The Vast differences Between the NBN and the Coalition’s Alternative

By Nick Ross ABC Technology and Games

The Coalition’s broadband policy slogan states that they will “Complete the current NBN cheaper and faster.” This simply isn’t true.

We’ll continue to cover the sketchy claims of being ‘faster’ and ‘cheaper’ in other articles but for now we’ll focus on the supposed similarities and differences.

The Coalition’s NBN alternative is different by almost every measure. It uses different technologies to connect the bulk of the country; it has different uses and applications; it affects Australia’s health service differently; it provides different levels of support in emergencies and natural disasters; it requires a different amount of power to operate; the cost of maintenance is different; the overall cost, the return on investment and the re-sale value are different; the management, ownership, governance, competition and monopoly factors will be different; it has a different life-span and upgradability issues; the effect on businesses (of all sizes) and GDP is different; the effects on television are different; the effect on Senior Citizens is different; the viability and potential for cost blowouts is different; the costs of buying broadband will be different; the reliability is different; the effect on property prices will be different; the timescale is different; the legacy is different. Ultimately, it has completely different aims.

In just about every case the Coalition’s alternative compares unfavourably to the current plans – and usually in dramatic fashion. That’s based upon the facts and the information currently available in the public domain…

The net cost is zero and it will pay for itself in at least four different ways. Rather than using tax-payer’s money that could be used on other things (a common myth) it sees Australia borrowing $27bn using its Triple-A credit rating (Australia is currently one of only seven countries in the world to have this. It provides us with the cheapest form of borrowing) to use in addition to another $11bn of private investment. This money ultimately comes back to the government with a seven per cent profit.

In addition, the cost savings to existing infrastructures, particularly health and power generation are such that the money saved from their annual bills will pay for the network on their own…

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/02/21/3695094.htm

As a result of the above and similar articles Nick Ross ended up having a couple of exchanges with Malcolm Turnbull which resulted in Bruce Belsham, his ABC line manager, having a ‘little chat’ with him.

Last night’s Media Watch examined the issue in detail:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3713148.htm

Nick’s such a rebel. A rebel with a cause.

I sometimes think that Nick’s analysis is a bit too complex. It can be boiled down to a few simple points:

The copper network will be inadequate to meet future demand. So some upgrade is necessary.

At first glance the NBN at $36 billion dollars looks expensive and an overkill.

A cheaper fibre to the node system at around $15 billion looks a better alternative, but there is a legal landmine of around $20 billion dollars compensation to Telstra for resuming control of Telstra’s last mile of copper. The network that was sold off by a previous government that real people paid real money to buy shares in. Taking that back means paying compensation to Telstra – its in the Constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s the vibe etc. So the real cost of the FTTN is around $35 billion.

So for around about the same price, what to build? Bear in mind that eventually the FTTN will need to be upgraded to the full FTTP anyway, and that will cost an additional $15 billion or so to do it. So do you go fukk FTTP in one step at $36 billion, or FTTP in two steps via FTTN at a total cost of around $20 billion?

Seems such a no-brainer to me. I can’t understand why anyone is even still talking abiut FTTN being cheaper or quicker.

party_pants said:

I sometimes think that Nick’s analysis is a bit too complex. It can be boiled down to a few simple points:

The copper network will be inadequate to meet future demand. So some upgrade is necessary.

At first glance the NBN at $36 billion dollars looks expensive and an overkill.

A cheaper fibre to the node system at around $15 billion looks a better alternative, but there is a legal landmine of around $20 billion dollars compensation to Telstra for resuming control of Telstra’s last mile of copper. The network that was sold off by a previous government that real people paid real money to buy shares in. Taking that back means paying compensation to Telstra – its in the Constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s the vibe etc. So the real cost of the FTTN is around $35 billion.

So for around about the same price, what to build? Bear in mind that eventually the FTTN will need to be upgraded to the full FTTP anyway, and that will cost an additional $15 billion or so to do it. So do you go fu11 FTTP in one step at $36 billion, or FTTP in two steps via FTTN at a total cost of around $*50* billion?

Seems such a no-brainer to me. I can’t understand why anyone is even still talking abiut FTTN being cheaper or quicker.

fixed.

Here is a reposte to Nicks rantings, it cites nearly 50 errors and misrepresentations he made and the bloke is pretty objective unlike crazy Nick.

http://www.commsday.com/blog/a-riposte-to-nick-ross-and-slipshod-nbn-advocacy-from-cthe-abc

From PWM’s link:

>It is also quite likely that many elderly people will choose not to subscribe to NBN internet services if they lack digital literacy skills<

I see, so we’re going to be stuck with the same generation of old people ‘til the end of time, the ones who don’t know much about all this internet stuff.

