News & Discussion: National Broadband Network

[Vee]

Latest update.
The Senate Select Committee on NBN tabled this interim report (March 2014) ...
... 'because it has significant concerns with the accuracy and reliability of the Strategic Review'.

The Committee considers that the assumptions and conclusions set out in the Strategic Review are unreliable in the case of all examined scenarios.
The Committee has found that the Revised Outlook includes financial manipulations and other irregularities ...
...
The Committee considers that transparency has decreased markedly at NBN Co since the change of government, despite undertakings prior to the election.

...

Of key concern to the committee is the uncertainty evident in the community about the rollout. The lack of consultation with local communities, and the absence of information available to these communities on the rollout, has been a key theme of submissions to the committee and evidence given at public hearings.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... report.pdf

It's a long and very detailed report but anyone interested can read / skim the Executive Summary with its key recommendations and any other sections of particular interest.
Check the TOC.

[rev]

Netflix fail proves copper NBN leaves Australia utterly 4ked
The rest of the world is accelerating, while we hesitate and are lost
Twitter
Facebook
G+
Reg comments
13
8 Apr 2015 at 22:14, Mark Pesce

I ran into my friend Tom the other day. He’s worked at the intersection of media and technology pretty much from the beginning. When there’s a launch of a new media tech that promises to change the world, Tom’s always in the front row, taking notes.

At the end of last year, Tom received an invite to Netflix’s Australian launch. Tom had been hearing about the content licensing deals (protracted and expensive) for years, so the eventual announcement became an almost anticlimactic affair - except for one thing.

Netflix, eager to show off their future-proof status, demoed some streaming content shot in the Ultra High-def 4K format. UHD-capable monitors and televisions have recently dropped in price - today they’re only modestly more expensive than HD kit, but for all their popularity in the shops, there’s precious little content to drive sales. And if you can’t enjoy all those extra pixels, why pay for them?

This same chicken-and-egg dilemma hamstrung the recent and even-more-recently failed efforts to make 3DTV the Next Big Thing. No content means no audience means no sales.

Broadcast TV isn’t about to leap into the Ultra HD era. With audiences in slow decline, and revenues from advertising migrating to online and mobile channels, the economic incentive simply isn’t there. Costs to retrofit all of the broadcast infrastructure, globally, to accommodate UHD, would run into the tens of billions.

The Japanese, proud to be hosting the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, have been using that event to opportunistically drive UHD broadcasting and adoption in their home market. But that argument won’t carry the same weight anywhere else.

Moore’s Law means technology advances in video now vastly outpace changes to the broadcast distribution infrastructure. Broadcast has begun to fall behind, and it’s unlikely it will ever catch up.

Enter Netflix. Where the broadcasters have to conform to slow-to-develop and expensive-to-implement international standards for UHD, Netflix can simply treble or quadruple the number of bits they blast to customers from their banks of servers. That’s precisely what they wanted to show to the Australian media and media analysts - including my friend Tom.

Trouble is, the demo didn’t work. They hit play, then waited for the spinning animation to clear, and the content to play. They waited. And waited some more. No UHD content ever made it to the screen.

Those Netflix folks did their fastest tap dance, telling the audience Netflix could detect bandwidth insufficiency and invisibly drop to HD or even SD resolutions, on-the-fly. That’s a great example of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but not exactly the point they wanted to make.

Instead of proving Netflix could leapfrog Australia into the future of media, Netflix demonstrated Australia is not future-proofed.

That’s not surprising. An UHD stream requires anywhere from 15 to 25 Mbps. Although many ADSL2 connections throughout Australia can theoretically provide such bandwidth, in practice they nearly always deliver significantly less. Hundred year-old copper networks with decaying insulation can not be relied upon to perform at the upper ranges of their capacity.

Even the 50 Mbps promised as the cheap-and-cheerful alternative to Australia’s fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network won’t accommodate two UHD streams into a home simultaneously - never mind the kinds of stresses they’ll put on a neighbourhood node when every home in the suburb tunes into two UHD content streams every night of the week.

That’s the immediate future for the United States, where Google Fibre’s rollout across several American cities has produced a change-of-heart in America’s not-exactly-beloved cable-and-broadband providers. Comcast - possibly the most hated company in North America - recently announced that by the end of this year, eighteen million customers would have access to 2 Gbps service.

That’s twenty times faster than the best we're advised Australians can expect. It means the Americans will be able to stream UHD content to their heart’s content, while Australians will barely be able to make a single stream work - and only if your neighbours allow you to be a bit greedy with the bandwidth.

Just as global TV broadcasting has been left behind by new technologies, Australia has already been left behind, unable to provide its consumers with the latest technologies, because we failed to invest for our future needs.

