4 ms·

I do really want the NBN to be the best it can be, but I really really really want a proper debate about the issue. Arguments should not be as one-sided as eit

by jpau 13y ago

I do really want the NBN to be the best it can be, but I really really really want a proper debate about the issue. Arguments should not be as one-sided as either "the Coalition's plan is crap, because it's slower" or "Labor's plan is crap, because it costs more". Instead, the debate needs to be about whether or not the extra speed is worth the cost. We aren't currently seeing this sort of debate. The Coalition says "give us some benefits to quantify". Labor says "giving all of the benefits would be impossible". I believe Labor should at least try. If they fail, they can fall back to their current position; no ground lost. At this point, Labor need only give benefits from the speed difference to support the cost difference - not the entire project cost. P.s., the change.org petition is full of flaws. For example: "Broadband internet is an ‘infrastructure’ and should be considered in the same light as highways, water management, electricity and so forth; it should be a ‘right’ available ‘equally’ to all Australians." But surely, better roads exist where they are needed more- where the cost justifies such? My parent's farm runs off of tank water and a self-sufficient sewerage system, not town water. The cost to provide the same service I receive at my apartment building as to their farm would be ludicrous. Why are we not seeing a proper debate on this issue?

XorNot 13y ago
Because it's technical, nuanced and wholly ends up bound up in "well I just didn't trust labor to do it". It requires comprehending civil works project scale, scope, duration and expected lifetimes, the logistics and finances of managing large infrastructure works and a mind open to the idea that the internet isn't "just for games or something". So, not going to happen ever - but for what it's worth, I fully expect the Coalition to quietly keep going with FTTP since winding back the NBN doesn't save them any money with it spooling up - the money has been borrowed, but not borrowing it doesn't suddenly put the budget in the black. Instead you just don't get a future major asset, and do get to keep the maintenance costs of the old network.
jacques_chester 13y ago
> Why are we not seeing a proper debate on this issue? There are two reasons. First is the coalition, who started on the wrong footing: arguing about technology choice. This made it pretty easy for the ALP to take attention away from the project itself. Second is a vocal band of people who want super fast internet, dammit. Now that it has been promised, there is a constituency for it. Public debt seems rather abstract and besides, the NBNco promises that it's all going to be profitable somehow (without actually releasing their modelling to the public). As a properly-run public infrastructure project over a decade or 15 years it could have been the envy of the world. Instead we are going to get something that will be an expensive mess, no matter how you slice it.
crazytony 13y ago
"Instead, the debate needs to be about whether or not the extra speed is worth the cost." How about this: the coalitions plan is crap because it provides less service and less future adaptability at almost three times the unit cost. $44.1b/100mbps estimated FTTH = $0.441b/mbps $29.5b/25mbps estimated FTTN = $1.18b/mbps The numbers get even worse for the coalition when you factor in an additional $2B to the NBN plan to move everyone from 100mbps to 1000mbps. Your analogy of town water vs tank water is not relevant as the plan is not to provide the same service (ie fibre) to all areas. That debate happened 3-4 years ago and has been NBN policy for almost as long. Fibre in dense areas, Wimax in less dense areas and satellite in rural settings. Wider roads exist for more capacity but I guarantee your parents farm has at least one road around it. That is what the change.org petition is talking about. The problem we're running in to is our physical plant (the copper) is antiquated in standard and age. The coalition has loved talking up how bad the plant is as a negative for the NBN plan (asbestos boxes and viaducts, tree roots, electrical shorts, flooding, etc). The NBN has planned and has budgeted to replace this plant with newer, modern equipment and techniques. The coalition plan attempts to bend reality and ignore the dilapidated state of most of the inner city/suburban Telstra equipment. Instead they are going to buy 60,000+ new DSLAMs and just magically integrate them without having to deal with 50 years of bad maintenance.
- mikelward 13y ago
  Those numbers seem wrong. The Coalition plan likely involves VDSL2+, which is supposed to do 250 Mbps at the node, and 50 Mbps 1 km from the node, so likely 90%+ of the population would get 50-100 Mbps by 2016. 25 Mbps is the minimum, not the average. And the NBN was supposed to do 1 Gbps within a few years. But the rollout might be slower. Add to that that once FTTN is rolled out, it could be upgraded to FTTH/FTTP, for a lot less money, these numbers are really not as easy to compare. Interesting point about the state of the existing exchanges, copper, etc.. The plan did make a brief comparison to other FTTN roll outs worldwide, e.g. AT&T uVerse. Wonder what problems they faced.