Peak Warming Man said:

Here is a reposte to Nicks rantings, it cites nearly 50 errors and misrepresentations he made and the bloke is pretty objective unlike crazy Nick.

http://www.commsday.com/blog/a-riposte-to-nick-ross-and-slipshod-nbn-advocacy-from-cthe-abc

The argument is not fundamentally a technical one, it’s a legal one. No government can resume control of the copper network without paying compensation to Telstra. Estimates published in 2010 were around the $20 billion dollar mark. The reason being – Telstra was sold. There is no getting around this landmine.

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Here is a reposte to Nicks rantings, it cites nearly 50 errors and misrepresentations he made and the bloke is pretty objective unlike crazy Nick.

http://www.commsday.com/blog/a-riposte-to-nick-ross-and-slipshod-nbn-advocacy-from-cthe-abc

The argument is not fundamentally a technical one, it’s a legal one. No government can resume control of the copper network without paying compensation to Telstra. Estimates published in 2010 were around the $20 billion dollar mark. The reason being – Telstra was sold. There is no getting around this landmine.

The one Johnny Howard planted.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Here is a reposte to Nicks rantings, it cites nearly 50 errors and misrepresentations he made and the bloke is pretty objective unlike crazy Nick.

http://www.commsday.com/blog/a-riposte-to-nick-ross-and-slipshod-nbn-advocacy-from-cthe-abc

The argument is not fundamentally a technical one, it’s a legal one. No government can resume control of the copper network without paying compensation to Telstra. Estimates published in 2010 were around the $20 billion dollar mark. The reason being – Telstra was sold. There is no getting around this landmine.

The one Johnny Howard planted.

Well, there is one way around it. Allow Telstra to build their own private FTTN network with their own money, but exclude third party access to it.

That plan was presented to the Howard government in 2005, who said no on the basis that good public policy needs competition in the market. So Telstra decided it wasn’t economically viable on that basis and scrapped it.

Any plan that requires open third party access requires the government to own the network.

>>The one Johnny Howard planted.<<

The one Paul Keating planted and Johnny Howard defused.

The top of the Commsday “riposte” goes:

“Over 80 per cent of the nation’s copper network is over 30-years old and copper expires after 30 years” – if the copper has truly expired how can it still be operational? Telstra reports fault-free performance of over 99% after all (98.7% for line faults, 99.98% for service availability).

“A standalone reason for the NBN is that it replaces the expired ‘rotting’ copper network” and “The Coalition has not addressed copper’s age and need for refresh with its choice of technology” – actually, the FTTN topology replaces a substantial percentage of the copper line length with fibre, so presumably the potential for faults and diminished performance reduces accordingly. That’s actually the whole point of adding fibre.

“In short (fibre) will revolutionise healthcare for everyone especially the elderly and those living in remote communities” – The NBN calls for lower speed wireless and satellite connections to remote communities. It is also quite likely that many elderly people will choose not to subscribe to NBN internet services if they lack digital literacy skills.
——-
I’m not sure at what stage the copper network is deemed to have started to expire. But within 150m of my place in the last couple of years two sections of the line have had to be chopped out and replaced. We have had landline faults since the series of floods of last month and Telstra says they’ll be a few weeks getting to us once they’ve sorted the mess in Qld.

.

“The NBN calls for lower speed wireless and satellite connections to remote communities”

I don’t think so. The 7% of the population who aren’t wired will get 25 megabits per second download and 5 megabits per second upload starting from the middle of this year for wireless.

.

“It is also quite likely that many elderly people will choose not to subscribe to NBN internet services if they lack digital literacy skills.”

WTF?

Ian said:

.

“It is also quite likely that many elderly people will choose not to subscribe to NBN internet services if they lack digital literacy skills.”

WTF?

I was thinking that too. My Dad is in his seventies, he was on Facebook long before I joined.

>“It is also quite likely that many elderly people will choose not to subscribe to NBN internet services if they lack digital literacy skills.”

As I said, he seems to think that lacking digital literacy skills is some kind of permanent problem with elderly people. As soon as anyone turns 70 they turn into old people circa 1975 or suchlike.

Kingy said:

>>The one Johnny Howard planted.<<

The one Paul Keating planted and Johnny Howard defused.

Neither side of politics has managed the transition from an exclusive public monopoly owning and operating everything to a market with competition on a level playing field. Too many other political considerations with the opposite intent have compromised the process.

party_pants said:

Ian said:

.

“It is also quite likely that many elderly people will choose not to subscribe to NBN internet services if they lack digital literacy skills.”

WTF?

I was thinking that too. My Dad is in his seventies, he was on Facebook long before I joined.

My mum still has trouble with remotes. She doesn’t have a computer and she won’t ever sign up.

