
Why the NBN needs to go the full way - callumjones
http://callumj.com/post/60421062721/why-the-nbn-needs-go-the-full-way
======
zmmmmm
I'm not sure that is all accurate (umm, light and electricity travel at the
same speed ...), but I agree with the central idea: fibre is the next
generation of technology, copper is the last. We can fully expect that just as
massive speed increases were achieved on copper, so too will they be on fibre.
Gen 1 of fibre is already 10x better than the last generation of copper - how
much better will generation 2, 3, 4 be? And fibre is potentially even more
upgradeable than copper - it's just a channel for light, the throughput is
limited by the boxes at either end which can be incrementally upgraded at low
cost.

The scary thing is that you only get to do something like this once every 20 -
50 years. So whatever you install needs to well and truly anticipate the
future. Spending billions of dollars to install technology that is already at
the end of its generation is insane. If people are voting thinking "well the
time just isn't right for it", they have to realize - there is not going to be
another NBN. It just isn't going to happen, (effectively) ever. Not least
because every up and coming politician is watching and learning from this that
you don't get rewarded for having any vision about infrastructure. All it does
is open up opportunity for your opponents to propose something cheaper and
accuse you of waste. It will be very sad if that is the take away lesson from
this election.

~~~
jacques_chester
Part of the problem is how badly it has been planned and managed from the very
beginning.

How fast is the actual rollout?

We don't know. Commercial-in-confidence. And NBNCo say they don't keep figures
down to the street level anyhow (which begs the question of which basis they
are using to pay contractors).

How much has already been borrowed? We don't know. Commercial-in-confidence.

How much has been spent? We don't know. Commercial-in-confidence.

Insofar as we have to dig up half the flaming countryside, FTTP is probably
worth it on a long-term basis. _But that doesn 't excuse the project from
normal project management requirements_.

And it _shouldn 't_ be excused from being transparent to the Parliament and
public. The abuse of commercial-in-confidence for companies _completely owned
by the government_ is a backdoor for politicians of all stripes to avoid
budgetary accountability while still leaving states and the commonwealth on
the hook for debts incurred.

Where was the proper front end cost/benefit analysis? There wasn't one. Where
was the 3-5 years of planning, surveying and preparation? There wasn't any.
Where is the proper contract management? Oh, I guess we'll let NBNCo contract
it to Telstra who will contract it to an engineering firm who will contract it
to that bloke who has a van and who used to work for Optus.

Ends are important. But for the amount of money spent, so are the bloody
means.

~~~
threeseed
I am so sick of this obsession with cost/benefit analysis.

How can you possibly quantify the future benefits of the NBN ? Nobody could
have predicted that when the copper lines were installed that one day it would
be primarily used for the internet. And the historic changes to the world
economy it has caused. So why even attempt to do it ? Or why not just say it
will cost $50 billion but result in $500 trillion worth of benefits.

~~~
40
Australia is not the first to do FTTP. You don't have to wait, its already
available in many countries.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_countr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country)

You can also look at how much people valued the additional speed, what new
things they did, etc.

Wish someone would write an article summarising the overseas experience of
FTTP.

Also, what is opportunity cost of NBN? Could we spend money to create a high-
tech sector in Australia perhaps?

The ALP tend to use the NBN as a catch-all for tech policy - "don't worry we
have innovation covered - its all the NBN".

~~~
eru
> Wish someone would write an article summarising the overseas experience of
> FTTP.

Works well in Singapore. Just the cable that goes out form Singapore to, say,
the US is not fat enough.

------
NamTaf
The problem with the NBN is that Labor has, like so many other of their
policies, sold it beyond terribly.

It's about 2 things, and neither are raw download speed.

1) It's about upload speed. That's the major upgrade that we don't see right
now. As the net moves towards more and more user-generated content (youtube,
dropbox file relocation, etc.) it's going to be upload speeds that are the
Achilles heel of these technologies working.

2) Related to #1 and perhaps even more importantly, it's about leveling the
playing field. Right now, if you design an online service you have to assume
someone has DSL at 1.5Mb/sec down, as that's the minimum guaranteed DSL
connection.

