The NBN (National Broadband Network)

[Scotty]

The NBN idea is awesome, only idiots would dispute it, in terms of upgrading from what we have its awesome, compared to other countries such as korea and singapore its still nothing, however the biggest problem is this continual push for internet and IP censorship which comes with it

The question is this - if the majority on this site are disputing the NBN (not necessarily the benefits of, but mostly the implementation, cost and timing of), is it really us that are 'idiots', or is it you, who clearly can't be bothered investigating the true benefits and costs and would prefer to throw out one liners.

 

[Aussie D]

RF,
You will probably think a little differently about it once you have paid taxes for a few years. Then you will want value for money from all government programs (unless of course you are an idiot) with cost-benefit analysis thrown in for good measure. The government has not released a cost-benefit analysis on the NBN, for all we know it hasn't been costed just a figure plucked out of the air (with this current government it wouldn't surprise me).

 

[Moses]

I found the cost / benefit analysis, compelling stuff

 

[cyclopath]

Nice , Moses.
She is missing a step - the intermediate step where all administrators involved take a big commission and it all blows out by 30% or so and then they find it actually kills people or doesn't work. I believe there is at least 1 precedent for this.

 

[Scotty]

RF,
You will probably think a little differently about it once you have paid taxes for a few years. Then you will want value for money from all government programs (unless of course you are an idiot) with cost-benefit analysis thrown in for good measure. The government has not released a cost-benefit analysis on the NBN, for all we know it hasn't been costed just a figure plucked out of the air (with this current government it wouldn't surprise me).

My understanding is that it has been costed correctly (notwithstanding the more recent change to a country first roll out), but that there hasn't been any cost benefit analysis of any significance done. The reason for this is of course obvious.

 

[Scotty]

Nice , Moses.
She is missing a step - the intermediate step where all administrators involved take a big commission and it all blows out by 30% or so and then they find it actually kills people or doesn't work. I believe there is at least 1 precedent for this.

And prior to the first step:

Step 0

Zero planning
Zero thought
Zero care
Lots of bullshit

 

[Gnostic]

My understanding is that it has been costed correctly (notwithstanding the more recent change to a country first roll out), but that there hasn't been any cost benefit analysis of any significance done. The reason for this is of course obvious.

Obviously with the lack of population density in the bush no infrastructure program will meet even the loosest Costing analysis. That said the NBN is just OTT. Fibre to the Hub (or Exchange) is the simplest and upgrades to Hub Capacity is all that is and was needed. A lot of people simply don't understand that most mobile towers are linked to the network via Optic Fibre now and the only "wireless" part is between the handset/modem/dongle and the tower. Like I posted earlier the problem is that capacity of the current infrastructure isn't sufficient and no Private Enterprise Business model will invest the required dollars to increase that capacity because in the Regional areas the ROI is just too low.

 

[Moses]

It's marginally better than the NSW Labor Model:

Step 1: Say what ever you want to get elected
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Do whatever you want

 

[I like to watch]

Step 4: get an earn for your spouse or a good mate

 

[Groucho]

Got sent this e-mail today. What do you techos think?:

Reg, I run a business in this space and I know the first assertion is complete nonsense.

The life of non-fatigued cable is up to 1,000 years. Fatigue means movement. There is no degradation within a conduit, which is the least stressful possible environment. In a typical strung environment (such as between poles) the average life is 60 years. The "bouncy light thing" is actually extremely resilient, which is why fiber is used in the Internet backbone and across the bottom of oceans.

Here is a typical manufacturer specification:

http://www.sterlitetechnologies.com/pdf/KnowledgeCenter/AN0001%20-%20Optical%20Fiber%20Lifetime.pdf

 

[Scotty]

I wonder if Conroy realises how much of an intellectual lightweight he comes across compared to Turnbull. In this article he has written he loves to use the word 'fact' but then doesn't actually back his argument with any facts!

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ireless-pd20100927-9P4Y4?OpenDocument&src=kgb

 

[Sully]

Seemed like a pretty good article to me scotty. Thanks for the link. Conroy seemed to put up some very resonable points.

 

[Scotty]

According to the latest OECD data, Australia has some of the most expensive broadband services in the developed world. This has been exacerbated since the Liberals and Nationals voted to privatise Telstra and create the vertically-integrated monopoly we have today.