>Neither side of politics has managed the transition from an exclusive public monopoly owning and operating everything to a market with competition on a level playing field.

I’d say the Com bank was a fairly decent transition, albeit there was already competition in place. Thumbs up, Mr Keating.

Bubblecar said:

>“It is also quite likely that many elderly people will choose not to subscribe to NBN internet services if they lack digital literacy skills.”

As I said, he seems to think that lacking digital literacy skills is some kind of permanent problem with elderly people. As soon as anyone turns 70 they turn into old people circa 1975 or suchlike.

But these are the people who are going to be all wired up like test crash dummies so that we can deliver fabulous, valuable health outcomes to them.

>But these are the people who are going to be all wired up like test crash dummies so that we can deliver fabulous, valuable health outcomes to them.

Yes, Nick’s futuristic medical hand-waving wasn’t terribly convincing.

Bubblecar said:

>But these are the people who are going to be all wired up like test crash dummies so that we can deliver fabulous, valuable health outcomes to them.

Yes, Nick’s futuristic medical hand-waving wasn’t terribly convincing.

Well, we already use the current internet for some of this stuff. Other stuff we don’t, ‘coz it’s too slow.

E.g. I can send sleep apnoea data to a sleep physician in Melbourne, have a chat with him, and have pressures etc. adjusted. At the moment, we can’t have skype type conversations with the patient as the network is too slow.

Bubblecar said:

>But these are the people who are going to be all wired up like test crash dummies so that we can deliver fabulous, valuable health outcomes to them.

Yes, Nick’s futuristic medical hand-waving wasn’t terribly convincing.

It does bring back to mind though friend I had back in around 1975, who wrote some software that could be used to diagnose heart conditions over the phone. The patient had an adaptor that fitted to a regular phone handpiece and they could call up and send their heartbeat signal in for analysis at the mainframe.

I can recall the same bloke logging in to a mainframe from a public telephone booth with a similar adaptor that fitted over the handpiece. He was writing code to optimise the distribution of fertiliser in sugar crops in Queensland. We all thought it was pretty high tech stuff. I can’t remember what he was using as a computer though.

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>But these are the people who are going to be all wired up like test crash dummies so that we can deliver fabulous, valuable health outcomes to them.

Yes, Nick’s futuristic medical hand-waving wasn’t terribly convincing.

Well, we already use the current internet for some of this stuff. Other stuff we don’t, ‘coz it’s too slow.

E.g. I can send sleep apnoea data to a sleep physician in Melbourne, have a chat with him, and have pressures etc. adjusted. At the moment, we can’t have skype type conversations with the patient as the network is too slow.

I’m sure there’s a lot of potential there, but having the NBN is only part of the equation.

I think the most immediate change will be in the entertainment and sporting industries.

I’m sure there’s a lot of potential there, but having the NBN is only part of the equation.

yes just like the old copper wires were only part of the equation for what benefits the telephone has given us. that is the whole point. who knows what we will need fast internet for in 20 years.

I agree, I’m right behind the NBN.

Bubblecar said:

I agree, I’m right behind the NBN.

Just as long as the contractors don’t rort the system and the technology is robust.

Boris said:

who knows what we will need fast internet for in 20 years.

My guess is porn and HD lolcats.

Don’t know what flavour of NBN we’re likely to be treated to in the middle of the island (if it’s still going by the time it gets here). Might be a setup like yours morrie.

Just as long as the contractors don’t rort the system and the technology is robust.

hopefully the vast majority will do the right thing, as mostly happens. the tech should be a lot more reliable than the present stuff we have.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Boris said:

who knows what we will need fast internet for in 20 years.

My guess is porn and HD lolcats.

Live sport in high definition 3-D.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Boris said:

who knows what we will need fast internet for in 20 years.

My guess is porn and HD lolcats.

Live sport in high definition 3-D.

So you can see the streakers better.

i’ll have wireless internet here, too far from the exchange for wires. faster speeds will be good. getting 3-4 Mb/s here currently, which is better than the 32kbs i got on dial-up.

Forget HD. The next generation ultra high definition television… minimum resolution of 3,840 × 2,160 pixels is going to a bit of a bit sucker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_definition_television

mmmm bitty

Graphene Antenna Could Give Us Wireless Terabit Uploads In One Second
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/03/graphene-antenna-could-give-us-wireless-terabit-uploads-in-one-second/

Wireless uploads of big files take for-ev-er. But researchers at Georgia Tech University have plans for an antenna made of crazy thin graphene that would let you transfer a whole terabit of data in just one second.

Within a metre, researchers could move a terabit per second, but in theory, from a closer range, you could move as much as 100 terabits a second. That’s about 100 HD movies in less time than it takes you make a cup of coffee. Graphene, you crazy.

MIT Technology Review explains how the antenna would be made:

more…