 1-2 Gbps is on the roadmap for existing copper pairs, before we even consider replacement/"upgrading" to cat* cabling.

What the f*** are you going to use fibre to the home for that is so far and away better than what copper can deliver?

Link fixed.

dranged weren't you the guy that claimed to have been playing doom for 10 years when the game was only about 6 years old ? certainly some version of d3rang3d or something.

Obes weren't you that guy who must be the most hateable f***** in real life because f*** you are hateable here. You and typo are one and the same.

Do you have any mates irl? And I don't just mean roomies and people you work with... actual mates?

I subscribe to Dans Approval

the biggest problems i see are in the execution of the plan and the funding. what else is even relevant?

clearly the gov has gone above and beyond public expectation in the technical realm anyone arguing that this is a bad idea for whatever reason is completely insane. Really the question is how exactly are they going to meet this promise?

hahah fpot ... so angry.

I crave your approval fpot please may I have it ?

Obes weren't you that guy who must be the most hateable f***** in real life because f*** you are hateable here.

That's rather subjective dont you think.
Obes is Obes. That is all.

Obes weren't you that guy who must be the most hateable f***** in real life because f*** you are hateable here. You and typo are one and the same.

You sound like the kids Obes has to put up with all day at work. I would've thought you'd appreciate the words you're saying fpot given where you work. I have met Obes and he seemed likeable enough.

I don't get this angry angle thing on me lately. Do my posts sound angry or something? Maybe it's just the way you read them.

I am pretty sure most people will be with me when I say that you would be a total faget irl and the type of person people try desperately to lose if you happen to venture out of your cubicle to go out.

edit: hmm okay seems some people like him. Maybe I have got him mixed up with typo in the amalgam of white noise posting that goes on between them

last edited by fpot at 19:01:24 08/Apr/09

nah, cant say your right there fpot

undecided as to whether i'd class fibre optic internet as a luxury or a public good.

you hear all this stuff about the potential for virtual education applications, virtual health applications, etc. has any of that s*** ever actually become reality yet? serious question, i'd actually like to know the answer to it.

I am sure nf and hunter will be with you fpot.

I stopped caring what people thought about me a long time ago fpot. One day you to will stop caring what people think about you.

That's always such a lie when people say 'I don't care what people think about me'. It's the catch cry of the f***ing loser who has given up on himself, trying to justify his s***iness by claiming he is the way he is because of some self-righteous nihilism against the man!

The truth is everyone cares what people think about them. What matters is how much you have to change your natural behaviour and your natural traits to be liked. Me personally I just be 100% myself, and people seem to get on with me. I guess you had to make so much effort to get along with people because you're such a s***kunt, and after so many years of effort you've finally given up.

You'll die a lonely old man Obes.

you hear all this stuff about the potential for virtual education applications

There are several learning repositories full of online objects. Teachers Learning Federation I think its called is the main one we use, I think its delivered via skoodle or something (not maintained by us don't know much about it)

Now admittedly where I work is a head of the curve in terms of IT and education. We have alot of (not all yet) classrooms with a projector and electronic whiteboard, all teachers have notebook. And teachers are expected to have completed a cert1 in Computers (hosted in South Africa .. it was cheaper then here oO )

And wired connections to these rooms. So if it is online somewhere we have it.

We have an online system that lets teachers assign work to there classes which is pulled straight out of the timetable realtime. Parents can log in and not only see little john got given an assignment, but download the task sheets, and see the due date. John submits via this system and the parents can see if little Johny got it in on time. Teachers then mark it and put the result in to the system, the parents and kids can then see the raw mark as soon as its entered.

We also have a number of online database subscriptions, to jounrals, magazines etc (uni style).

We also have an online tutoring system, where uni students assist students online with their homework in 1on1 chat rooms for want of a better description.

We also have a number of online sites eg. mathletics which kids can choose to use. Teachers find useful stuff in you tube, in ted, in a number university sites. And not just the obvious subject areas like physics.

We have wireless coverage to about 40% of the school now (Its a big school).
And hopefully this year will be able to supply netbooks to 1 or 2 year groups.