by jpau 13y ago

XorNot 13y ago

Because it's technical, nuanced and wholly ends up bound up in "well I just didn't trust labor to do it". It requires comprehending civil works project scale, scope, duration and expected lifetimes, the logistics and finances of managing large infrastructure works and a mind open to the idea that the internet isn't "just for games or something". So, not going to happen ever - but for what it's worth, I fully expect the Coalition to quietly keep going with FTTP since winding back the NBN doesn't save them any money with it spooling up - the money has been borrowed, but not borrowing it doesn't suddenly put the budget in the black. Instead you just don't get a future major asset, and do get to keep the maintenance costs of the old network.

jacques_chester 13y ago

> Why are we not seeing a proper debate on this issue? There are two reasons. First is the coalition, who started on the wrong footing: arguing about technology choice. This made it pretty easy for the ALP to take attention away from the project itself. Second is a vocal band of people who want super fast internet, dammit. Now that it has been promised, there is a constituency for it. Public debt seems rather abstract and besides, the NBNco promises that it's all going to be profitable somehow (without actually releasing their modelling to the public). As a properly-run public infrastructure project over a decade or 15 years it could have been the envy of the world. Instead we are going to get something that will be an expensive mess, no matter how you slice it.

crazytony 13y ago

"Instead, the debate needs to be about whether or not the extra speed is worth the cost." How about this: the coalitions plan is crap because it provides less service and less future adaptability at almost three times the unit cost. $44.1b/100mbps estimated FTTH = $0.441b/mbps $29.5b/25mbps estimated FTTN = $1.18b/mbps The numbers get even worse for the coalition when you factor in an additional $2B to the NBN plan to move everyone from 100mbps to 1000mbps. Your analogy of town water vs tank water is not relevant as the plan is not to provide the same service (ie fibre) to all areas. That debate happened 3-4 years ago and has been NBN policy for almost as long. Fibre in dense areas, Wimax in less dense areas and satellite in rural settings. Wider roads exist for more capacity but I guarantee your parents farm has at least one road around it. That is what the change.org petition is talking about. The problem we're running in to is our physical plant (the copper) is antiquated in standard and age. The coalition has loved talking up how bad the plant is as a negative for the NBN plan (asbestos boxes and viaducts, tree roots, electrical shorts, flooding, etc). The NBN has planned and has budgeted to replace this plant with newer, modern equipment and techniques. The coalition plan attempts to bend reality and ignore the dilapidated state of most of the inner city/suburban Telstra equipment. Instead they are going to buy 60,000+ new DSLAMs and just magically integrate them without having to deal with 50 years of bad maintenance.

mikelward 13y ago
Those numbers seem wrong. The Coalition plan likely involves VDSL2+, which is supposed to do 250 Mbps at the node, and 50 Mbps 1 km from the node, so likely 90%+ of the population would get 50-100 Mbps by 2016. 25 Mbps is the minimum, not the average. And the NBN was supposed to do 1 Gbps within a few years. But the rollout might be slower. Add to that that once FTTN is rolled out, it could be upgraded to FTTH/FTTP, for a lot less money, these numbers are really not as easy to compare. Interesting point about the state of the existing exchanges, copper, etc.. The plan did make a brief comparison to other FTTN roll outs worldwide, e.g. AT&T uVerse. Wonder what problems they faced.