[Aussie Keith]

For information only. Not seeking to start a debate.

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/confidential-briefing-nbn-unlikely-to-meet-coalitions-deadline-20131128-hv3tp.html

[Dazzler]

Without starting a political bunfight wasn't the Labour NBN timeline falling behind due to asbestos in the pits and other issues anyway?

I personally prefer the Labour model if it could have been completed on time and close to budget (but that was starting to look very unlikely anyway)... 

 I don't know what the solution is to get an efficient and cost effective Broadband in a sparsely populated country of this size!

[Surferdude]

^^^
What Dazz said.

[Aussie Keith]

The timeline was set by politicians, not the people doing the work setting an unrealistic timeframe for delivery.

Planning and preparation are the elements of a project that take the most time if a project is to be done properly. Design. Recruitment and training. Contracts for materials and services as well as in this case access to Telstra's pits and pipes which took a long time to sort out. The actual setting up of the NBN organisation. Etc. Much startup phase stuff to do and it takes time to do properly. Then a pilot to see where all the problems lie before heading into a full scale rollout. The first iteration was well on its way I believe. We have had the fibre laid in our street and in the new estate down the road, they have it already. So the core network is in place and the deployments were occurring.

Now it appears we will do it all again, this time with wet string and bandaids.  And then most likely, again when it becomes apparent what a great big turkey the current proposal is. Already Ziggy is shaking his head about it and Mal has locked down the blue book. Its not looking good for a world class internet infrastructure that works properly.

Here's some info on the proposed technology: Fiber to the x - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dazzler]

Thanks Keith .. The dilemma continues though...

Can we afford to go the full monty or can we afford not to?.. 

[Aussie Keith]

We cannot afford to not do it properly the first time.

I think those charged with selling the NBN have done a terrible job. The focus has been primarily on higher speeds, not reliability and capacity which are arguably more important. While this is great for cat videos, facebook and games, it also opens the doors for a range of services of value to the community, especially remote communities. The debate has been negative and focused on a penny pinching pissing match on the technology just to make a political point, not on the savings and benefits that access to high speed broadband service would bring to the community, not just now but decades into the future.

Have a look at whats going on overseas to get a feel for what we are really missing out on. Improved healthcare access for remote communities for a start: Orange receives the 2011 Digital Green Growth Award for its virtual medical

Telehealth Links Doctors To Remote Patients In Need - InformationWeek

Getting back to higher speeds and the lack thereof in the market today, this stems from a lack of competition in the marketplace. Telstra infrastructure has been used for the delivery of ADSL which presumably is the same copper that's going to be used for the new NBN tails. It doesn't work properly now in many cases and there is no reason to believe it will work any better shoving a fibre backbone in front of it. For those fortunate enough to live in an area where it works properly, that's great. But right now there is no incentive for Telstra to provide a uniform standard of service nationally. That's where the NBN came in, this was their mandate and fresh infrastructure was the answer. Hence amongst other reasons, fibre to the premises.

On pricing NBN was to be an independent wholesaler to enable proper competition. Looks like that might be off the table as well now.

In 2000 when I was living in Canada, I had high speed all you can eat internet access that worked properly all the time for the princely sum of $30 a month. Why can't we do that here?

[Dazzler]

That is interesting about Canada. Obviously quick in 2000 wasn't very quick at all by today's standards.

I wonder how they compare with us 13 years on? 

They are a large country with a relatively small population (similar to us) so handy as a comparison.

Now I will play the Devils Advocate .. $30 in 2000 would equate to a lot more now 

[Aussie Keith]

$40 a month for a basic adsl service uncapped.

[Dazzler]

$40 a month for a basic adsl service uncapped.

DoDo and others do that here (but as you know the quality varies greatly) 

[Aussie Keith]

They do... now. But as you mentioned, usability is another thing altogether. In ITIL speak, is it fit for purpose? Maybe for email and light surfing but it you tried to use it for reliable VoIP or streaming, could be another story. That makes it fairly useless in the long term.

[rustynutz]

New slower National Broadbank Network to cost $30 billion more than Labor's previous plan

THE new national broadband network will deliver slower speeds and cost up to $30 billion extra to deliver than its predecessor, it has emerged.

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull revealed there will be a $28.8 billion increase in costs for the whole project when completed in 11 years time, and the NBN will not complete its first stage by 2016 as first predicted.
That means the Government won't be able to deliver its promise of everyone having access to at least 25mbps of broadband by 2016.
Mr Turnbull was delivering the findings of a 134-page report on his scheme to replace Labor's scheme.
The review said the full cost of the Turnbull option would be $72.9 billion and not the initial estimate of $44.1 billion.

Read more:

[FatBoy]

A big stuff up from both sides, it appears.  Labor's plan would have cost an extra $29 billion, and not be completed until 2024!!

