National Broadband Network

Morkel

International Captain
20,492
16,745
Of course I don't have the same detailed knowledge on how it all works. But what you guys are telling me simply does not add up.

So "school" me further:

* To what extent is the HFC network being utilised? Is it being used as part of the main arterials, or is it just being used at the end-points between, say, the nodes and the individual premises?

* As above, but with copper.

From what I understand, the major infrastructure is all being completed in fibre, with the HFC and copper remaining in place / being grafted on purely to connect to the premises, which saves the massive cost of having to dig up every street, and out the front of every home. If that is indeed true, than Kimlo Kimlo's comment of the network not being able to support 5G is baseless.

When we had this same argument a few years ago, you guys in particular were insisting that we needed Labor's original plan of, IIRC, fibre to the premises for between 90 - 95% of properties. My arguments at the time were:

* Australia has such a low population density that we simply can't compare what's viable overseas to here at home. At the 90 - 95% FTTP rate, my property would have been done that way, which is insane considering the distances between properties, and that doesn't include my 200+ metre driveway. I would have benefited from Labor's plan, but I don't think it's a useful use of taxpayer money.

* Staggering the build over time, as opposed to building maximum FTTP as quickly as possible, would take advantage of the fact that, as technology progresses, there may be more cost-effective ways of doing things in the future, or there might be alternative technologies.

Both of the above arguments have proven to be valid. On the first point, didn't Labor present a "revised" NBN plan that recognised that their original 90 - 95% FTTP plan was not feasible, with rates dropped? As for the staggered build, not only have we indeed seen the costs of fibre reduce quite dramatically, but we have also seen genuine alternatives such as wireless technology start to emerge.

And finally, 15 years ago I might have bought the line about Murdoch deliberately wanting to cripple internet speeds in order to freeze out streaming competition, but not now. Besides selling the government a dodgy connectivity service, what motive does he have for keeping fast internet away from Australians?
 

Nashy

International Captain
38,569
13,344
Brisbane
Give up mate. You're just embarrassing yourself for the sake of arguing, and you're losing respect as a person due to it.
 

Morkel

International Captain
20,492
16,745
Give up mate. You're just embarrassing yourself for the sake of arguing, and you're losing respect as a person due to it.
That's my choice. Are you able to answer the questions on how the HFC network links in, as well as how the old copper is being utilised?
 

Nashy

International Captain
38,569
13,344
Brisbane
That's my choice. Are you able to answer the questions on how the HFC network links in, as well as how the old copper is being utilised?
Absolutely I am. But I'm not. GO do the research yourself if you want to have knowledge. In the meantime, **** off from arguing shit you don't know.
 

Kimlo

International Captain
22,823
8,021
Brisbane
Of course I don't have the same detailed knowledge on how it all works. But what you guys are telling me simply does not add up.

So "school" me further:

* To what extent is the HFC network being utilised? Is it being used as part of the main arterials, or is it just being used at the end-points between, say, the nodes and the individual premises?
Billions spent on the Optus network, may as well have thrown the money in a fire pit and watched it burn, because the entire network is trash, and got trashed. Awesome for Optus though, getting paid billions for something they had to bin pretty soon.
* As above, but with copper.
Far too much is the answer. The maintenance required to upkeep shit house copper, the instability, shit speeds, and the fact that it all needs to be replaced probably within a decade or two, required a whole new set of one off constructions which is far more expensive than doing it at bulk rate.
From what I understand, the major infrastructure is all being completed in fibre, with the HFC and copper remaining in place / being grafted on purely to connect to the premises, which saves the massive cost of having to dig up every street, and out the front of every home. If that is indeed true, than Kimlo Kimlo's comment of the network not being able to support 5G is baseless.
Well yeah obviously, no one is going to make any infrastructure in copper because it's absolutely shit, oh yeah, but let's keep it and certainly have to replace it in down the track doubling construction costs. Smart money management. When you do a job, do it half arsed and hope it becomes someone else problem in a few years so you can save about 20% in the meantime.