You can't assume people can stream HD. You can't assume people can move
multiple GB of data down in a reasonable time, or even _hundreds of MB up_ in
a reasonable time. All of these assumptions play a crucial role in what online
services can deliver in this country.

It would be as if some new technology came along for our road network that
allowed people to drive safely at 500km/hr but there's also a cheaper
alternative that allowed travelling at 200km/hr, then focusing on whether we
need to be able to drive at 500km/hr or 200km/hr over our existing road
network to get to work or not. That's completely missing the point. The thing
that a 500km/hr road network allows you to do is completely change how and
where towns are constructed.

Suddenly, traveling from Sydney to Melbourne by road is trivial, rather than a
plane trip as it currently is. People can live in Newcastle (for non-AU
people, a small industrial satellite town of Sydney) but work quite
conveniently in Sydney, changing the game for the real estate pricing problems
Sydney presently faces.

The problem is that people are extrapolating present-day experiences to this
new tech and that is completely missing the point. Doing what we currently do,
only faster, is about 1% of the puzzle. The overwhelming majority of the
advantage comes about from completely changing the landscape on what online
services can do, what they can assume, and how they will go on to affect what
will undoubtedly be a huge array of facets of our day-to-day life.

When we upgraded from 56k dial-up to DSL, it wasn't about loading animated
spinning wireframe skull gifs from Geocities faster. It was about being able
to stream audio and (eventually) video. The landscape changed and suddenly
Netflix/YouTube/etc. became possible.

~~~
40
You can already find plenty case studies on the NBN here:
[http://www.nbn.gov.au/case-studies/](http://www.nbn.gov.au/case-studies/) and
here: [http://www.nbnco.com.au/nbn-for-business/case-
studies.html](http://www.nbnco.com.au/nbn-for-business/case-studies.html)

The problem I see is that most are already possible with current internet
speeds.

The ones like media production studios ([http://www.nbnco.com.au/nbn-for-
business/case-studies/increa...](http://www.nbnco.com.au/nbn-for-
business/case-studies/increasing-international-competitiveness.html)) do offer
new opportunities which aren't possible with ADSL2.

The only issue here is that they can easily afford to pay the 2K for FTTH
under the Coalition policy.

~~~
NamTaf
My DSL, at 6km from the CBD of a city of >2 million, syncs at about 3400kbps
down and 700kbps up. I struggle to stream 720p video unless it's compressed to
oblivion. Purchasing games on Steam is an overnight (plus potentially during
work the following day) affair to actually get the content. Grabbing trial
software (stats packages and VMs are two that I've encountered so far) to do
online study are hours of waiting.

60-70KB/sec upload means that producing video content is out of the question.
It means that dropbox-style syncing of content I produce on my mobile device
to the could is not possible. Services like crashplan are a far-away dream.

There's many, many things that are not possible even with our current DSL
network, even for people who are living in the highly developed parts of this
country. Never mind those who are out in rural areas and for whom DSL is even
more crippled.

~~~
Wingman4l7
Yeah, for those not in the know -- unless you're just a couple of km away from
your local telephone exchange, you can kiss goodbye any hope of 21st century
sync speeds. It's amazing how quickly the speeds drop off.

If you want to get an idea of this, just look at the "DSLAM maps" for a major
Australian ISP: [http://www.tpg.com.au/maps/](http://www.tpg.com.au/maps/)

------
Wingman4l7
It's maddening to see a such a shortsighted attempt to cut costs by
essentially un-future-proofing brand new infrastructure. Heck, why not replace
the last leg with a couple of cans and a piece of string? It'd be even cheaper
then! >.<

It's such a false economy!

~~~
sien
Apparently you will be able to pay for fibre all the way yourself.

Turnbull says about 2K, the ALP 5K. Delimeter seems to indicate toward the
lower value.