Everyone who argued in favour of a robust, fibre-based National Broadband Network predicted this day would come. That day - when our political and business failures become painfully and permanently clear - now lies in our past.

We’re growing used to the studied ignorance an obvious fact: Australia has already fallen dangerously behind. The longer Australia hesitates, in a stubborn refusal to see the plain truth, the further behind it falls. Eventually, Australia will disappear from the map of Nations That Matter, as the nation stares at a spinning animation, waiting for a future that never finishes loading. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/08 ... erly_4ked/


Kind of funny and frustrating how they want to stop pirated movies/tvshows being downloaded, but skimp on the technology and infrastructure that would help put a dent in illegal pirated downloads.

[rubberman]

I imagine rev, that at some time in the future, even the densest supporters of fibre to the node will be faced with the question : "What part of 'The copper network is stuffed, we have to replace it!!' don't you understand?"

It's quite clear that they don't understand the damage and cost to our industry this is causing right now. However, surely when faced with disconnection or only intermittent voice service, they might finally get the message.

[Waewick]

I imagine rev, that at some time in the future, even the densest supporters of fibre to the node will be faced with the question : "What part of 'The copper network is stuffed, we have to replace it!!' don't you understand?"

It's quite clear that they don't understand the damage and cost to our industry this is causing right now. However, surely when faced with disconnection or only intermittent voice service, they might finally get the message.

people I speak to into the IT industry don't seem to care about FTTN or FTTH, they are all using alternate technology (don't ask me what they said things and showed me things but it went over my head)

[rubberman]

Waewick, until those technologies are universally available, we have to do something about the copper disaster now. That copper goes to the home, or business premises. So, either the government admits it was wrong, and completes the last stretch of cable to the premises, or it refuses to admit wrongdoing, builds the cabinets, and then puts in replacement copper to the premises...at a much higher cost. FTTN only makes sense if the last mile of copper is in good repair, and it isn't, and hasn't been since a privatised Telstra decided not to maintain it properly. The government can spin as much as it likes, but either it does fibre to the home, or it pays more for FTTN plus new copper, or it lets people be disconnected from landlines. They can take their pick.

[Waewick]

Waewick, until those technologies are universally available, we have to do something about the copper disaster now. That copper goes to the home, or business premises. So, either the government admits it was wrong, and completes the last stretch of cable to the premises, or it refuses to admit wrongdoing, builds the cabinets, and then puts in replacement copper to the premises...at a much higher cost. FTTN only makes sense if the last mile of copper is in good repair, and it isn't, and hasn't been since a privatised Telstra decided not to maintain it properly. The government can spin as much as it likes, but either it does fibre to the home, or it pays more for FTTN plus new copper, or it lets people be disconnected from landlines. They can take their pick.

Ibeen offered something like infrared internet? about $60 a month, from memory is was 100mps, so most of it is. Did you see the 4g+ speeds?

Look i'm not an expert on all of this TBH but it appears to be completely overblown given what is out there and how quicky technology is speeding up.

[Wayno]

Look i'm not an expert on all of this TBH but it appears to be completely overblown given what is out there and how quicky technology is speeding up.

Sorry, but not overblown. We seriously need FTTH not only for home entertainment, but to ensure a highly reliable experience with remote medical support opportunities.

I don't know exact figures (reference anyone?) but a decent percentage of people occupying hospital beds are there only for basic monitoring purposes. They are not at risk of dying, don't need high care, and reliable/daily remote support is more than sufficient. The technology already exists to monitor people from home, have regular video updates with nurses, etc.

The REAL costs savings just for this scenario are phenomenal, and puts to rest any concern about the FTTH deployment costs. Then there's the massive 'work from home' opportunities that would come from a scalable FTTH solution. About 2/3rds of the staff at my company work from home, at least part of the day, to avoid traffic snarls. That's about 600 people in Australia not contributing to peak hour.

The FTTN vs FTTH debate nonsense is simply a political game, and as usual the truth eventually comes out.

[rev]

Look i'm not an expert on all of this TBH but it appears to be completely overblown given what is out there and how quicky technology is speeding up.

Sorry, but not overblown. We seriously need FTTH not only for home entertainment, but to ensure a highly reliable experience with remote medical support opportunities.

I don't know exact figures (reference anyone?) but a decent percentage of people occupying hospital beds are there only for basic monitoring purposes. They are not at risk of dying, don't need high care, and reliable/daily remote support is more than sufficient. The technology already exists to monitor people from home, have regular video updates with nurses, etc.

