nbnTM plans for future backhaul upgrade to FTTN cabinets nbn™ , the entity charged with building and operating Australia's National Broadband Network (NBN), has argued it is better to re-configure its fibre-to-the-node network than to build it to handle high levels of traffic. In a new post by nbn™ chief architect Tony Cross, the network builder explains “getting the balance right …
Well he is already wrong!
People ARE using most of the bandwidth at certain times of the day, It's called peak time usually between 5-7pm when most folks get home from work!
I have already noticed now that Netflix is here in Australia my net slows to a crawl during those times and I have a decent 100mbit connection, I am now lucky to get 1/3 of what I am paying for.
Here they are talking about tax payer money, If they had of done it right the first time they would have saved money. FTTN is a fail, FTTP is the only future proof way of doing it right. Once it is there in the ground it will last 100+ years only needing the box at each end to be upgraded, Unlike FTTN which has to be constantly upgraded and maintained also using power.
FTTP isn't looking so expensive now that we see the true cost of FTTN which will overtake FTTP in price!
Plan ahead 50+ years not 5 years then expect someone else to deal with the problem, Spend the money now and do it right from the start. How brain dead are they, EVERY other country that implemented FTTN has already started replacing it because it can't handle the bandwidth everyone is using.
> I have already noticed now that Netflix is here in Australia my net slows to a crawl during those times and I have a decent 100mbit connection, I am now lucky to get 1/3 of what I am paying for.
Have you correctly identified that the issue is with the NBNCo portion of the network or is the issue with your RSP purchasing inadequate backhaul? Some RSPs have chosen to provide unlimited Netflix and their networks are suffering because of this. If the RSPs metered Netflix then they would have the cashflow to purchase additional backhaul.
> EVERY other country that implemented FTTN has already started replacing it because it can't handle the bandwidth everyone is using.
Labor predicted 50% on fibre would connect at 12Mbps. The most recently released figures are 38% on fibre connected at 12Mbps and a further 38% connected at 25Mbps. These speeds can be easily provided by FTTN, HFC and even 4G. More accurate would be to say that minority feel entitled to high speed connections but expect to be subsidised by others.
The reality is that with speed tiers in Australia
> 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
Plus upgrading back haul won't help people getting once a day 25Mbps service on the copper. But then a fully laden node of 394 on there current back haul of 2Gbps only gives an average speed 5Mbps if all are using it at the same time.
Mathew
You keep carrying on about the bottom 50% that wouldn't be paying for the network. What happens now is that MTM won't be able to make a revenue as all it can promise is a once a day 25Mbps service.
Can you give one company promising a min 25Mbps or even a min 50Mbps service.
How about reliable when 7 years after MTM is complete it will cost more than FTTP. Flooded pits like the people on the north coast had not even a phone service for months but that great service there.
peak time usually between 5-7pm when most folks get home from work!
In the Netflix era we have the data equivalent of the six o'clock swill.
I'm more interested in reliability. We live in an area 0.9 meters above high tide. Basically the ground water is just under (and over) the surface with a good rain, and all that Telstra copper repeatedly fails. It's currently 6.85 Mb down and 0.33 Mb up. But it's sod all when the line is down.
Verison says the savings of FTTP is compelling on all counts, fibre is overall 60% cheaper than copper.
Turnbull read a dodgy executive summary and is now the worlds greatest specialist on communications. The guy is a cretin.
In all my reading about the NBN, I have yet to see a technically competent person claim that FTTN is going to continue to be cheaper than FTTP. Every Telstra tech I've spoken to has said that to do it right we should be doing FTTP and doing it once rather than coming back later and relaying fibre when the copper finally gives up the ghost. The only arguments have been about the implementation schedule and usage of Telstra pits. From an bean counter point of view FTTN was always going to win as it has a lower initial investment and will be someone else's problem when the copper fails. From a customer point of view we don't care how it is done we just want to make sure that we are not fighting congestion when streaming Netflix.
So firstly excellent article Simon. The Register despite being based in the UK time and again keep churning out excellent articles and commentary.
Onto the subject. I think it should be said that the NBN Chief is being extremely misleading. Yes they have tons of spare bandwidth but that's because they've priced it out of reach for the RSP and their customers.
Instead they are forcing RSP to sell a heavily contended product, one that's ironically worse then the ISP's ADSL2+ products.
Just look at the maths:
If an ISP was delivering at a contention ratio of 1:1 and say they had a 100 customers at a particular POI, billing at $100 per month - $10k revenue a month - the numbers wouldn't stack up.