[http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/23/open-deception-
albanese-c...](http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/23/open-deception-albanese-
continually-misleading-public-coalition-nbn-policy/)

~~~
gd1
Seems fair. Some quick maths says that 200 billion dollars (just you watch it
blow out) / 30 million people = roughly $6600 per man, woman and child living
in Australia. Probably $12k per taxpayer. Seems fair to make the user pay for
a bit of that rather than dump the debt on the next generation. I know people
don't like to let little things like numbers intrude on their socialist
utopia, but this is real money I'm afraid...

~~~
jsmeaton
We already are paying - with our taxes. Not to mention that this is an
investment which will pay back to the government. NBNCo will be getting paid
for use.

Pay-to-connect isn't available to the users who'd want it most - young people.
And I don't just mean unaffordable. If you're renting, good luck convincing
your land lord to splash out $4k every time you move.

~~~
eru
Just only move to apartments that have the fibre. People are already doing
that with windows and bathrooms.

~~~
Wingman4l7
That's hardly a reasonable solution -- people have to first consider bigger
things like proximity to their place of work, good schools, whether or not
pets are allowed, etc.

~~~
eru
Sure. For lets of people internet access ranks pretty high, though. And for
land lords it's not necessary about getting tenants at all, but being able to
charge a premium.

------
40
The difference between the two policies is ideology. ALP wants everyone to
have same speeds regional/city, rich/poor, home/business. ALP wants fairness -
this is their guiding ideology as a party in general. This obviously comes at
an additional cost, scope and risk (lack of competition, cost-blowouts, etc.).

NLP is just less concerned with fairness and more concerned with cost/benefit
even if that means that some people will not have access to the fastest
possible internet.

Life is not fair. Look at private/public with respect to schools, uni, health
insurance, taxation, etc. Top 25% earners pay 60% of tax. Some children will
never be able to attend a private school. Some will never have access to
certain treatments or medication. Some will never be able to afford the things
they want.

Some people are okay with this, others are not. Both parties will work towards
measurable outcomes but in the large areas of grey they fall back to their
ideologies.

Yes, the benefits of FTTH are fantastic, but its important not to get swept up
in thinking we must do something at all costs.

There are very sensitive assumptions that underpin the cost of the NBN which
would change the cost of it substantially such as how many people sign up, how
much they will be prepared to pay, etc. There are plenty of risks to the
project and even more so considering the involvement of the government. These
are just some reasons to be very considerate about the cost.

The ALP worries less about wasteful spending than the LNP. This is easy to do
because its only in the long-term where we have to make tough spending
decisions because of past wasteful spending.

In the same way you can't fathom the opportunities brought about by the NBN,
you also can't fathom the future challenges to the country - ageing
population, world population growth, climate change, war, etc.

The frustration the author feels about having a focus on cost/benefit and risk
will only become apparent with time. I could argue for anything too if I
didn't have to address how much it costs.

~~~
pugz
To be fair, the LNP has a reputation for concern re: cost/benefit analyses,
but that has not carried over to their VDSL proposition. The ARPU (average
revenue per user) possible on a VDSL network is far less than on a FTTP
network (no multiplay, a cap on higher speeds, etc) and this lesser ARPU is
not commensurate with the marginally cheaper LNP proposal.

If the ratio of ARPU to rollout costs were equal, it would be an issue. The
issue is that a VDSL network would not be able to recoup the construction cost
proposed by the LNP.

------
cpayne
I always thought it was a silly argument until I was using my laptop in
London. Getting 20 meg downloads just blew my mind away.

For me, it changed everything. (Non technical) friends just didn't bother with
torrents anymore. It was easier for them to download a movie legitimately
instead of all the mucking around...

~~~
shirro
Keep in mind that Rupert Murdoch owns half of Foxtel which is the main cable
tv network in Australia as well as owning most of the newspapers (he has a
monopoly in several states). The argument that you can watch tv from companies
like Netflix under an NBN is one of the main reasons the opposition is getting
an easy run from the media here. Every year Rupert is spared that is millions
more in the bank. The ALP were a bit disorganised and people might not like
some of their policies but Australia's economic record under them is solid.
Good enough for the Economist to give them the nod anyway.

