It doesn't require "pretty much the same amount of work", it requires a lot fucking less. Every example of FTTN done globally runs about 1/3 to 1/5 less in cost and labour than FTTP. This is proven in the UK and US where FTTN roll outs spring up about 3 to 5 times quicker than fibre and htus start generating revenue and economic benefits more quickly. The time and money savings are made where you don't have to coordinnate with home owners, business operates and body corporates a suitable time to dig up their gardens, drill holes in their walls and install an NTD that doesn't even provide a wifi signal, and renders their existing equipment useless.
Doing all of that for EVERY SINGLE HOUSE, UNIT AND BUSINESS IN AUSTRALIA is obviously going to cost a shitload more than popping down to HN to buy $10 splitter, if you don't already have one. Fair enough if despite this you still want FTTP but don't bullshit about the cost and labour, FTTN is a clear winner here.



It will only generate a return if it's delivered on time and budget. The potential for this project to blow out massively is enormous. So far you have this thing AT LEAST 3 months behind schedule and additional costs of $5.5 billion, and we're only about 2% through it. If you pro rata that from for the duration of the capital works it will be completed sometime in 2030 and cost over $100 billion, the only returns that will be generated will be huge deficits. It only takes one or two assumptions within the corporate plan to go the other way and the business case is turned upside down. That's what we're seeing with subbies laying down their tools and contractors turning their back on the NBN, this project is going to face a massive skills and personnel shortage to reach its anticipated ramp up target of 6,000 premises passed per day,that alone is enough to send the costs spiraling out of control. When NBN Co say they are on "time and budget", they are merely arguing from self preservation rather than reporting the cold hard facts, as they are entitled to do.



Did you pull that figure out of your ass? Telstra shareholders would appreciate the opportunity to get their $11 billion compo sooner under the Coalition than the possible decades it would take under Labor. Once Telstra see the updated corporate plan they will be begging the Coalition for FTTN.




If BT can pass 16 million properties in the UK within four years given the recent evolutions in FTTN we can probably roll it out in 3-4 years, it's already 4 years since NBN Co was founded and we've got less than 2% of Australia connected. It's only superior if you can actually use it.



20mbps into 400mbs doesn't equate to "thousands of times faster". 20mbps is more than enough for todays applications, there are no residential application that requires more than maybe 2-3mbpbs. Network operators configure their networks so download speeds are about 4 times faster than uploads, this is based on market demand rather than technological limitation. Given the advent of IPTV this speed assymetry is only to become more prominent, but if the market shifts the operators can simply reconfigure their networks so they offer more symmetrical uploads.



You're only cherry picking the good sites, in other locations its more like 15%. The current national average, during this honeymoon period I might add, is about 30-40%. The goal 70%, which is quite acheivable but LTE possesses a huge threat, and while it wont supplant fibre it will command signficiant market share due to the benefits and cultural swing towards wireless, mobile technologies. We're seeing this in Japan where LTE is threatening fibre and forcing operators to lower their costs.



Doing FTTP to begin with is beyond the skills and capabilities of a government organisation. It should have been left to Telstra, separate their retail and wholesale functions and leave it to an 'expert' to implement.



Regardless of what's happening in Australia there is no global industry consensus that fibre is the only way. Most countries are using a mix of technologies to deliver broadband outcomes and FTTN in gaining traction in many international markets. Vectoring and G.Fast are particular interesting, the pendulum may indeed be swinging, though not all the way to FTTN it's clearly playing a role.



Where did they say it was "wasteful"? They are building a fibre network from scratch funded by the private sector and $1.5 billion from the goverment. The $60 billion + the NBN Co is spending sounds eminently more wasteful than what NZ is doing.



Horeshit. Fibre always costs more. It just does. Those costs get passed onto the end user. Basic economics. The speeds aren't as fantastic but does every home in Australia really require 1gbps? Business, schools and hospitals maybe but the old people next door, the grandparents house? It's just absurd waste if it delivers no/imagined bona fide economic beneftis.



If it was obsolete countries like Germany, the UK and USA wouldn't be rolling it out. But they are. Something is only obsolete if there's nothing application for it, clearly the speeds ooffered on FTTN is sufficient to meet current demand. The question is for how long? Well until such a time it becomes economical to upgrade to FTTP.



Only Korea and Japan have ubiquitous deployments. No other country is using taxpayer dollars to build its internet networks.

Come on mate, both parties tell lies and you fucken know it. Don't get all high and mighty, Gillard did the single biggest election backflip in the last 20 years at the last election, so don't try that high and mighty fucken shit that anyone who votes Liberal are idiots mate.

You can dissagree with someones political opinions all you like, but when you start insulting people based on their opinions then your the one who becomes a fucking dick.

People are allowed to have a different opinion to you and that doesn't make them idiots. Grow up

Can't we all put aside these partisan politics and agree that both major parties are downright abysmal and the near future is going to be a heck of a depressing time for Australia? >_>

Nah, Australia is fine.

This, all major political reforms are met with resistance, its this hyper-partisan political situation we are in at the moment which makes fair dinkum political reforms, which Australia NEEDS by the way, pretty much impossible and has left both parties frankly pretty bloody inadequate at facing up to the challenges Australia is currently facing.

What we actually need is pretty dramatic structural changes to our taxation system, and that politically is just impossible at the moment...

"Umm......derrrrr.....arr...ummmm" then "does this bloke ever shut up?"
On ya Tony. Dumbing it down for your right wing constituency.