When we had this same argument a few years ago, you guys in particular were insisting that we needed Labor's original plan of, IIRC, fibre to the premises for between 90 - 95% of properties. My arguments at the time were:

* Australia has such a low population density that we simply can't compare what's viable overseas to here at home. At the 90 - 95% FTTP rate, my property would have been done that way, which is insane considering the distances between properties, and that doesn't include my 200+ metre driveway. I would have benefited from Labor's plan, but I don't think it's a useful use of taxpayer money.
Yes believe it or not, we're fully aware Australia has low population density and it's not comparable to New York, or Beijing in residents per SQM. This isn't news. Labor's plan wasn't set in stone, it wasn't a "fixed" 93% no matter the cost. In certain edge cases, probably likes yours, we could have ended up with FTTC, which is a good compromise, certainly far ahead of FTTN. Yes infrastructure cost money sometimes, we've been over this, it's a revenue generating asset, the government then makes 60,80,100,120 dollars per month in perpetuity from a one off investment which would require very little reinvestment costs when done right. These are the best types of government spending because it's a net benefit to the tax payer. It beats giving 30million to Foxtel when News Corp don't pay one cent in tax.


* Staggering the build over time, as opposed to building maximum FTTP as quickly as possible, would take advantage of the fact that, as technology progresses, there may be more cost-effective ways of doing things in the future, or there might be alternative technologies.
Lol what a load of shit. The material cost is just about negligible in the build. Construction is the majority cost, that's going to cost more every year, not less. I can't wait for you to pretend that you know how wireless networks operate and for you to pretend they are a legitimate alternative to a fixed line infrastructure.

Both of the above arguments have proven to be valid. On the first point, didn't Labor present a "revised" NBN plan that recognised that their original 90 - 95% FTTP plan was not feasible, with rates dropped? As for the staggered build, not only have we indeed seen the costs of fibre reduce quite dramatically, but we have also seen genuine alternatives such as wireless technology start to emerge.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. Yes, because Labor was actually following expert consensus, they would have dropped the original 93% plan probably to around 80%, but certainly not 20 fucking percent that LNP have dropped it to.

Fibre costs reduced dramatically? Where have I heard that before. Oh yeah... Labor's original plan accounted for this, it was part of the costings that fibre would come down in price over time.

What's the genuine wireless alternative, please do tell me. Don't dodge the question, what are these genuine wireless technologies you've seen emerge.
And finally, 15 years ago I might have bought the line about Murdoch deliberately wanting to cripple internet speeds in order to freeze out streaming competition, but not now. Besides selling the government a dodgy connectivity service, what motive does he have for keeping fast internet away from Australians?
Well I thought this was pretty obvious, people who have shitty Internet will generally stick to Foxtel and buying the newspaper. They're less likely to be engrossed in an Internet world where they may have their source of news be any one of a million independent news sources out there. Murdoch can't stop this, but they sure as shit slowed it down.
[/QUOTE]
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,735
4,580
I don’t get what all the disrespect and inflammatory language is for? I find this an interesting topic and am keen to learn more from you guys who understand the finer details, but not at the expense of bullying someone.

Can’t we keep it civil and educative?
 
Last edited:

Nashy

International Captain
38,569
13,344
Brisbane
I don’t what all the disrespect and inflammatory language is for? I find this an interesting topic and am keen to learn more from you guys who understand the finer details, but not at the expense of bullying someone.

Can’t we keep it civil and educative?
Only if we start to see some actual truths from Tony and his bullshit "knowledge".
 

john1420

NRL Player
I'm actually losing respect for some people in here because of the way they are speaking to one another

Sure you can disagree with each other, but some of the communication in here is toxic

Justify it any way you want, I'm a relative outsider to the discussion and have no horse in this race, and there's just no excuse for how you are writing

Had I been a newcomer to these forums, I would have left
 

Nashy

International Captain
38,569
13,344
Brisbane
I'm actually losing respect for some people in here because of the way they are speaking to one another

Sure you can disagree with each other, but some of the communication in here is toxic

Justify it any way you want, I'm a relative outsider to the discussion and have no horse in this race, and there's just no excuse for how you are writing

Had I been a newcomer to these forums, I would have left
If I was a newcomer and saw someone arguing with false facts, I'd probably leave too. But your point is taken, and I've already informed Morkel that I'm done here. It's the only thing in this thread he seems actually informed about.
 

Morkel

International Captain
20,492
16,745
Thanks for your reply. I know it's just homouring me, and the others have tapped out, but here are my thoughts:

Billions spent on the Optus network, may as well have thrown the money in a fire pit and watched it burn, because the entire network is trash, and got trashed. Awesome for Optus though, getting paid billions for something they had to bin pretty soon.
This is the one part of the argument that I'll concede. While the idea had merit - an existing network that could theoretically handle most of what the current NBN offers (certainly higher speeds than copper), the reality proved different.