We also just implemented an online video system (think a linux cluster running about 12 tuners, hooked up to FTA and foxtel, along with ice tv, remote controllers, an in built editing system thats so easy anyone could learn it in 5mins, and SQL driven search system), with log ins so teachers can prepare their classes anywhere, anytime using a simple search feature that works (unlike the qgl one!). Instead of being some crusty old VHS that had been run over twice, crystal clear Digital copies. Oh works with DVDs and videos or downloaded content. And can be hooked up to camera for live announcements etc etc

Oh and email/file access via web everywhere in the world.

Not to mention "cute" things like delivering e-copies of reports long before printed ones arrive, pod casts of the principles address at assemblies. Offering the newsletter by pdf instead of print saving hundreds of trees a week.

Schools are not the same place people went to even 3 years ago.
And state schools are starting to get this tech.

We tried video conferencing, so our language students could use conversational languages but our link sucked. We tried to hook up with "remote" areas for similar exercises.

We'd love to deliver apps via citrix session so kids can use the expensive software at home, so teachers can assign real tasks with out worrying about the social justice implications of expecting people to have thousand dollar packages at home.

We'd love to have voip so parents could ring boarders for "free".

We'd love to broadcast weekend sport, so remote parents could see their sons play.

At a business level we'd love to have a centralized db for our schools, and pay etc etc etc

*edit for fpot*
"Every living creature on earth dies alone." Donnie Darko

last edited by Obes at 19:26:04 08/Apr/09

I for one look forward to the 124-man Team Fortress 2 server madness.

lol project your self diagnosis onto obes like an fpot

Dirty old alone obes.

i think if this is being planned for 2020 deployment then they need to be looking at a leap frog tech.. spending so much money on what most of EU/US has now will keep aus behind in the networking game

have a solid networking infrastructure brings a lot of benefits to the country as a whole

I stopped caring what people thought about me a long time ago fpot. One day you to will stop caring what people think about you.

Haha, I heard you cried yourself to sleep for weeks after I snubbed you in some shopping centre. Was that the point you decided to stop caring?

PS. Its not that I went out of my way to snub you. It's just that people like you are invisble to me.

last edited by nF at 20:35:20 08/Apr/09

nF, you're pretty annoying on QGL.

haha, who isn't?

Just wait till i get a 100mbit fibre link.

it will be so rad, only $150/month

It's not going to be %150/month for equivalent capped services, that would never work so that won't be an option.

No existing infrastructure is being removed under this plan, so it will still be competing against the current DSL and cable rollouts, so it's going to have to be the same price or cheaper.

We just have to wait and see how they're going to answer those questions.

What's the average spend for Phone & Internet at the moment per household? A hundred bucks? Chuck in a foxtel sub and you are already at 150 bucks a month.

What's that monthly equivalent to by 2020?

The idea of the NBN causing internet access in isolation to suddenly triple in cost in real terms is just pure scare-mongering bulls***. Its to be expected given the complete disarray of the Federal Opposition though.

They really seem to be reaching for straws and trying to poo poo on plicy that has been generally well-received. This sort of stuff won't make Turnbull Prime Minister anytime soon.

Then again nothing probably could, aside from another leader to take the punishment for a few years while he waits in the wings for his real moment.

Haha, I heard you cried yourself to sleep for weeks after I snubbed you in some shopping centre. Was that the point you decided to stop caring?

PS. Its not that I went out of my way to snub you. It's just that people like you are invisble to me.

Nah, it just made me think you were a wanker.
So when people said "nF is pretty cool" I'd say nah he's a wanker.
You keep bringing it up, which means you care what I think which is cute.

Just keep trying to make that call Jim it will work soon.

Nah, it just made me think you were a wanker.
So when people said "nF is pretty cool" I'd say nah he's a wanker.
You keep bringing it up, which means you care what I think which is cute.

I think its hilarious actually.

It clearly cut you up inside, believing at the time that I had snubbed you. You held onto that bitterness for all that time since, and it came back to you whenever my name was mentioned. The fact that I didn't even notice you were there must just rub it in even more.

Clearly your "I don't care what you think of me" is more, "I don't care what you think of me so long as you respect me enough to acknowledge me IRL."