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/national/labors-nbn-blowout-to-take-three-years-longer-cost-29bn-more/story-fnj3ty2c-1226781434734

[Aussie Keith]

  Who could have seen that coming. Poor Malcolm, I wonder if he will go ahead with it anyway.

[rustynutz]

Incoming NBN boss urges focus on objective

DECEMBER 12, 2013 4:02PM

THE incoming chief executive of the Abbott government's scaled-back national broadband network says the technology behind the network rollout is not as important as its over-arching objective.

NBN Co chairman Ziggy Switkowski announced on Tuesday that Vodafone Australia boss Bill Morrow will take over as chief executive of NBN Co next year.
Mr Morrow replaces Mike Quigley, who announced his departure from NBN Co in July.

Mr Morrow's appointment comes as NBN Co adjusts its rollout to fit with the Abbott government's fibre-to-the-node plan, which replaces Labor's fibre-to-the-premises plan.

Mr Morrow said he had not yet had the benefit of reading the details of the new rollout plan, but he believed in what Federal Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull had said on numerous occasions.

"(That is) The objective is to be able to get all Australians good, high-quality internet access, offering some competition, offering therefore the innovation and the growth of the (economic) ecosystem that comes from that," Mr Morrow told reporters.

"That in my mind can be a technology-agnostic perspective whether it's fibre-to-the-node, fibre-to-the-home, or an eclectic mix-up.
"I don't think we should get lost on the technology. It should be the over-arching objective."

Read more:

[rustynutz]

NBN Co chairman Ziggy Switkowski announced on Tuesday that Vodafone Australia boss Bill Morrow will take over as chief executive of NBN Co next year.
Mr Morrow replaces Mike Quigley, who announced his departure from NBN Co in July.

That inspires so much confidence cos' Vodafone has been such a success here in Australia... 

[Phil №❶]

 

I thought exactly the same thing when I heard the announcement on TV.

[Surferdude]

I thought exactly the same thing when I heard the announcement on TV.

Well at least he'll have had plenty of practice at handling complaints.

[Aussie Keith]

Ho ho, someones brought in a media consultant for the yes men. They are trying to reframe the cock up. As in:

"That in my mind can be a technology-agnostic perspective whether it's fibre-to-the-node, fibre-to-the-home, or an eclectic mix-up.
"I don't think we should get lost on the technology. It should be the over-arching objective."

Really, are people that stupid. I'll leave that one right there.

[rustynutz]

The simple answer is yes.....

[Aussie Keith]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/it-pro/government-it/hearing-nbn-co-gagged-on-finer-details-of-strategic-review-20131217-hv60v.html

[Seoul-mate]

It was revealed in the recently released strategic review of the national broadband network that the previous government's fibre to the premises NBN plan would cost $1 billion more then the one proposed by Malcolm Turnbull. Seems like a big saving until the relative costs are compared....$57billion as opposed to $58billion. ....a 1.75% difference. However by using some of the of the existing copper network Turnbull's plan can be completed more quickly and start returning money 5 years earlier. So it seems it is not the outright cost that makes the big difference it's how quickly some profits can be realised.

The b difference between Labor's and the new NBN, and the big catch

[Phil №❶]

I'd like to see a comparison between the financials mentioned in AK's last post and the data speeds. I bet the data speeds are way short of the price differential.

[Aussie Keith]

I've mentioned reliability as a factor before. What they will give us with fttn is a Ferrari with skinny wheels which will fall over every time it rains. 

Plus this: But, hidden within the report is also the astounding news that 90 per cent of annual operating costs would be money flowing to Telstra and Optus, thanks to the deals signed by NBN Co over the past few years. Telstra gets the bulk of the money because NBN Co needs to rent so much of its infrastructure. So the bulk of operating costs won't change even if broadband technology becomes cheaper to operate. But operating costs could also go higher if Telstra demands more money from NBN Co for using parts of the copper network, which is not part of the existing deal.

Thus reducing further revenue back into the government. Where's the long term value in that.

[Phil №❶]

I suspect that's most likely why we have to have this type of NBN. Imagine the Telstra copper, network rendered useless.

I suspect that's most likely why we have to have this type of NBN. Imagine the Telstra copper, network rendered useless.

The fffing copper is useless.  It should be rendered obsolete and replaced by new technologies (wireless, fibre, etc.). The number of homes using copper is diminishing daily.  Does Turbull really believe his rhetoric?

[Phil №❶]

Everyone knows what copper looks like after water damage, what a joke, green brittle wires, expected to carry all this data. I hear that even new copper was not able to carry high speeds due to lower quality copper currently in use.

Fibre technology doesn't work by just plugging wires onto terminals at an exchange, a waterproof, solid, light capable connection has to be made and as such, a significant gain is achieved in data stability and speed.

I'm not excited about the NBN at all, now.