Far too much is the answer. The maintenance required to upkeep shit house copper, the instability, shit speeds, and the fact that it all needs to be replaced probably within a decade or two, required a whole new set of one off constructions which is far more expensive than doing it at bulk rate.
That doesn't answer the question on its usage. The arguments here have suggested that there are critical sections of the NBN that are dramatically compromised by using copper, akin to bottlenecks where there should be freeways. But that is simply not the truth. Copper only remains in the sections that connect the nodes to the house. The major arterials of the network are fibre.

In economical terms, replacing them "in a decade or two" at least allows the cost to spread over that time, if it is even required at all. Remembering of course that when this debate started, and still continues, we're in a defecit, and any money we "spend" on infrastructure like this is effectively borrowed, and acrues interest. Staging it out over time, instead of borrowing it all immediately, makes sense.

Well yeah obviously, no one is going to make any infrastructure in copper because it's absolutely shit, oh yeah, but let's keep it and certainly have to replace it in down the track doubling construction costs. Smart money management. When you do a job, do it half arsed and hope it becomes someone else problem in a few years so you can save about 20% in the meantime.
As above. Except in real terms, it's not a 20% saving. From what I understand, when costs are factored in in a "per connection" basis for FTTP, the largest cost is actually the connection from the node to the premises.

Yes believe it or not, we're fully aware Australia has low population density and it's not comparable to New York, or Beijing in residents per SQM. This isn't news. Labor's plan wasn't set in stone, it wasn't a "fixed" 93% no matter the cost. In certain edge cases, probably likes yours, we could have ended up with FTTC, which is a good compromise, certainly far ahead of FTTN. Yes infrastructure cost money sometimes, we've been over this, it's a revenue generating asset, the government then makes 60,80,100,120 dollars per month in perpetuity from a one off investment which would require very little reinvestment costs when done right. These are the best types of government spending because it's a net benefit to the tax payer. It beats giving 30million to Foxtel when News Corp don't pay one cent in tax.

Lol what a load of shit. The material cost is just about negligible in the build. Construction is the majority cost, that's going to cost more every year, not less. I can't wait for you to pretend that you know how wireless networks operate and for you to pretend they are a legitimate alternative to a fixed line infrastructure.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. Yes, because Labor was actually following expert consensus, they would have dropped the original 93% plan probably to around 80%, but certainly not 20 fucking percent that LNP have dropped it to.
And here's the thing. Again, when this debate originally started, the Fanboying was over Labor's FTTP overkill plan, which was that ~93%. Which is why I am doggedly refuting the "LNP's plan will cost more" claim. Even at 80% FTTP, there is no way the LNP's version will come close to what Labor were prepared to spend.

There are even more recent "alternative" versions that Labor have suggested with lower percentages again. Which is what leads me to believe that there isn't an actual figure or saturation or strategy that many people here believe to be a viable target. It's just whatever Labor's plans were at that point, because whatever it was, it was more than the LNP's. It was simply Moar Fibre is better, regardless of its viability.

Fibre costs reduced dramatically? Where have I heard that before. Oh yeah... Labor's original plan accounted for this, it was part of the costings that fibre would come down in price over time.

What's the genuine wireless alternative, please do tell me. Don't dodge the question, what are these genuine wireless technologies you've seen emerge.
There was a noted and definite trend, as mobile phone adoption became more prevalent, of people ditching their fixed home line, and simply using the mobile as their all-purpose phone. Now that the NBN has killed off active "telephone" lines, all communications, voice or otherwise, are technically just data transfer. Meaning that there is effectively no need to have a physical line, any data connection is fine.

They've already started rolling out 5G hubs, and even though they're quick to claim that they're not yet intended to replace your home internet connection, there is certainly the case for it to become more mainstream in the future.

How far? Well, you said above that the shitty old copper lines will need replacing "in the next decade or two". That gives us plenty of time, especially with how fast wireless technology keeps advancing. Hence my stance that it's not set in stone that these copper and cable connection will absolutely need to be updated to fibre. Yes, it will be a massive undertaking to roll out 5G beyond the major cities, but it's essentially inevitible. And if not 5G, another form of high speed mobile communication will be developed to suit, unless you believe that mobile communications will halt in progress for some reason? The fact that 5G at this point is already faster than what you can get with most FTTP connections suggests to me that wholesale adoption, making it commercially viable for a mass rollout, isn't simply the musings of an uninformed idiot who thinks they know stuff about internet things.