I heard the story second hand (naturally), and the person that told me thought it was hilarious that you were upset over it. So go ahead calling me what you want, its keeping everyone amused.

And so fpot is probably right. Which means you've been successfully psychoanalysed by a guy whos job it is to turn people away at a door for wearing the wrong shoes.

it's not really making a call, it's just tellin it like it is

Sure it is.

Someone who the government listens to.

K-Rudd gets his juarez from giganews.

yeh it sure is telling it like it is
it's awesome

trog, mkt cap of telstra is 41.6Bn so I would say it is not an option. Although even if it was a logical deal it would be the investors that would be pissed off not the taxpayers (assuming your statement re: selling price higher than purchase price is true - no idea, & dont care to look up).

i believe infi is trying to state that we need to ask the question whether this will burden future generations in a useful manner as opposed to blindly accepting continuous burdening. $900 free for all is not a good way to spend future generations money. however, i am swayed by Dan's arguments that this infrastructure spend is worth it.

However, I would certainly view the selling off of backbone infrastructure as a major negative as I dont believe it is ever in the country's interest to so. not powerlines, not pipes, not highways nor the internet "pipes". I dont care who the government pays to build it, nor maintain or run it (ie govt vs private), just the "hardware" should never be sold.

Obes, (i think?) the only people who make policy are the government (ie the ministers) not parties. Sure they "can" follow party lines, but to point to the party websites and say they have no policy is stating the obvious. They have ideologies, only at election time do they say "if we are elected to government will we implement x policy"

For all, costing of policies are always 'back of the envelope' at the start, whether in govt or opposition and slight changes to the underlying assumptions can have radical differences. differences in value is exactly what underpins the free market economy that we live in. neither are lying nor distorting the truth, but have different views on what stimulates an economy and the outlook etc, except you cant ever come out and say "I dunno what it would cost"...

But you can guarantee that it will always be a price that [the seller believes] is marketable to the constituent. In this instance i tend to lean towards KR trying to be the 'audacity of hope' leader, ie needs the plan to be bold enough to draw attention as an inspiration, and since landing on the moon has been done and Australia doesnt rely on foreign energy, well this is the next best thing.

i think if this is being planned for 2020 deployment then they need to be looking at a leap frog tech.. spending so much money on what most of EU/US has now will keep aus behind in the networking game

You dont quite understand Fibre Technology do you?

Fibre has way more than 100mbit capacity, once the fibre is in, whats on either end can be upgraded so much easier, using the same fibre optic cable.

How fast though Viper and how much does that cost?

As an aside, does anyone know if fibre uses less power to run than copper? You'd assume so right? If that's the case, then it could be better environmentally as well (I'm sure it'd add up quickly over time).

Edit: Seems to be true and also makes it harder for wire tapping (although I doubt that happens much anyway?)

That's a fair question that hasn't even been asked yet - they're building all this infrastructure, but how much is it going to cost for resellers to lease access to a line?
Will multiple providers be able to access a single line to a premises? If so, which party is going to manage the termination?

And ultimately this is going to boil down to the only question people will eventually care about: After spending $47b/month of my taxpayer money to build this infrastructure, how much will I have to pay per month to use a service on this infrastructure?

^ the govt isn't spending $42b of taxpayers money. They are contributing between $7B and $8B for their half and raising capital for the rest of the 51% as well as the partner contributing another 49% of the cost.

we should lock this thread, its tearing us appart

also nf, with the double backhander

^ the govt isn't spending $42b of taxpayers money. They are contributing between $7B and $8B for their half and raising capital for the rest of the 51% as well as the partner contributing another 49% of the cost.

the government by issuing bonds for their 51% of the investment may be raising debt but it is still a taxpayer liability. based on the news i read yesterday 3 investment banks said investing into the project would not be attractive. unless the government gets underwriters, they will end up funding it themselves if the share issue is undersubscribed.

the government hasn't done any modelling they have just popped up with "let's build a cable network!".

it's like when kids in the garage say, "let's build a rocket ship!"

last edited by infi at 09:24:45 09/Apr/09

we should lock this thread, its tearing us appart

What you talking about spook? I brought nF, typo and fpot together.

it's like when kids in the garage say, "let's build a rocket ship!"

