4 ms·

Fibre was going to be rolled out to 93% of the population - so very remote people would have been on satellie but that would have been it.

by rosege 7y ago

fertimb_ 7y ago
No, that was their made up promise to fool people who couldn't research the logistics themselves, that is not what was going to happen. Name another country in the entire world where this has happened with similar population density. You can't, because no such country exists. If that actually happened, and it was completed today, Australia would have the world's fastest internet, ahead of all of the countries with extremely dense population such as Taiwan. Such an idea is absurd, but people on the left will never admit it and just claim that is was obviously going to happen.
- flukus 7y ago
  Fiber isn't rolled out in a uniform grid pattern across the country, so population density is irrelevant. We are one of the most urbanized countries in the world, more so than many who have rolled out fiber.
- crispinb 7y ago
  Arrant nonsense. It was a specific plan, budgeted for, with people in government and industry I knew at the time working on it. Even bloody Malcolm Turnbull was bullish about it (he was on the board of a company I worked for in Brisbane) until he turned. It was going to happen but was scotched for purely political reasons by a party that had always opposed public provision. Big projects, govenment & commercial alike often fail. The real NBN certainly might have. But to make up out of a complete vacuum that it was some sort of deliberate con is just another barmy conspiracy theory.
  - fertibm__ 7y ago
    >It was a specific plan, budgeted for I like how you call what I said "arrant nonsense". Such a harsh response must have been followed up by some irrefutable facts for justification. Instead, your argument is "it was budgeted for". This level of nativity is complete lack of knowledge of planning and budgeting and forecasting models shouldn't be coupled with your big boy harsh words. Lets see, Kevin Rudd said it would cost $15 billion. The total cost at the moment seems to be $51 billion. So your conspiracy theory is that the crappier NBN we got which required less work cost $36 billion more than the one you are saying was budgeted for?
    - paranoidrobot 7y ago
      First, can I ask why you're creating multiple new accounts to comment? It seems very odd. > Kevin Rudd said it would cost $15 billion. The first 90% fibre plan was $43b, later revised down to $37.4b of which it was supposed to be $30b of investment from the Federal government. [0] About $12b of that was in payments to Telstra ($11b) and Optus ($800m) in return for access to lead-in and last-mile conduits/pits, and decommissioning of HFC networks. That original business plan was revised later after a KPMG study to recommend ~93% fibre, ~4% fixed wireless (LTE variant), and the remaining ~2-3% on two dedicated satellites (new launches). (Edited to add: Note that this plan included an eventual ROI, where the government would get it's money back - and hence it be zero/low cost. The current plan has no hope of that happening short of selling the entire thing off to Telstra.) FTTH installations were budgeted at $1500/residence to install, which by the time the Abbott government was coming into power was actually trending closer to $1200 as the workforce was trained up in deploying the gear and became more experienced in dealing with any odd situations. There is/was a fantastic video of a talk given by someone from NBNCo (I believe Mike Quigly?) at a University where they go over the architectural design decisions, and how the 93% number was arrived at. The video also went over in detail how the fixed-wireless process was to work. Arguments that remediating conduit and installing new copper is either cheaper or less work to install aren't backed up by evidence, with NBNCo's current cost for FTTC being somewhere over $3000/residence in 2019[1]. Additionally, because there's now FTTP, FTTN, FTTC, HFC, Fixed-Wireless and Satellite - the whole network is harder to manage and maintain. You need a bigger, more widely trained workforce, you have more equipment to maintain, and more vendors to deal with. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Broadband_Network#Initial_expected_cost_and_payback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Broadb... [1] https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-cos-actual-cost-per-premises-for-fttc-is-3058-519460 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-cos-actual-cost-per-premi...

Fibre was going to be rolled out to 93% of the population - so very remote people would have been on satellie but that would have been it.

by rosege 7y ago

Fibre was going to be rolled out to 93% of the population - so very remote people would have been on satellie but that would have been it.

fertimb_ 7y ago

No, that was their made up promise to fool people who couldn't research the logistics themselves, that is not what was going to happen. Name another country in the entire world where this has happened with similar population density. You can't, because no such country exists. If that actually happened, and it was completed today, Australia would have the world's fastest internet, ahead of all of the countries with extremely dense population such as Taiwan. Such an idea is absurd, but people on the left will never admit it and just claim that is was obviously going to happen.

flukus 7y ago
Fiber isn't rolled out in a uniform grid pattern across the country, so population density is irrelevant. We are one of the most urbanized countries in the world, more so than many who have rolled out fiber.
crispinb 7y ago
Arrant nonsense. It was a specific plan, budgeted for, with people in government and industry I knew at the time working on it. Even bloody Malcolm Turnbull was bullish about it (he was on the board of a company I worked for in Brisbane) until he turned. It was going to happen but was scotched for purely political reasons by a party that had always opposed public provision. Big projects, govenment & commercial alike often fail. The real NBN certainly might have. But to make up out of a complete vacuum that it was some sort of deliberate con is just another barmy conspiracy theory.
- fertibm__ 7y ago
  >It was a specific plan, budgeted for I like how you call what I said "arrant nonsense". Such a harsh response must have been followed up by some irrefutable facts for justification. Instead, your argument is "it was budgeted for". This level of nativity is complete lack of knowledge of planning and budgeting and forecasting models shouldn't be coupled with your big boy harsh words. Lets see, Kevin Rudd said it would cost $15 billion. The total cost at the moment seems to be $51 billion. So your conspiracy theory is that the crappier NBN we got which required less work cost $36 billion more than the one you are saying was budgeted for?
  - paranoidrobot 7y ago
    First, can I ask why you're creating multiple new accounts to comment? It seems very odd. > Kevin Rudd said it would cost $15 billion. The first 90% fibre plan was $43b, later revised down to $37.4b of which it was supposed to be $30b of investment from the Federal government. [0] About $12b of that was in payments to Telstra ($11b) and Optus ($800m) in return for access to lead-in and last-mile conduits/pits, and decommissioning of HFC networks. That original business plan was revised later after a KPMG study to recommend ~93% fibre, ~4% fixed wireless (LTE variant), and the remaining ~2-3% on two dedicated satellites (new launches). (Edited to add: Note that this plan included an eventual ROI, where the government would get it's money back - and hence it be zero/low cost. The current plan has no hope of that happening short of selling the entire thing off to Telstra.) FTTH installations were budgeted at $1500/residence to install, which by the time the Abbott government was coming into power was actually trending closer to $1200 as the workforce was trained up in deploying the gear and became more experienced in dealing with any odd situations. There is/was a fantastic video of a talk given by someone from NBNCo (I believe Mike Quigly?) at a University where they go over the architectural design decisions, and how the 93% number was arrived at. The video also went over in detail how the fixed-wireless process was to work. Arguments that remediating conduit and installing new copper is either cheaper or less work to install aren't backed up by evidence, with NBNCo's current cost for FTTC being somewhere over $3000/residence in 2019[1]. Additionally, because there's now FTTP, FTTN, FTTC, HFC, Fixed-Wireless and Satellite - the whole network is harder to manage and maintain. You need a bigger, more widely trained workforce, you have more equipment to maintain, and more vendors to deal with. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Broadband_Network#Initial_expected_cost_and_payback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Broadb... [1] https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-cos-actual-cost-per-premises-for-fttc-is-3058-519460 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-cos-actual-cost-per-premi...