back to article nbn has made ZERO fibre-to-the-node and cable connections

Australia's national broadband network continues apace with nbnTM announcing that it's adding more than 12,000 premises per week to its serviceable footprint. Over the 12 months to March 2015, the network more-than-doubled the number of premises connected to its fibre network, to nearly 390,000 (compared to just under 167,000 …

  1. Gray Ham

    Splendid ...

    Looks like I will be getting birthday greetings from King William V before I get connected to the NBN ...

    1. Chris Reynolds

      Re: Splendid ...

      Maybe you should consider moving to rural England?

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/12/rural_oxfordshire_getting_1gbs_broadband/

  2. mathew42
    Big Brother

    I find it surprising that the connection figures don't include the speeds that customers are connecting at. I would have thought the figures released in February that on fibre 38% connected at 12Mbps and a further 38% connected at 25Mbps would have bolstered the case for FTTN.

    1. Jasonk

      Mathew42 as I have stated be that top 19% pays more than double the of those combined. But now with MTM they will be paying for the lump some as well as the ones that can get the higher connection.

      We can already see that NBN if loosing a lot of money out of the MTM as they are now going to charge new developments, or the average price for FOD is more than the new price of FTTP at $4300 when they are suppose to you 50% of FTTN to make it cheaper or charging Sat user for connection.

      Ziggy stated in Feb that once they start rolling out the MTM there will be a drop in revenue cant be because of more people connection to 12/1 or 25/5 because not because they cant deliver any higher speeds that Turnbull claims it can speeds as NBN is only required to deliver 25Mbps not because of a higher maintenance cost.

    2. A J

      There is no case for FTTN. Consider the usage patterns of most Australian households: One or more video streams from Netflix and the like, plus various other downloads and services running in the background. An excellent reference for the amount of bandwidth consumed by a high quality video stream is *ANY* BluRay disc, with bit rates that range between 25-50Mbps (and sometimes a bit higher).

      Everyone + dog wants to get on the Netflix/streaming bandwagon, but with FTTN + G.Fast (an unproven technology outside of testing labs) there is no way anyone in Oz can actually HAVE a high quality streaming experience. G.Fast at MOST allows users to hit the bottom end of BluRay bit rates, and realistically will force the consumption of poorer quality, heavily compressed streaming services. And this is before we factor in multiple streams per household or the future, which is multiple 4k streams!

      Lets move on a few years and consider 4k streaming. Even with adoption of h265 the necessary bandwidth for high quality video streams will at least double to 50Mbps. This government's so-called high speed broadband service is dead in the water before it is even rolled out! And some people have the nerve to say that the Liberals are good financial managers. What nonsense. Spending almost as much as it would cost to build an all fiber network, in order to saddle future Australians with the cost of doing the whole rollout over again is madness! And any sane economist/accountant would agree.

      This government's (lack of) vision for broadband is the adoption of technology that is obsolete before it has even been rolled out to a single household! I find it absurd that a person such as yourself would even bother to comment without a thorough understanding of the technologies in question.

      1. mathew42
        FAIL

        4k streaming of netflix videos to a limited few is not a reasonable justification for what has been described as Australia's largest infrastructure project.

        Labor's NBN was designed as a high speed network for a very small privileged few. Labor predicted that in 2026 less than 1% would be connected at 1Gbps while close to 50% on fibre would be connected at 12Mbps.

        1. Jasonk

          How how about reliable like the poor people after the storms months ago still don't have a phone line let alone an Internet connection. Or now maintenance like saving upto 60% .

          But let's look at AVC pricing for 12Mbps $26 and 1Gbps $138 and base is on 10mil users for just easier maths. If they make a profit on 12Mbps of $2 the would make a profit on 1Gbps of $114. $2 x 5,000,000 users is $10mil a month vs $114 x 100,000 uses is $11.4 mil a month. That can't be right NBN is making more from 1% than the 50%.

          1. mathew42
            FAIL

            > How how about reliable like the poor people after the storms months ago still don't have a phone line let alone an Internet connection.

            The last two issues I've had with my internet connection were caused by building constructions along the street where the contractors cut through the copper. If the cables are brought down in a storm then it really doesn't matter if it is fibre or copper.

            > But let's look at AVC pricing

            Currently NBNCo are losing money on the majority of the AVC pricing and will continue to do so well into the future. Data charges (CVC) are 'expensive' on the NBN because it is used to subsidise the cost of rolling out the infrastructure and is where NBNCo expect to see their revenue growth.

            Have you noticed how many RSPs are offering 1Gbps plans which NBNCo made available at a wholesale level in December 2013? Zero, because the plans are simply not financially viable. Labor predicted the 1% on 1Gbps would be reached in 2026! Can you imagine what speeds the rest of the world will see as a baseline in 2026 when 1Gbps is becoming standard in the rest of the world today?

            1. Jasonk

              "brought down in a storm then it really doesn't matter if it is fibre or copper."

              as most of the copper is under ground its due to pits being flooded and talking ages for the water to evaporate now if it was fiber it wouldn't be affected in the pits so try again Mathew.