The REAL costs savings just for this scenario are phenomenal, and puts to rest any concern about the FTTH deployment costs. Then there's the massive 'work from home' opportunities that would come from a scalable FTTH solution. About 2/3rds of the staff at my company work from home, at least part of the day, to avoid traffic snarls. That's about 600 people in Australia not contributing to peak hour.

The FTTN vs FTTH debate nonsense is simply a political game, and as usual the truth eventually comes out.

It's like going to buy the fastest car in the world the Hennessey Venom GT, while it might look like the Venom, it's still powered by the Ford Model T engine from the early 1900's.

And now, they plan on taxing streaming content providers. As if it wasn't already difficult enough to operate in Australia with shit third rate broadband infrastructure, they now want to tax them out of Australia. I wonder if the threat to Telstra/Foxtel has anything to do with it.

[Waewick]

Look i'm not an expert on all of this TBH but it appears to be completely overblown given what is out there and how quicky technology is speeding up.

Sorry, but not overblown. We seriously need FTTH not only for home entertainment, but to ensure a highly reliable experience with remote medical support opportunities.

I don't know exact figures (reference anyone?) but a decent percentage of people occupying hospital beds are there only for basic monitoring purposes. They are not at risk of dying, don't need high care, and reliable/daily remote support is more than sufficient. The technology already exists to monitor people from home, have regular video updates with nurses, etc.

The REAL costs savings just for this scenario are phenomenal, and puts to rest any concern about the FTTH deployment costs. Then there's the massive 'work from home' opportunities that would come from a scalable FTTH solution. About 2/3rds of the staff at my company work from home, at least part of the day, to avoid traffic snarls. That's about 600 people in Australia not contributing to peak hour.

The FTTN vs FTTH debate nonsense is simply a political game, and as usual the truth eventually comes out.

being quite frank, I'm happy for them to do it where needed and it makes the differences you talk about.

the rest, to be perfectly frank is utter pie in the sky and i'd suggest more improbable than man living on mars for many many reasons.

[Vee]

Well respected Communications consultant/researcher, Paul Budde provides a blog update on the NBN.

Buddeblog:
http://www.buddeblog.com.au/?p=68161

[rhino]

The blog is a little technical, but the last three paras sum it up:

When the NBN was launched in 2009 one of the goals was to get the country into the top ten of the international ladder. Now, in 2015, we have dropped to the 42nd position. This drop is mainly due to the ongoing delays in the rollout of the project, because of the partisan political situation in the country. With the rest of the world now moving clearly towards FttH Australia is set to linger on at the bottom of the international ladder for many years to come. Yes, the situation will most certainly improve, but there is no chance of the country ending up in the top ten in the near future.

Does this matter? We would say yes, as internationally high-speed broadband is seen as an important economic development. It is essential in order to increase productivity, to become more competitive and to develop new high-value jobs. Given the digital disruption that is taking place because of technological changes, we need to make sure that the Australian society and economy is ready and able to transform into one that facilitates the new sharing and networking economy models.

After the mining boom it is clear that Australia needs to diversify and that our very poor level of productivity needs to be improved, and the digital economy is key in that. If we want to be competitive in our Asian and globalised markets we need to lift our digital profile among our trading partners, and the NBN is key in that. We shouldn’t stop at the already out-of-date multi-mix technologies – these should be extended as soon as possible to a fully-blown FttH network, in line with what other developed nations are building.

[SBD]

In April 2014 the government formally opted for the NBN to provide a multi-technology mix rather than be predominantly FttH. Under the new scheme, FttH will connect 26% of premises by 2020, while a further 44% will be served by FttN – using the VDSL technology – and the remaining 30% of will receive services via existing HFC networks. Using this approach, the government anticipated that 91% of premises connected to fixed-line infrastructure would receive 50Mb/s by 2020. The capital cost was put at $29.5 billion (US$27.4 billion).

These percentages are in the blog twice. They appear to suggest that NBN will not have any fixed wireless or satellite services by 2020.
I'm also surprised there is enough HFC rolled out to support anywhere near 30% of potential NBN customers. Perhaps I am demonstrating my parochial suburban Adelaide view of Australia where Foxtel customers have a wok on the roof, not a cable.

[bits]

I'm also surprised there is enough HFC rolled out to support anywhere near 30% of potential NBN customers. Perhaps I am demonstrating my parochial suburban Adelaide view of Australia where Foxtel customers have a wok on the roof, not a cable.

Foxtels cable network in Adelaide is fairly vast in areas that existed during its major build.

[I Follow PAFC]

Three-year construction plan.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/learn-about-the ... -plan.html

[Vee]

Update on the NBN.
Quigley gives Turnbull a serve!

