nbn^TM plans for future backhaul upgrade to FTTN cabinets

Re: RSP backhaul issue?

> These speeds can be easily provided by FTTN, HFC and even 4G.

rubbish. the FTTP NBN 25Mbps plan also allows 5Mbps upload. Upload is important too!

the FTTN guarantee is building towards max 25Mbps down, _1 Mbps_ upload.

HFC is a shared technology so even if they have a theoretical max of 1Gpcs, once you share that with 100 neighbors you'll get around 10Mbps.

4G is a shared technology so even if you believe a theoretical max of 1Gps, once you share that with 100 users you'll get around 10Mbps.

The above are all centred around technical limitations. Its all good if you never want to go past the needs of 'right now'. But building something which is already at the limit seems silly.

The 25Mbps/5mbps IS significantly better than what many people will get even after all the billions will be spent :(

As a tele-worker, I would certainly appreciate it. NBNco already had plans to offer 1Gbps to the premise before change of govt, which was feasable and cost effective even under a user-pays scenario.

The currently technology plan means throwing it all away and doing it again.

sigh

ATM the AVC is priced cheaper than Telstra current ADSL pricing.

The complaints about FOD is that it's cost more than delivering FTTP. When are we now building a network which claim to make FTTP cheaper about FOD cost more doesn't make any sense.

Yes the CVC pricing is high. As the current ratio you keep harping on about as it the target ratio they where aiming for and the current ARPU was $39 when they where expecting around $26 in the current build. It does need to change but if they do the MTM won't have a chance to break even.

And instead of as you have stated the user paying it will be the taxpayer that pays.

But you keep ignoring the on going cost of MTM. I like a car to sell you it cost 2/3rds of a new one and to keep it running it will end up costing too more than buying the new one. But that's ok you got it cheaper lol.

"somebody has to pay for the infrastructure to be built."

The problem is the industry is filled to the brim with gold diggers. Piggies at the trough. So many pricing, product and contract managers earning several hundred thousand a piece not withstanding bonuses. General managers on $200-$350k. IT, Billing and Network architects and major project architects earning $1000-$2000 a day for godsake. A day!

Worse those numbers I've quoted are non-NBN telco salaries. From colleagues who work at the NBN I've been told wages are a good 30-50% above the best in industry which used to be Telstra. I remember talking to a high end recruiter who was laughing at the shock Telstra experienced when the NBN started outbidding for talent.

Its bloody ridiculous and its one of the major reasons for the excessive cost of the NBN. Its one the industry and media are terribly quiet about.

"Those people who think that NBNCo should be providing 1Gbps plans with unlimited quota for $150 wholesale have no understanding of the flawed foundations that Labor set for NBNCo."

The ALP and the liberals see the NBN as a giant trough to feed from. To reward friends and supporters with key roles (and the excess wages that go with it). I know this for a fact because when the ALP was running the show several GM level positions were filled with utter dunces who knew nothing about running a telco. Their job was to control information, to ensure that progress information was released at the right time. Undoubtly there was more to it but I don't know the precise nature of the nepotism and corruption outside of the control of information.

Suffice's to say these people were removed and the liberals installed their own lackies. Though the NBN is in now ways any better off for it. In my years in the sector architecture design work is always tied back to some sort of corruption/nepotism. I'm not sayin the networks are flawed. Just that their design to ensure certain people benefit handsomely.

The NBN cheapest point is the fibre network itself. Fibre cabling is not expensive. Digging a trench with a backhoe, when you have government planning authorities behind you is not expensive. Hell they could have just laid it on telegraph poles for godsake.

Or better still someone could have spent $400m, bought AAPT (like TPG did) and with it PowerTel's exclusive perpetual licence to use the conduit of Energy Australia and several other electricity providers to lay fibre. Or hell just gone out and used the governments ability to compulsory acquire property.

Notwithstanding this huge amounts of transmission fibre, owned by non-telcos could have been utilised. Command and control fibre networks that run along side train tracks, and other utilities could have given NBN-Co a huge amount of transmission at a very low cost.

I know several media companies who have built their own inter capital networks, who have oodles of bandwidth and would have loved to have sold/leased it had it not been for cross-media laws that prevented it. The country is awash in fibre. Hell NBN could have just gone and bought AAPT's 12,000km of fibre network. Hell the government could have negotiated serious discounts from the wholesaler back haul providers in return for breaking up a certain telco a'la what the US did to Bell.

The industry has purposely bedazzled the public with debates, especially in these comment sections, so they can decisive the public about the true economics of a fibre network.

With the the last mile being done via telegraph poles in areas where digging up roads/paths was unsuitable. A mix of construction options could have been used.

We could have had the NBN years ago at significantly cheaper cost with 1:1 1gbps - at least within Australia. Had it not been for for the piggies in the telco sector who were more then happy to be traitors and sell the country down the river with a boondoggle.