              "Can you imagine what speeds the rest of the world will see as a baseline in 2026 when 1Gbps is becoming standard in the rest of the world today"

              LOL you pretty much answered you own question there since NBN is only required to deliver 25Mbps or that the CBA said all we would need by 2023 is just 15Mbps considering now in Singapore is now offering 10Gbps service now even a 1Gps there is $50 the same price Telstra is offering a 25Mbps service for. So why are you suggesting we do FTTN now when before its even complete it would be obsolete. That is why the expert panel reason for doing a full FTTP rollout.

              1. mathew42
                FAIL

                > as most of the copper is under ground

                Depends on where you are. In many places copper is above ground.

                > LOL you pretty much answered you own question there since NBN is only required to deliver 25Mbps or that the CBA said all we would need by 2023 is just 15Mbps considering now in Singapore is now offering 10Gbps service

                You've completely missed my point. Labor were not planning for most people on fibre to have 1Gbps connections. They weren't even planning for most to have 100Mbps connections. 1Gbps was only announced as a response to Google Fibre just prior to the 2010 election. Instead Labor were planning for 50% to connect at 12Mbps and we see today from NBNCo's own figures that on fibre 38% are connected at 12Mbps and a further 38% are connected at 25Mbps.

                If you are wondering why Labor were planning for so few people to be connected at 1Gbps it is because of the cost.

                > That is why the expert panel reason for doing a full FTTP rollout.

                Or you could argue it was Labor's haphazard response to Telstra not submitting a reasonable tender to build FTTN.

                The reality is that:

                - everyone in a new development will receive FTTP

                - everyone in highrise will receive FTTB

                - everyone in HFC regions will 100Mbps+

                - everyone else that requires higher speeds has the choice of moving or paying for direct fibre, which theoretically should add to the value of their house

                - less than 24% actually care about speeds faster than 25Mbps based on current take-up rates

                1. Jasonk

                  "Depends on where you are. In many places copper is above ground."

                  Not many places have it above ground.

                  "If you are wondering why Labor were planning for so few people to be connected at 1Gbps it is because of the cost."

                  Yes and but labor main aim is to supply the same speed upto 100/40 to everyone one so people do have a choice on what speed they would like to pay for as well as maximising the revenue to get that 20% on the highest teirs that pay for the network not the 50% that you keep going on about. Or that they are building a legacy network that would last more than the 5 years that the MTM is good for.

                  "The reality is that:

                  - everyone in a new development will receive FTTP"

                  Which now the developers have to pay for the build which would be past on in higher house prices.

                  "- everyone in highrise will receive FTTB"

                  Now I don't mind FTTB as the copper is weather proof and have very short length to get the max speed out of VDSL. And they came come back at a later date supply fiber.

                  "- everyone in HFC regions will 100Mbps"

                  Well according to Telstrathe HFC already can do 100/40 but are getting a free upgrade which they don't have to pay for that will make HFC do more that 100/40. But that's you argument for FTTN.

                  "- everyone else that requires higher speeds has the choice of moving or paying for direct fibre, which theoretically should add to the value of their house"

                  So what your saying that a $41B network that doesn't give any better speed than what they get now should have to pay for it while other people don't have to pay for it. Latest report from NBN states that during the transition period the FTTN just need to deliver 12Mbps just once a day and when the everything is up and just 25Mbps just once a day if it doesn't then they would remediate the copper not replace with fiber that Turnbull claimed. That great when all the other services can deliver upto 100Mbps without paying for it. Or that the average price for FOD is higher than FTTP of $4300. So when NBN decides to up grade it will cost more than doing it the first time.

                  - less than 24% actually care about speeds faster than 25Mbps based on current take-up rates.

                  Considering that our current national average is just 6Mbps. So ATM 50% of the population gets a quarter or less than that speed now. It would be like going from dialup to ADSL.

  3. Phil Kingston Silver badge

    Perhaps less money on image/branding consultants and name changes, a bit more on actually doing a network would be a good thing.

  4. Medixstiff

    I feel sorry for Quigley now.

    He still was the closest to the mark and most honest out of the lot.

    1. mathew42
      Facepalm

      Quigley understood the NBN even if Labor didn't

      Totally agree. Here are a couple of choice quotes from Quigley:

      'But when The Australian approached Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley to describe the level of service users could expect at lesser network speeds, they said high-definition video conferencing was not possible on the NBN's most basic package.

      "You certainly can't do high-definition video service on a 1 megabits per second upstream -- it's impossible," Mr Quigley said.'

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/low-income-users-denied-health-benefits/story-fn59nokw-1226131713930

      "We will have one consistent set of products across the whole national footprint. And that means consistent ubiquitous service up to one gigabit per second," Quigley said in March 2010.

      "Everyone keeps talking about 100Mbps. But that's obviously when we're talking about residents. For business, we are allowing for a certain percentage in our dimensioning to structure point-to-point services up to 1Gbps."

      http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-fiber-trumps-nbn-speeds-pricing/

  5. Tim Roberts 1

    no FTTN?

    well colour me fucked!!

    1. Urh

      When you think about it....

      ....no FTTN deployment is actually a good thing. It means that less money has been pissed away on obsolete technology, and ultimately more money saved if/when we ever see a return to sanity (i.e. a network build centered around FTTP deployment).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019