If the Private Sector could deliver FTTH or even FTTN, they would have done it.

They refused.

The stagnant Howard era of communications infrastructure is why the FTTH NBN has been created. The only thing that was done was the ridiculous duplication of the Telstra and Optus HFC networks, until both realised they were going to lose money on it, and they both stopped their roll-outs.

ever wonder why the private sector haven't done so????? answers the whole box and dice right there.............

I do not entirely agree. The financial viability needs to be balanced with benefit to the public. I believe that a fibre optic broadband network, in whatever format, would be of benefit to the public. On the other side of things, I do not believe that subsidising Holden is of benefit to the public.

I do not believe that subsidising Holden is of benefit to the public.

ever wonder why the private sector haven't done so????? answers the whole box and dice right there.............

I'll put it another way, why is the private sector entitled to do anything or not do anything and the public should have to live with it, and why is Government not allowed to do things for the benefit of it's constituents? Since when did the private sector become the first and only provider of services?

I suppose you want our defence, police, healthcare, nursing, teachers, electricity generation and transmission, ferries, trains, aboriginal affairs, births deaths and marriage registry, the tax office, veterans affairs, fire service, fair trading, product safety commission, ACCC, legal prosecutions, the electoral office, housing, defence, quarantine, immigration, research, copyright, patent office, the ABC, SBS, Australia Post, safe work, fair work, asio, the dsd, courts, statistics, census, all privatised and deregulated?

Governments are meant to govern for the citizens.

Corporations only govern for their shareholders.

Do you have any evidence that backs up the claim of FTTH not being viable?

There are plenty of things that the private sector don't do that would be viable if their shareholders allowed it.

The point is that shareholders are myopic, shortsighted nobodies.

what do does the taxpayer of Australia get in return for a $50 billion investment??

Decades of infrastructure? Jobs created in building & maintaining infrastructure? Network connections that make the status-quo look like they came from the third world?

Shall I go on?

Decades of infrastructure? Jobs created in building & maintaining infrastructure? Network connections that make the status-quo look like they came from the third world?

Shall I go on?

This is correct. Even i'm working on the NBN testing rock core coming out of the excavations for the NBN.

still a benefit not a return on investment.......

they are not returns on investment.....i agree with you here....but they are not returns on investment,they are benefits.....so what revenue will the government receive for the investment of $50+billion dollars????

The 10% GST we charge on our work. The tax i pay working. They're getting a good cut back off these works.

NBNCo still pays 30% Company Tax as well.

-PB

Decades of infrastructure? Jobs created in building & maintaining infrastructure? Network connections that make the status-quo look like they came from the third world?

Shall I go on?

Wank wank, you just want high speed porn.

all of the above would be achieved without the government spending taxpayers money, for nil revenue.....

FTTN isn't the answer either

Repeating assertions after they have been soundly rebutted really doesn't do anything to further the conversation, batfink.

nothing has been soundly rebutted.......

so how will the government generate the said revenue you quoted of $2 billion a year???

Firstly I've outlined before that the current NBN rollout has been delayed schedule-wise due to the following factors:
/forum-replies.cfm?t=2080659&p=29#r569

Protracted negotiation between NBNCo and Telstra (9mths) to compensate Telstra for loss of landline customers (legally unavoidable) and to allow NBNCo access to Telstra's cabling ducts along suburban streets, to save cost of NBNCo having to dig up their own trenches.
The ACCC asked for the number of POIs (points of interconnect, these are "joints" on the backbone network) to be revised (originally 11, but now 121) to improve the assurances of the minimum bandwidth guarantee. 1
According to Senator Conroy there have short-term mobilisation and ramp-up issues with the roll-out contractors (adding a 3 month delay to the start of construction).
NBNCo have also been delayed by Telstra in some cases, as some cabling pits and ducts have (partially) collapsed and Telstra being the owner of these is liable for rectifying this.
Here's the latest (2012-2015) NBNCo corporate plan here if you want to read up on the details (download the "Latest Corporate plan" PDF linked on the right):
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-us/corporate-plan.html

If you look at page 37 in the corporate plan PDF document, you'll see the premises passed per day projections. You'll see post-2014 the daily rate will increase above 6,000/day until 2019 (ramp-down). This is when the roll-out is in full swing and metropolitan areas will start being covered en-masse, enabling shorter transport times for equipment, materials and crews.