Monthly Costs:
NBN Recurring Charges 100/40 $38 * 100 = $3,800 per month
100 customers X 100mbps - 1.25gbps = $21,000 per month
ISP Backhaul @ $25 per mbps = $30,000 per month
NBN facility Co-lo rack charge @ $1000 per month
ISP network costs:
ISP other expenses:
= $55,800 per month.
Obviously this is unaffordable/unrealistic.
the ISP would need to do this
Monthly Costs:
NBN Recurring Charges 100/40 $38 * 100 = $3,800 per month
100mbps = $1750
100mbps of ISP Backhaul @ $25 per mbps = $2500 per month
NBN facility Co-lo rack charge @ $1500 per month
ISP network costs:
ISP other expenses:
= $9,550
And all of these don't include the $35,000 for a 10gbps interface at each of the 121 PoI's means $4.3m in setup fees alone. Not withstanding all the other costs..
This second option is also terribly unrealistic. The ISP's network and Other Expenses are considerable. Even at a $100 monthly fee there is no way the ISP could recoup its cost plus say a healthy margin to make even reasonably possible..
And that's a 10:1 contention ratio.
What shits me with the pricing and charging is the government and NBN's pricing and executive are charging it as if its a standard commercial wholesale telco product. Even the language, the charging of CVC, tail fees, rack costs,
The NBN was meant to be a catalyst for changing. For advancing Australia. Instead its expensive, of worse quality then say ADSL and it has major limitations and issues.
Its like building a fusion reactor and charging 30c per kw when you can do coal at 20c per kw or solar at 10c per kw.
Just because they can charge so much for it doesn't mean they should.
[1] http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/sfaa-wba2-product-catalogue-price-list_20150201.pdf
> Yes they have tons of spare bandwidth but that's because they've priced it out of reach for the RSP and their customers.
Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure to be built. Labor policy was for the NBN to be revenue neutral so that means customers have to pay the full cost. Pricing can be based on two components: connection fees and usage fees. Labor chose to reintroduce speed tiers (AVC) and also have data charges (CVC).
- If AVC is priced too high, then less people connect. FoD demonstrates this as many complain $5000 is too much even when arguing that FTTP will improve property values and $5000 is less than 1% of average house prices and cheaper than painting or a kitchen renovation.
- If CVC is expensive, then people will still connect, but choose more wisely on what content they consume. Unlimited netflix is the counter example to this and a major cause of the current issues.
> The NBN was meant to be a catalyst for changing. For advancing Australia. Instead its expensive, of worse quality then say ADSL and it has major limitations and issues.
Speed tiers severely undermined the ability of NBNCo to act as a catalyst for change especially when Labor predicted that 50% would connect on fibre at 12Mbps. I would countenance a serious argument that internet access should be subsidised by the government for those receiving government benefits.
> Just because they can charge so much for it doesn't mean they should.
Current NBNCo wholesale plans are discounted. The NBNCo Corporate Plans document the steep rises in ARPU to north of $100. The NBNCo plan is for revenue growth to mainly come from growth in CVC. 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.
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.
"ATM the AVC is priced cheaper than Telstra current ADSL pricing."
Lol - a ULL or SSS is not $24 per tail per month. .
Plus for most metro exchanges bandwidth costs are way way cheaper then Telstra AGVC and transmission which you have to buy when you order L2TP.
Like that $25 per mbps i quoted in my early post is pretty old. For most telcos with their own transmission, with lots of services in their co-lo's, good proxies, peering and such can definitely lower their costs per mbps, specially if the traffic is kept within the VC/Australia.
Anyway this all moot. See my other post. The NBN's economics and design isn't about providing the fastest bestest cheapest network. Its about enriching a select group within the telecommunication sector which in turn is pumped back into the political party who appointed them in the first place. Who cares about APRU's and such.
A fibre FTTN network can be delivered far far cheaper then what the NBN is doing, especially if the government used its powers to compulsory acquire property, legislated that state planning agencies would have to acquiesce to NBN needs and stopped paying such excessive salaries/contractor costs.
"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.
Reality it is all bullshit and babble. Only three objectives were on the table, delay the NBN as much as legally possible to limit competition for News Corp, feed Telstra billions of tax payer dollars buying networks that were going to be scrapped and finally selling the whole mess to News Corporation for cents on the dollar.
What to see what real prosecutions of elected officials look like, once the LNP are out, hold a Royal Commision into the intentionally corrupt mishandling of the NBN project.
> NBN as much as legally possible to limit competition for News Corp
In what way? If you are talking about streaming then 12Mbps is more than sufficient.
> feed Telstra billions of tax payer dollars buying networks that were going to be scrapped
Labor was responsible for the over generous payments to Telstra for renting ducts and customer transfer payments.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
