Apparently some people just cannot be told.
nbn™ chairman Ziggy Switkowski last night told a Senate Estimates hearing that problems with the hybrid fibre-coax (HFC) network it bought from Telstra first emerged in July. In November, nbn™, the company building and operating Australia's national broadband network (NBN), put the HFC rollout on hold. nbn™ has stated that it …
Apparently some people just cannot be told.
add to that... not too good as an executive... piss week leader
Malcolm started it. Tony put him in charge of nbn; told him to scrap it. But to make sure Foxtel got an upgrade. Malcolm couldn't scrap it, so he chose to do it cheap (and still, look after Rupert by retaining HFC)
In the end, Malcolm chose to do well, rather than do good.
Something that Thodey, Morrow, and Zwitkowski are all demonstrably well practiced at doing. No wonder they got hired!
It will be fixed, thanks!
Oh right, no worries!
But the Coalition promised HFC would deliver adequate broadband ahead on Labor's plan!
Seems like that's a NO.
Adequate broadband according to Labor NBNCo Corporate Plan was 50% connected at 12Mbps and <1% at 1Gbps in 2026. Today 84% at 25Mbps or slower (ACCC NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report). FTTN, HFC, FTTB & FTTP won't have much trouble delivering to those speeds.
Of course peak speeds are irrelevant when Australians are predominately buying budget unlimited plans with congestion during peak periods.
I'll assume that those negative votes are from people wanting speeds faster than 25Mbps.
If so, what policy changes are you proposing to fix the mess?
FTTP won't change the fact that 84% are on 25Mbps.
"Adequate broadband according to Labor NBNCo Corporate Plan was 50% connected at 12Mbps and <1% at 1Gbps in 2026" Perhaps you forget how price conscious a lot of people have to be to get by. For anyone on 20kbps in the bush, 12Mbps is a big step up, and may be all they need for sometime if they are watching the pennies. Many of our parents would be happy with 12Mbps (if it worked). It'd certainly work for me at a pinch, even now.
Besides, the projections of what speeds people would want/buy etc. when they finally could place an order were just guesses, made a long time ago. Nothing more. And certainly nothing to do with what was technically possible using FttH. If they had guessed more, Abbott may have been able to destroy the idea altogether.
Now, years later, people need better connectivity, so they order faster speeds than what was projected by Labor all those years ago. But you seem to be suggesting it's to do with what the MTM fiasco is delivering. But we know you are not talking about what people are getting. just what they are ordering in the hope they will get something workable, as fast as their old connection, or at the very least, fit for use.
Perhaps the question is better put as: At the point much later that the MTM was conceived, let alone agreed/authorised/enacted, why were better guesses not made about what people would take up? A bucket of sawdust and two planks of wood would told you back then that people would want more bandwidth.
But instead, to please Rupert, Malcolm and Tony bastardised it without doing their homework. All that counted was keeping those beloved Foxtel subscribers online and preventing labor putting their name on a badly needed piece of infrastructure. Cost/reliablility/suitability/replacing the old copper network; all out the window with bathwater, babies and the kitchen sink.
If they had done anything near the right thing, nbn subscribers would have the option of ordering multiple fibre connections to their properties, and no-one would be maintaining copper pairs, let alone HFC: Lots of badly needed jobs for our unemployed youth would have been generated to form the crews needed to do the trenching and roll-out. Instead Malcolm did what Tony wanted; gave the money to lawyers and project teams instead of our youth. Put expensive to maintain equipment out in the open, where it will never be enough and will fail, used HFC where it wouldn't work, etc and gave the bush laggy, over-subscribed and expensive satellite services(!).
By now nbn could have been working and generating revenue- not a burgeoning debt for an massively expensive to maintain white elephant. If it was so bad they should have scrapped it. Given what we needed, they should have completed the plan as it was, or better upgraded it.
> Now, years later, people need better connectivity, so they order faster speeds than what was projected by Labor all those years ago.
For the past 4 years people have been ordering slower speeds than Labor predicted.
> But instead, to please Rupert
What does Rupert gain? Netflix recommends 5Mbps for streaming HD & 25Mbps for streaming 4HD. Both speeds are easily achievable by FTTN which has an average speed of 687Mbps.
> If they had done anything near the right thing, nbn subscribers would have the option of ordering multiple fibre connections to their properties
Multiple fibre lines? Why would someone want to do that? NBN pricing makes zero sense for 99% to do that.
> Given what we needed
We as in the 14% ordering 100Mbps? Not the ordinary 84% ordering 25Mbps or slower. At the start you mentioned price sensitivity, yet propose building a more expensive network than Labor planned which would push up costs.
Can you not see the gap between fibre fanboi fantasies and the real world?
1. Connectivity to the NBN costs ISPs $17.50 per Mbps per month (it was $20 under the original Labor plan).
2. NBN Requires ISPs to be connected to all POIs regardless of whether they have any customes.
3. This means that ISPs have to charge somewhere north of $20 per Mbps/month to offer dedicated bandwidth.
4. Based on the prices I've seen (and paid). The highest costs for home broadband come in closer to $1 per Mbps per month.
If we apply a little bit of math to this, this means that ISPs are oversubscribing their lines by at least a factor of 20.
FTTN was stupid, not because it can't deliver the speeds it promised, but because it can't deliver the cost savings it promised. In the end it will end up being relatively close to what would have been paid for Labor's plan (which wouldn't have cost what they said it did either) for an inferior product.
The reason your connection sucks though is because the NBN Co charges ISPs too much for them to give you what you think you're paying for.
"For the past 4 years people have been ordering slower speeds than Labor predicted."
How many on 12Mbnps? Is it more than 50% as your claiming
"We as in the 14% ordering 100Mbps? Not the ordinary 84% ordering 25Mbps or slower. At the start you mentioned price sensitivity, yet propose building a more expensive network than Labor planned which would push up costs.
Can you not see the gap between fibre fanboi fantasies and the real world?"
So we have 16% on 100Mbps for fttp but only 9% on fttn. Plus the 14% are making more revune than the 84% But copper fanbois cant tell the difference
Ziggy oversaw Telstra losing its grip. For him it is business as usual because he does not comprehend how a technically underpinned business needs to operate. As for him being a Liberal Stooge, what is new? He was, is, and always will be, and is at least as (in)competent and arrogant as any of them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018