Great analogy, really. Appropriate and valid, with no obvious flaws!

Dork.

the same level of consideration has been given. and the same level of detail is available. i think Chairman Rudd got it all out of Family Circle mags.

Haha your prejudices are showing again infi.

Oh so there is detail? Please show me.

I liked the Chairman Rudd part haha :) He looked like such a dork at the G20 summit in London, Wu Empire's puppet

You guys are missing the point:
Fibre optic cables are way cooler than copper ones!

All your other arguments are thus invalid.

what would infi know about building a fibre network anyway? to a bean-counter like him it probably is the same thing as building a rocket. :D

based on the news i read yesterday 3 investment banks said investing into the project would not be attractive.

Got citation? I would have thought this would be major news

My only hope that out of the 40+ B dollars they set aside a few Mil to do an accurate, traceable and f***ing precise As-constructed survey over the damn thing.

If we end up with another mess like the Telstra (and Optus and pretty much every other f***ing underground service) it going to cost even more in the future not knowing where all their s*** is.

Telstra underground plans are nothing more then lines drawn by a CAD monkey thats never seen the road where the cables are. Every job there is 20% of the 'lines' in the wrong place (other side of the road, running to a different pit/pole, lines not on the plan or lines that are not physically there at all.)

They should keep it all in one big working drawing (Probably AutoCAD as it's pretty universal) and allow certin people in the industry (Trusted Surveyors/Council/other service providers) to update/fix. Or at least allow submissions to their asset manager that can be approved to go live by whomever is in charge of that section.

Other providers should do this too... Including Council's with Water/sewerage/other services.

Survey accurate GPS can get measuremenrs +/- 0.010 meters and is relativly cheap and quick to do, so no-one has an excuse not to have accurate As-Coon these days. It should also be on a standard GDA co-ord system, scale factor 1. So anyone can go Anywhere in Aus, connect to a fixed Permenant Survey mark and know exactally where any undergrioud service is.

Been trying to get LoganCC to do this. Logan Water is now doing it, just have to convince all the other guys.

/rant

My only hope that out of the 40+ B dollars they set aside a few Mil to do an accurate, traceable and f***ing precise As-constructed survey over the damn thing.

They should be doing this before making 40+ bil announcements.

infi hates, public holidays, free money and fast internets!

where will his hate train stop next?!

TITS? (no doubt if my boy krudd came out in favour of tits, he would be hatin)

Obes - have you got a white paper or some sort of plan for all the technology improvements been done and going on at your school? Also would it be too much to ask what school it is. When I have kids I want to send them to a place like that.

Man, dranged's rambling just smacks of '256k ram is all you'll ever need' eh.

I just think the whole idea is fraught with risk. It will surely be underwritten. Sure, utilities are great investments, but, a utility Eg. A tunnel is useful if there is no meaningful substitute, or, is demonstrably a deviation or greater better in _practical_ performance.

CSIRO have proven 10Gbps wireless, NextG et al will scale to a Gig, DSL has proven life in it and much more (ie. DSM). Cable will be all capital cities @100Mbps+. There are many access mechanisms available and _not just telstra_, and 8 years is a loooong time in communications technology. Even if Telstra just do Cable@100Mps with their current footprint, that's a big chunk of the market right there, and they have it for however many years.

dranged weren't you the guy that claimed to have been playing doom for 10 years when the game was only about 6 years old ? certainly some version of d3rang3d or something.

Nah, must have been one of the clones.

^full motion media from a vast array of suppliers who will then be able to provide a wider variety of services and new jobs, maybe.

Right - but you can easily do this with 10Mbps. Isn't Cisco's 'telepresence' only 10-15Mbps?

the same level of consideration has been given. and the same level of detail is available. i think Chairman Rudd got it all out of Family Circle mags.

chairman rudd seems to be the new internet catchname of the day, really though, it's just as lame as putting a dollar sign instead of an s when you type microsoft or telstra.

Oh, and your children rocket ship analogy is equally retarded. Yeah, because expert panels and industry lobbyists would advise children to take that course of action, and industry leaders would speak out in support of it. Get a grip.

For all intents and purposes I think this is a fantastic development, I'm just wary of the implementation, is all.