Not at all. The politics is dirty but hey that's to be expected. The lived reality is that Australia is one of the best countries in the world in just about every aspect. Fair enough, be a bit ambitious but when looking at Australia from a global perspective we are a great country. And to be honest it doesn't matter which party gets in to government because neither are irrationally radical to the point where we will plummet into the abyss. My politics lecturer once said that as much as we complain how stupid voters can be, we can never say we voted in the wrong person, each have their drawbacks for sure but really each PM has helped get Australia to where we are today. Neither party will do anything so radical that would see the country suffer terribly, Australia's political thought is far too pragmatic.

Which was.....?

Edited by ozboy: 21/8/2013 11:29:22 PM

There will be no carbon tax

election win

carbon tax

Now you can argue the merits of the carbon tax all you like and that it was justifiable, all cool, but it doesn't change the fact that she said she'd do one thing before the election, then did another after. Justified or not, she still misled the people

I could go all John Howard and say her 'core promise' was real action on climate change (ETS). So faced the reality that everything had to be compromised and negotiated in the hung parliament she was faced the the choice of implementing a price on carbon or no action at all. It would have been more of an outrage to do nothing at all. But that's just spin I guess.

*sigh* *breathe* *breathe*
Before I answer this comment (repeated ad nauseaum on forums everywhere), what were your thoughts on independent Tony Windsor's words on Tony Abbott's actions during the 2 week negotiation period immediately after the 2010 election?

The actual quote was "There will never be a carbon tax under a government I lead".

Jools is off the hook, she never led that government.

Yet the left side of politics in the US have made it quite clear that they have no intention whatsoever of introducing a price on carbon, yet theres a distinct lack of outrage over that...

I'm quite sure Tony did say that, pretty sure Julia did too

I'm no particular fan of either, however i'm actually a bit of a Julia apologist, because I actually think she achieved a lot during her time, but theres no doubt that her popularity was damaged beyond repair by introducing the carbon tax, regardless of whether you support it or not, that fact simply can't be denied.

I'd probably say all power to her for sacrificing her political career for doing it though. I'm actually not someone who has a particular problem with the carbon tax, I think Abbott should actually keep it.

Maybe because with the make up of Congress there is no chance of any such legislation actually passing? Hell they can't even pass real gun law reform after Sandy Hook. Here in Australia there was a clear opportunity to act on climate change and it was taken.

Edited by imonfourfourtwo: 21/8/2013 11:46:14 PM

Single biggest shame in the past 5 years is that the Greens refused to accept 80% of something in order to achieve 100% of noting by voting down the ETS in the senate back in 2010 when Rudd first introduced it. If they had voted it in, the carbon price wouldn't even be a factor on the political agenda today, it would just be normal.

Was taken the second time around, the greens fucked it the first time. As I said, wouldn't even be a political issue in this country if it passed the first time around.

Not sure our politics are that much better then the US, might make us feel better to say "you can't even pass gun control like we did" but on many other levels, we are just as bad.

LOL

news limited hates Rudd so much :P

[youtube]K2fRMy5rxuM[/youtube]

[youtube]G9D26jYawmk[/youtube]

Agreed, and to be quite honest I think they are going to suffer for it this election. They may keep their seats but it is stupid to attempt to destroy the one major party that would possibly listen to them.

And as for the Courier Mail, wow. Of all that was said during the debate (which was actually quite good to watch) they chose that. Anyone who has ever done debating knows that it is a real sign of desperation to make a comment like that.

Spot on. The government was a coalition, not a Labor majority.

Maybe you should read my replies before commenting ozboy, I KNOW what Tony Windosr said, and I'm 100% sure he is telling the truth as well. Whats the point your making?

That's probably because you're not old enough to remember Howard's "there won't be any GST under a government that I lead"

*election win*

#BAM GST#


Or you could not be as fortunate as you are, not be in a position to live with your parents and pour all your income into an education. Some (Actually a LOT) of people have to pay to actually LIVE and can't just "work their arse off" to pay for their education. Y'know, some people actually live in the real world and need money for food, rent, bills, etc. Having a $130,000 dollar HECS debt hanging over your head for much of your adult life is absurd.

No it's Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is directing his papers' front pages.

Doesn't matter, in voter land they think she lied and her popularity never returned.

The only thing that matters in politics is how people are going to vote. Doesn't matter if you disagree with the way people will vote or not, doesn't change anything. You have to deal with reality.

LOL come on mate, to be fair, he did take it to an election, its a bit different to saying I won't do it, then after the election saying "yeah but i'm gonna do it anyway". He said "I've changed my mind, so I'm taking it to an election and if you vote me back in then i'll do it"

And he damn near lost that election.

I know you actually know this afro, I suspect you where hoping that I didn't...



You really shouldn't make assumptions afro. Yes I lived at home for the first year I was at uni, in which I studied full time that year, however in year 2 I moved out, got a full time job and studied part time and went to my lectures and tutes at night. I had to pay rent and buy food and all that stuff too mate...

Don't make out that shit is impossible when its just not. My Dad doesn't even have enough money to retire, he's 69 and still working full time, so mate i'm from no affluent background, but I still did it.

I meant to say news corp.

In any case thanks for repeating what I just said, news corp hates Rudd

So what you're saying is that in order to be a law graduate you need to study part time so you can work full time to cover your expenses, taking an 8 year course and turning it into a 16+ year course.

Fucking genius. Good on ya.

I actually thought it was a fucking boring debate.

And I reckon Abbott fully intended on saying that all along, he was just waiting for a chance. He knew he'd get a reaction like that in the papers