In my linked post above, I pointed out there are schedule blowouts but no cost blowouts, and that the schedule blowouts are constant-time issues that do not creep up on every single suburb roll-out. You can confirm this with the graph shown on p12 of the NBNCo corporate plan – the slopes of the curves are the same, just horizontally offset.

1It should be noted with Labor's NBN you are guaranteed at least 100Mbps download and 40Mbps upload speed, if you have fibre (93% of premises), or 25Mbps (D) and 5Mbps (U) if you have wireless or satellite (7%). Within the next year this will be increased to 1GBps (D) and 400Mbps (U) for fibre users – as I mentioned before the fibre optic cable is already capable of transmitting 10Gbps itself, just that the NTD's (network termination devices) in the households have been explicitly throttled until NBNCo can assure that the network backbone can handle these speeds.

To get 100Mbps/1Gbps, you will obviously have to pay for the bandwidth yourself from an ISP – but anyone in Australia will be able to obtain them, as NBN will connect up each and every premise with the means to access the NBN for free. Businesses can purchase a commercial plan if they need symmetric upload/download speeds.

Bandwidth prices are always a function of both the maintenance/support costs of the network and also a price signal to prevent over-use of capacity. Because fibre has much lower maintenance and running costs (less power consumption, very long lifespan and immune to corrosion) and greater capacity compared to copper, you can bet your sweet bippy that most ISPs' NBN plans will always be cheaper if not the same as current ADSL plans.

See here for cost savings of FTTP:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/433877/fttp_could_save_700m_year_maintenance/

The Liberals' FTTN plan only states up to 25Mbps, and it makes no mention of upload speeds at all (it's theoretically possible they will trade off upload speeds for download as I mentioned before). Your speeds are totally dependent on your distance from the node, and the quality of the copper lines in your suburb.

The $1billion/yr Telstra spends on copper line maintenance will mean that inevitably the total costs of a FTTN network will dwarf that of a FTTP network. It's a matter of when, not if. Upgrading a FTTN to FTTP is not straightforward (they require different topologies). Turnbull's projected $17billion savings are going to be lost in little more than a decade – and that's ignoring any cost savings to businesses, health and education that a FTTP NBN would provide.

50 billion and then some...the cost and its end value are really not necessarily connected...there is this massive assumption that it will be worth more to sell off than what it cost to build. Classic public sector thinking!

Just on the role of government...our economy has got to the point where more than just basic services require public funds to keep our economy ticking over. Should be a warning sign in itself. Govt revenues can dry up for all sorts of reasons then we are back on the debt track and deficit spending...lets not follow the world on that one.

There are valid proposals for voucher systems even in education and health which hopefully will be explored by the Libs.

Education is a great example of an area where the State is far too involved in delivery and bureaucracy...by all means have some govt Funding of schools but less schools (or ideally none) should be govt or bureaucrat run. In a full 'private' or community based schooling system, there would be far more autonomy and innovation. Existing public schools could very easily be transferred into not for profit, private community schools...run by parents, teachers, principals. Plus have existing religious based schools and even some profit based schools which would drive choice and innovation.

The key point is...government can still be involved in funding all sorts of things without running it per se. In fact it would be much more efficient which would in itself free up more money for actual funding rather than direct delivery.


Edited by blacka: 22/4/2013 10:02:48 AM

Were you dropped on your head as a child? Or are you just severely autistic and/or mildly down syndrome? No offence