Well I thought this was pretty obvious, people who have shitty Internet will generally stick to Foxtel and buying the newspaper. They're less likely to be engrossed in an Internet world where they may have their source of news be any one of a million independent news sources out there. Murdoch can't stop this, but they sure as shit slowed it down.
Yeah, again, 15 years ago that would make sense. But newspapers are dead. Foxtel itself has been moving to a streaming-type service for over a decade now, and there have been quality alternatives to Foxtel that have worked with our "shitty, slow internet" for a long while now. So it seems to me that Murdoch knobbling internet speeds is going against his business interests. This argument just stinks of a bullshit scare / conspiracy campaign. Kind of like how at the start we were being told that the LNP's NBN plan would be dire for the health and education sectors, that they simply would not have the internet speeds to be able to keep up with modern technology and "why won't people think of the children". That proved to be bullshit as well.

Feel free to exit this conversation yourself. But I'm not going to run away from discussing it because some guys think they solely possess all of the knowledge on a topic, and try to bully people out of it because they can't possibly comprehend its merits.
 
Last edited:

Nashy

International Captain
38,569
13,344
Brisbane
First 10Gbps connections looking to be going live. Single headline destroys Morkel's already buggered argument. Wireless is a dream of old white males, but no experts.
 

Nashy

International Captain
38,569
13,344
Brisbane
Sooo...who should I sign up with?

TLDR
I'm recommending Aussie at the moment, but I think soup soup said Tangerine has an ongoing discount, so worth a look. I don't know much about them myself, so not sure how they handle the tech stuff from an NBN point of view, they review well.
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,735
4,580
I'm recommending Aussie at the moment, but I think soup soup said Tangerine has an ongoing discount, so worth a look. I don't know much about them myself, so not sure how they handle the tech stuff from an NBN point of view, they review well.
Nah, I’m with Aussie BB on that coupon like you. $80/month, unlimited, 100/40, FTTP.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Feel free to exit this conversation yourself. But I'm not going to run away from discussing it because some guys think they solely possess all of the knowledge on a topic, and try to bully people out of it because they can't possibly comprehend its merits.
No, it's not that you can't, it's that you won't even try to.

You accused us of self-interest, when you're the one arguing based on what you think is right for tax-payers, which is quite arrogant to start with, and uses arguments which are wrong.
Here is a study done with a realistic cost/benefit comparison between FTTN and FTTP. Please chew on it before spewing more idiocy on the matter:

https://telsoc.org/sites/default/files/tja/pdf/55-522-1-pb.pdf

FYI, wireless (5G or whichever technology) is actually much better suited for low density rural areas as opposed to urban ones, because the amount of additional infrastructure (towers, antennas, power supply, fibre supply, converters, etc...) it would require to cover the traffic volume, would be exponentially dearer than FTTP and you would have this literally EVERYWHERE:
5363

No country in the world is considering wireless to cover broadband needs in urban areas currently or in the near future (10-20 yrs), when FTTN will already be incapable of supporting the required volumes and speed.
Countries which chose in the past to roll FTTN out (UK and Germany for example) with similar arguments as provided by the LNP here, are now upgrading to FTTP, making their previous investment a waste.
 

Morkel

International Captain
20,492
16,745
No, it's not that you can't, it's that you won't even try to.

You accused us of self-interest, when you're the one arguing based on what you think is right for tax-payers, which is quite arrogant to start with, and uses arguments which are wrong.
Here is a study done with a realistic cost/benefit comparison between FTTN and FTTP. Please chew on it before spewing more idiocy on the matter:

https://telsoc.org/sites/default/files/tja/pdf/55-522-1-pb.pdf

FYI, wireless (5G or whichever technology) is actually much better suited for low density rural areas as opposed to urban ones, because the amount of additional infrastructure (towers, antennas, power supply, fibre supply, converters, etc...) it would require to cover the traffic volume, would be exponentially dearer than FTTP and you would have this literally EVERYWHERE:
View attachment 5363

No country in the world is considering wireless to cover broadband needs in urban areas currently or in the near future (10-20 yrs), when FTTN will already be incapable of supporting the required volumes and speed.
Countries which chose in the past to roll FTTN out (UK and Germany for example) with similar arguments as provided by the LNP here, are now upgrading to FTTP, making their previous investment a waste.
Thanks, I'll have a read.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top