Ex-NBN boss pins cost blowout on Coalition

The added complexity of the Coalition's mixed-technology version of the NBN is solely responsible for the recent blowout of up to $15 billion in the total cost of the project, according to former chief executive Mike Quigley.

In an unpublished paper written last month, titled Exploding Malcolm Turnbull's Myths, Mike Quigley picks methodically through the figures contained in the NBN's most recent Corporate Plan 2016, which was released in late August.
The corporate plan revealed that the total projected cost of the NBN had blown out again from the $41 billion estimated in the December 2013 Strategic Review, to between $46 billion and $56 billion.

When the mixed-technology NBN was first proposed by then shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull in April 2013, it was meant to cost $29.5 billion, and to deliver download speeds of 25 megabits per second (mbps) to every home and business in the country by the end of 2016. The Strategic Review confirmed those promises were unachievable.

The Coalition's mixed-technology network introduced two new technologies to the NBN in an attempt to deliver a cheaper, faster rollout using upgrades to existing pay TV cables and copper phone lines, trading off the faster download and upload speeds that came with the Labor government's rollout of fibre-optic cable to more than 93 per cent of homes and businesses in the country—the so-called fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) model.

Under Labor's original plan, the other 7 per cent of premises—mostly in rural and regional Australia—would get fast broadband from either fixed wireless or satellite technologies. The Coalition has persevered with these two technologies and the first 'Sky Muster' satellite was launched recently.

It is the extra cost of integrating the upgraded pay TV or hybrid fibre coaxial (HFC) cables, and the copper-based fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) technology, that has caused the second blowout in the cost of the mixed-technology NBN, according to Quigley's paper.

The paper analyses the difference in the costs of various parts of the NBN between the 2013 Strategic Review and the 2016 Corporate Plan, and finds in round figures that the cost of rolling fibre to existingpremises fell from $14 billion to $11 billion, the cost of rolling fibre to new premises fell from $3 billion to $2 billion, and the combined cost of the fixed wireless and satellite components of the rollout fell from $6 billion to $4 billion.

The cost of the transit network—the backbone of the NBN—was virtually unchanged at $1.5 billion, up by only $100 million. This leaves the HFC and FTTN networks as the only possible cause of the blowout, Quigley writes: '[HFC and FTTN] are the real culprits of the $15 billion increase. Not previous management, not inadequate financial systems, not hidden costs in the FTTP rollout. Mr Turnbull has consistently talked up the cost and time taken to roll out an FTTP network and talked down the costs and time to taken to roll out FTTN and HFC.
And now the chickens are coming home to roost.'

Quigley points to the delay and extra expense involved in the Coalition's renegotiation of the definitive agreements with Telstra, and the associated hit to revenue, as well as the higher operating expenses of the mixed-technology network, as major drivers of the cost blowout.

'It is time to stop trying to blame the previous government and management for the problems with the costs and timing of the Multi-Technology Mix and admit that the cost to roll out HFC and FTTN and the timescale that would be needed were grossly underestimated by the Coalition. That is why we are now seeing a $15 billion increase from the Strategic Review and a $26.5 billion increase from commitment in April 2013,' he writes.

Quigley also takes aim at criticisms that, during his time as chief executive, the NBN made wildly optimistic assumptions about the likely revenues from the FTTP rollout, and failed to properly account for its costs. Quigley's paper shows that NBN's current assumptions about take-up rates are unchanged from 2013, and the average revenue per user at $40 a month is tracking ahead of the $36 a month forecast in 2013. 'History has proved that NBN Co was, if anything, conservative in its forecasts,' he writes

On the cost side, Quigley addresses the prime minister's criticisms of the NBN's previous accounting regime, which suggest that the cost per premises of installing fibre to the home was vastly understated under Labor at between $2200-2500, and should have been more like $4300-4400.

'Mr Turnbull has continued to compare the cost per premises reported under the "old" methodology with the cost per premises now being reported under the "new" methodology without mentioning that this is not comparing like with like,' Quigley writes.

The main differences between the new and old accounting regime are to do with the capitalisation of leases over Telstra's pits and ducts, and internal labour. 'Far from being a difference of over $2,000 per premises (or 80 per cent) as implied by Mr Turnbull, the true like-for-like difference is closer to $500 (or about 10-15 per cent).' That $500 difference in cost per premises, Quigley writes, is due to a one-off settlement of outstanding claims last year by NBN's construction partners, and higher ongoing contract rates—both of which he would have refused.

......

ABC RN:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... on/6905082

In the mix?
Check what technology (if any) from Turnbull's "Multi Technology Mix" is in store for your household/business address on the NBNCo 3 Year plan.

http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or ... dress.html