The NBN will be a wholesale-only, open access network. It will introduce genuine competition to the telecommunications market and this will open up genuine choice of services and drive highly competitive prices for consumers, whether they live in a capital city or in rural and regional areas. NBN Co will offer a service at a uniform wholesale national price no matter where a premise is located. Already we are seeing competition in action with some very competitive introductory prices on offer in Tasmania.

Just as we look back and wonder how people ever managed without electricity, I have no doubt that our children and grandchildren will look back and wonder how we ever managed without the NBN. The Gillard government is ensuring that every Australian has access to the technology of the future.

It is right to debate projects of the scale and complexity of the NBN, but let’s make sure the facts are at the centre of the debate.

Well, I have a few points to make on the article:

1. He says it will generate competition, however my understanding of the NBN is that it requires the existing networks to be decommisioned. It may actually lead to problems with the ACCC and it likely to lead to less competition!

2. So, in the bolded bit he has said that the prices will be highly competitive and it will also offer services at a uniform national price. Isn't this just a little contradictory?

3. If it is going to offer a uniform national price (ie same for bush as for cities), then one of two things need to happen a) the cities subsidise the bush which will drive up their pricing or b) the government subidises the bush, meaning there won't be any return for them.

4. Labor has constantly banged on about remote diagnosis of medical problems. I still haven't seen one doctor come out and say that is a good thing, and we certainly don't know what the insurance companies think of this (they could flat our refuse to cover it).

5. He notes that Australia has some of the most expensive broadband in the world, however everything that I have heard regarding rumours of the high speed pricing is that it will be more than the current broadband costs. How can he therefore even make this point?

 

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/aus...tasmania-pricing/story-e6frgakx-1225877087315

The initial stage of the Tasmanian NBN build is estimated to have cost $38 million, with industry sources indicating the total cost will hit the $700m mark.

The Tasmanian NBN -- being constructed in partnership by the NBN Co, Aurora Energy and Tasmanian government -- will deliver internet speeds of 100Mbps to 200,000 Tasmanian households and businesses when it is completed within four years.

But just how many of those 200,000 people elect to jump onto the new network remains in serious doubt.

The Australian this week revealed that according to official state government estimates -- suppressed by the federal and Tasmanian governments but released under freedom of information requests -- only 16 per cent of homes and business would opt to connect to the network.

16% of 200,000 homes is around 32,000 estimated to take up the high speed broadband. At a cost of $700,000,000 that works out to be just under $22,000 per user.

At a time where Australia has a significant deficit, is it really a good idea to spend that sort of money on a relatively small % of the population?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm a member of Whirpool and you ought to see the amount of passionate defence of the NBN from the membership. I understand their desire to have the best tech possible, but there is a disconnect on the sheer size of the budget. Anyone who criticises it is branded a Liberal Party voting troglodyte.

 

[I like to watch]

I agree with you brother, it is fucking madness. great for a headline,but a huge waste of $$.
Of the 16% of homes in tas quoted above,how many are actually happy with the speed of the network now, and don't require an upgrade?

Technology is great, and is great PR for the government, but it is not guaranteed to be cost effective.
I know of several schools that have dispensed with students using laptops in class, as it appears there are too many distractions for the kids.
apparently most have a facebook tab open at all time, etc etc.they have moved back to textbooks in most classes
...not exactly great bang for our buck with the Gov laptop rollout.

 

[Scotty]

Interesting article on a (first) speech made in parliament by new LNP member Jane Prentice who has some experience in this area. Along with Turnbull, this is about the most sense I have seen in regards to the government's planned NBN. The more I read about the NBN to more I am convinced that this government is reckless, stubborn and will ultimately damage this country.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ave-had-pd20100930-9RSN5?OpenDocument&src=kgb

 

[Scotty]

Sorry, I also wanted to mention they are extremely arrogant in wanting to force this massive spend on taxpayers, without thoroughly explaining the reasoning, or thoroughly convincing the public.

It parallels the proposed ETS and then the proposed mining tax, where they were intent on treating us like idiots by not explaining the detail. It signifies to me one of two things:

1. Extreme arrogance
2. Realisation they have actually stuffed these things up but are too stubborn to admit it

Either way we should expect more from our government than we are getting.

 

[Scotty]

And some responses to Conroy's 'facts':

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ull-qui-pd20100929-9R8D7?OpenDocument&src=kgb

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Turnbull and Conroy faced off on Lateline last night and Turnbull didn't exactly shoot down the NBN with a great deal of conviction. I think the coalition are gradually losing this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s3025517.htm