~~~
thejosh
It's funny when people say RT is a propaganda machine, when all major news
here is from one source. :)

~~~
shirro
Rupie's dad was briefly the Australian Director General for Information during
WWII but apparently nobody could stand him. Our answer to Goebbels. They don't
fall far from the tree.

------
smutticus
Australia has a chance to do something really amazing here. Shame it looks
like they'll miss the chance.

It's really only partly about fibre vs DSL. It's also about the new incentive
structure that FTTH would create in the Australian broadband market. An FTTH
NBN would be an economic game changer in AU.

~~~
Wingman4l7
Yes, god forbid that Telstra would actually have to work a bit for its bread.

------
damian2000
Everyone in tech I know wants it, but the problem is also the speed of rollout
- it would be several years on their current schedule before most people would
get it. Probably a moot point too, given the likely outcome of the election.

~~~
schappim
Yeah I live on the North Shore in Sydney and there are currently "no plans"
for the NBN in my area.

~~~
shirro
I was a couple of years away here but I was really looking forward to the NBN.
Telstra has the only ADSL ports in town and pricing for what by world
standards is a reasonably shit service is crazy.

If I have to munge a lot of data I just do it on a VPS and shuffle data back
and forth to different cloud storage. I try and avoid downloading anything I
might have to send back. I created a pipeline to process some video for work
from the home/office it was way too painful on ADSL.

I can't imagine what it is like if you are a content producer. Just syncing my
mobile camera images when I get home takes forever. And if my wife and I try
to do Coursera and both kids wanted to watch ABC iView on their iPads
everything just stops. With everything moving to HD and pretty much all
services (including education) moving online my kids future is looking bleak
unless something radical happens.

We have substandard services for lots of things in rural areas including
health and education but being withheld a quality Internet service by
Telstra/Murdoch/Abbott might be the last straw for us.

------
schappim
The most cost effective thing the Australian government can do to better the
experience of Australians is to subsidise hosting in Australia. The cost of
hosting a server in a data centre is 2-3x the US. If you've ever been in San
Francisco you'd have experienced how all the web services feel like they're
running on localhost!

~~~
jacques_chester
Last I checked, Australia only has a few international pipes operated by a
cost duopoly. All traffic is charged at high rates because it can go over
those very expensive lines to the US, Guam or Singapore.

All it means is that the NBN will be expensive unless and until a third player
enters the market ... and _doesn 't_ get immediately bought out.

~~~
Wingman4l7
Duopoly? Who, besides Telstra, owns pipes? Optus?

~~~
jacques_chester
Looks like I've misread the current state of supply:

[http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/net-capacity-
down...](http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/net-capacity-down-to-
wire-20130416-2hvvi.html)

Looks more like an oligopoly of 5 companies. Australian bandwidth charges are
well above international benchmarks.

~~~
Wingman4l7
> Australian bandwidth charges are well above international benchmarks.

Along with costs of mobile phone service, housing, electronics, appliances,
beer, and damn near everything else.

------
jbarham
As a relatively recent arrival to Australia I'm surprised that that there
isn't more skepticism about the long term wisdom of granting wholesale
internet access for the entire country to a single government funded monopoly.

It's absurd to hear politicians argue about how networks should be built. IMO
that is the role of a competitive market.

~~~
elithrar
The issue there is that it is _extremely_ difficult for a private organisation
without existing cable assets to deploy a new fibre network.

Land access, easement issues, pit access/location/sharing and so on are very
difficult problems with no single solution.

Private industry wouldn't be able to take the risk.

~~~
Wingman4l7
Not to mention that the second the big telcos _(read: Telstra)_ got wind of
someone trying to compete, they'd use regulatory capture and other dirty
tricks to ensure that the newcomer had a snowball's chance in hell of
succeeding.

------
pauly007
Let us start at the fact the fed gov originally put construction of the NBN
out to tender. After considering proposals from the worlds leading broadband
infrastructure experts they decided that NO proposal could satisfy the market
saturation they needed nor come in at cost point that was reasonable (there
was one or the other but not both). So despite having had no experience in the
field, the Gov took on the responsibility as contractor and client as well.
First red flag.