CSIRO have proven 10Gbps wireless, NextG et al will scale to a Gig, DSL has proven life in it and much more (ie. DSM). Cable will be all capital cities @100Mbps+. There are many access mechanisms available and _not just telstra_, and 8 years is a loooong time in communications technology. Even if Telstra just do Cable@100Mps with their current footprint, that's a big chunk of the market right there, and they have it for however many years.

Except this is just as much about removing telstra's stranglehold on the industry as it is upgrading our connectivity. Relying on things like Telstra to upgrade their cable network (which covers a much smaller fraction of the country) are just not worthwhile options long term.

because expert panels and industry lobbyists would advise children to take that course of action, and industry leaders would speak out in support of it.

why wouldn't Rudd do the research and satisfy the parliament that the scheme is viable before announcing it?

because he is only interested in headlines.

he is gonna have one helluva battle getting this through the senate.

ps spook i cant wait till i get all that free labour on the monday after anzac day. sooo sweet.

Wireless is s***, I dont care what you say, I have never seen a wireless connection be as good as a physical conneciton, be it 802.11 stuff or nextg, its all s***, random performance based on slight changes, wireless just isnt usefull for large populations.

Yes you can probably get 10gig wireless, but its probably point to point, uses all the spectrum available, obvisouly not going to work when you have thousands of people trying to share that node.

I doubt when/if the fibre goes it it will be 100mb, thats just the number they are throwing out there as thats what most fibre internet connections currently being deployed are. The thing with fibre is that you basically dont have a speed limit.

I just wonder when they put the fibre cables in, they will allow people direct access to the fibre, kinda like they do now with copper, you can resell telstra or put in your own s*** for better speeds etc. Hopefully they do, they can put in the standard 100mb or whatever the current technology is at the time in, so the retail ISP's can just resell that, or if an service provider wants to upgrade a certain area to provide faster speeds or other services, they can.

I can definatly see a tv provider going in, its makes total sense, and definatly phone aswell.

why wouldn't Rudd do the research and satisfy the parliament that the scheme is viable before announcing it?

The announcement was based upon industry and expert recommendations. People that had already done the technology research.

I acknowledge that the viability and immediate financial capability of the project still needs to be proven, but that's hardly equivalent to kids building a rocket. Saying s*** like that so far removed from reality just makes you look like a chump.

he is gonna have one helluva battle getting this through the senate.

The Nats don't agree with you. link

saying you are spending $43b of taxpayer's money without viability research is what's far removed from reality.

i know you guys are in love with fast internet. i have optus cable and love it too. but this s*** is whacked. $43b hah.

i just ran some basic calculations to estimate the average cost required to fund this snowy mountains for the 21st century (lol). it contains a number of assumptions but these are based loosely on standard business benchmarks.

starting from a capital cost of $43b, an acceptable return on investment is 12.5%, so annual earnings would need to be 5.375b. now based on an assumption of 20% profit margin this would require a gross revneue per annum of $26.875b.

I have no ideas how many maximum subscribers you would have at saturation but even using a number like 20m when combining together both private domestic and business users gives an average annual spend per customer of $1343 or $112/month.

Now that is the base revenue for the fibre company and is before resellers add on their profit. If the subscriber base is lower than that, then earnings will be lower and the capitalised value will be instantly written down if not achieved in the 5 year trading up.

These are big numbers and if they aren't achieved, then each year the gap will be eating away our national budget which should be could be used to give handouts etc. instead.


last edited by infi at 12:00:15 09/Apr/09

The announcement was based upon industry and expert recommendations. People that had already done the technology research.

Oh, *experts*. You mean these guys?

Even industry vets like Mark Newton think it's a hilarious idea.

AAPT Chief, Paul Broad, has suggested that consumers may be slugged $200/month for access to the system.

which should be could be used to give handouts etc. instead.

lol

AAPT Chief, Paul Broad, has suggested that consumers may be slugged $200/month for access to the system.

yeh, and then in the same article: "Mr Broad says because the 100 megabits-per-second data rate promised is only around double what is available today for less than half the price, such a drastic increase in price will scare away potential customers."

Where can I get 50mbit (or near 50mbit) for $100/month?