The NBN (National Broadband Network)

[boyo]

The old urbanisation canard once again rears its ugly head.

Actually I believe Australia is more urbanised than the US.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2212.html

Australia 89%
UK 80%
US 82%
NZ 86%
Canada 81%
Germany 74%
Japan 91%
South Korea 83%


Interesting stats.

Just goes to show that our urbanisation and population density is perfectly high enough to affordably roll out fibre to 90+% of the nation (like the experts said), and anyone saying otherwise is just making poor excuses.

 

[I like to watch]

Those stats are meaningless.
Australia 89%
UK 80%
Says it all.
The UK would need 10% of the fibre needed to service Australia, and they have 3 or 4 times the population we have.

 

[Sully]

Between cities yes. In cities not really. Our backbone would have to be run in either scenario. If it's not there already.

 

[I like to watch]

Huh?
All I know is NSW more than 3 times the size of the UK,with 10% of its population.
Even if we accept most people live on the coast,NSW is twice as long as the UK.
Between cities is a major part of the rollout cost,you can't just dismiss it.

 

[boyo]

AFAIK there is already fibre between cities - they're not connected by copper.

 

[Sully]

I didn't dismiss it. There is already fibre between our most of our cities.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[boyo]

And, AFAIK, there is already fibre between exchanges - they're not connected by copper.

 

[I like to watch]

Just because it's there doesn't mean it comes at no cost.
Remember that NBN has agreed to pay Telstra $11B for their cabling.
You can't possibly debate it is just as cheap to connect Sydney with Perth,or Townsville,as it does to connect London with Glasgow or Cardiff.
All if which are urban areas.

 

[Sully]

I'm not sure what your trying to argue here. What ever government is in that cost is the same. As for the article Boyo quoted it was about urban density not how big Australia is.

 

[I like to watch]

It's got nothing to do who is in power.
It's to do with cost.
Boyo initially posted that we are more densely populated in urban areas than the UK,inferring that is cheaper to provide the service in Australia than the UK.
Clearly it's not.

 

[Sully]

If only our government hadn't sold our network when they sold our phone company.

 

[Gnostic]

If only our government hadn't sold our network when they sold our phone company.

And the argument can be made that the serious issues with copper network degradation and loss of service in the regional areas would not have been the problem it is now.

 

[boyo]

Just because it's there doesn't mean it comes at no cost.
Remember that NBN has agreed to pay Telstra $11B for their cabling.
You can't possibly debate it is just as cheap to connect Sydney with Perth,or Townsville,as it does to connect London with Glasgow or Cardiff.
All if which are urban areas.

No, the Telstra money pays for access to their ducts, not ownership of the copper.

 

[Runner]

If only our government hadn't sold our network when they sold our phone company.

So as I have said before, -- that it was it is really about creating a new national system run by the government
. Screw the costs or any rational cost benefit etc.

 

[Braveheart81]

No. It's about trying to create a piece of infrastructure that will last us for 50+ years rather than one that relies on a decaying piece of infrastructure that is already 70+ years old and provides a mix of technology that can't be readily upgraded to a solely fibre optic network.

The whole cost benefit analysis idea is going to be entirely flawed nomatter what broadband network you're trying to analyze. Half the benefits are entirely unimaginable at this point in time.

That would be like expecting someone in 1940 to determine the potential economic benefits derived from the internet being accessed over the copper network.

 

[fatprop]

Well, it could be described like the compromise on new freeways.

They open as two lanes either way and everybody knows that 3 or 4 lanes is what is needed in the long term, but they have plans for that widening later as the need/demand develops

 

[Sully]

From what I've heard it would be hard to upgrade.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[boyo]

Well, it could be described like the compromise on new freeways.

They open as two lanes either way and everybody knows that 3 or 4 lanes is what is needed in the long term, but they have plans for that widening later as the need/demand develops

At vastly greater expense than building it properly in the first place, and greater inconvenience for the same reasons (e.g. the debacle with the M2, and the M5, tollway in Sydney).

They would have built the Sydney Harbour Bridge as one road-lane each way because a CBA so advised, without thinking long-term.

 

[I like to watch]

From what I've heard it would be hard to upgrade.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

That is the issue entirely.
Turnbull's solution is logical only if the inevitable upgrade can be done cost effectively.
My cynical view has eventually come around to the fact that it cannot be done cost effectively,as Turnbull never mentions it as an option.
If we spend all this money on a dud,it will dwarf all the ALP fuck ups over 2 terms, and then some.

 

[boyo]

The CBA (not independent, not unbiased,no proper scope, etc.):-

• ignores the cost of maintenance of the copper
• ignores the cost of acquiring, or leasing, the copper and the HFC (cable)

• hides the FTTP productivity benefit assumptions from scrutiny!!!
  Keep in mind that this is estimated at $5-20 Billion/year of increased GDP by an independent 3 year study.
• isn't aware that the average household already have 8 active internet devices
• thinks a copper band-aid solution is "more future proof" than fibre
• completely ignores ALL the Business benefits provided by FTTP and only looks at general consumer benefits
  And while business will be the smaller segment in numbers, it will obviously be vastly greater on a per user basis
• labels the entire NBN an entertainment network
• predicts we'll only need an average of 15mbps per household by 2020
  This strange prediction flies in the face of the demand we have already which is much higher.
• completely ignores the future upgrade cost of Mtm to FTTP
  Again, this is a HUGE cost that is missing completely
• assumes future applications won’t have higher bandwidth requirements (10 years ago we didn't even have faceBook, MySpace or LinkedIn so who knows what Apps we'll be using in another 10 years! e.g. Internet of Things is just starting to take off)