Who owns this new infrastructure? The gov. What historically have federal and
state governments done with valuable infrastructure assets? Sold them.
Profiting? Don't make me laugh. Quick cash grabs have been at the heart of
filling budget black holes in this country and the NBN won't be safe either.
You're kidding yourself if you think it is.

So that leaves us with Telecom to Telstra, phase 2. It will put us back at the
same limitations the current DSL debacle has left us in but oh it promises soo
much more. If only our ideals became reality.

Is there a better way? Legislation currently restricts any company from
building a competing network. Prior to the NBN, Telstra owned the
infrastructure, period. After the NBN, even Telstra will be forced to use the
NBN to provide broadband services to its residential customers. This sets a
wholesale base price, creates an unnecessary retail layer on top, leaves
little in the way of competition for the ISPs.. hold on. Haven't we just seen
this with Electricity? That's working for us! Even if iiNet wanted to roll out
FTTH before the NBN got there, they couldn't. Google want to come in and build
a 1gbps network, sorry guys, we're not having that! But the NBN is fair, it's
so reasonable, we won't ever need anything more because government dictates
that innovation doesn't have to come at the infrastructure level, no just
build services that run on it - that's all we're good for!

There are few people in Australia that know fibre like Bevan Slattery, founder
of Pipe Networks. He is most known for building PPC-1, the $200m link from
Sydney to Guam, forcing wholesale data prices to fall dramatically overnight.
After taking the company public, they were taken over by TPG (the ISP, not the
private equity firm) for $375m in March 2010. The rumour is he won big by
buying the Telecom dark fibre assets that Telstra didn't want, connecting East
Coast data centres from Brisbane to Melbourne, via Sydney, and owning the
market for interstate DC redundancy. He is a man that knows all the
difficulties in building fibre infrastructure in this country and has been a
staunch critic of the NBN from the beginning. Not because having FTTH wouldn't
be fantastic but because the game the government is trying to play, is one
they can't win.

Here's how I think you build a better NBN.

1) Kill the idea the GOV needs to connect 93% of homes, schools and workplaces
to fibre. 2) Prioritise GOVs efforts to invest solely in building a strong
fibre backbone (think of our existing highway/motorway network). Allow
inexpensive access to ISPs. Legislate a restriction on selling infrastructure
for the next 99 years. 3) Legislate to allow competition in building new
broadband infrastructure, particularly fibre. This involves allowing
businesses to use existing underground conduit (even that built for other
services - power, water, etc.) inexpensively or grant licence to put in new
conduit and pits where suits. 4) Keep legislation that require new
developments to be wired with fibre, not copper. 5) Cut the cost of accessing
premium wireless spectrum and open limited ex-analog tv spectrum for free.
Legislate against monopoly/duopoly leasing of spectrum, it must be opened to
multiple providers. 6) Provide up to 100% tax deduction to investors who back
broadband infrastructure projects, in exactly the same way they were offered
to those people investing in Timber Plantation projects throughout the
1990s/2000s. 7) Target 'dark' areas that ISPs are unlikely to cover (regional
and outback) and provide high-speed 4g access in either sole government or
government-private partnership.

This plan encourages competition. It will allow companies like Google to offer
massive speeds/data for low costs. IT will encourage new businesses to build
new technology, the 4G LTE Advanced of the future! Consumers will get a better
deal, government will be able to focus on other much needed infrastructure
spending (roads, hospitals, schools) and overall everyone will experience the
best of what technology has to offer, because it will be able to be offered.

That's my incredibly long two cents - now tell me I'm crazy. But before you
cry out and say but I live in Macksville, NSW, its out of the way and no
company will build there.. I'm talking about allowing an ISP, no matter how
small, to connect to the (mythical) Macksville NBN pit off the Pacific
Highway, very affordably, and sell high-speed services over fibre or wifi to
the residents of Macksville at a reasonable price. Won't they price gauge the
consumer? Unlikely given that a competitor can connect to the (mythical)
Macksville NBN pit off the Pacific Highway, very affordably, and sell high-
speed..... ahh you get the picture!

Okay, now you can tell me I'm crazy.

