Nbn

I was recently made aware of the 11 billion dollar sale of Telstra's existing lines to the NBN co. The term's state that Telstra will continue to deliver Foxtel over the existing HFC (Hybrid fiber coxial) lines. Foxtel shares are divided 50% to the Telstra Corporation and the other half is owned by News Corp Australia (Founded and owned by the Murdoch family). Now I'm sure if anyone has seen or heard stories about the NBN, this proposal and now reality has only been praised by News Corps media services which only suggests that this will be profitable to corporate Australia. This whole corporation and roll out seeks to provide internet access to the population who doesn't have access yet which of course sounds good but in reality it's simply expanding it's customer base without considering the customers already receiving services. For example, I live on the Mid North Coast and I am paying for the fastest internet connection i can receive (ADSL1max). This plan costs $93 a month for a 200gb data cap at which point the service is drastically slowed. The only thing is that before it's 'slowed' my download speed is at a maximum of 1.2mbs and the NBN is not even proposed to coming here. Our telecommunications industry seeks to feed off the nation rather then provide and it sucks. There is something going on with this, i'm no forensic accountant but I really think that if someone gets to the bottom of it all then it will be immensely beneficial to our nation as people. Rather then the government controlling we can look after ourselves, see through their lies and we can show that to the greedy corporate giants who control our government.

I not familiar with details of the sale, but doesn't it seem the like the government (via the NBN) is actually buying back an asset (Telstra line infrastructure) that John Howard had previously sold-off.

There is an NBN tower close to where I reside, but I have to pay, and take-out a contract with an NBN preferred provider before I can access the NBN service (I'm in Central Qld) Currently, I access the internet via a Telstra Pre-paid Wireless Broadband Service (It can be problematic at times, too)

 

From what little I've read, new homeowners who are building a new residence will be slugged with a $900 payment to connect the NBN to their newly constructed dwelling in new housing estates.

 

I believe that there is some behind the scenes interests affecting these decisions however i have no evidence as to why or how it's happened. The one presumption which i have heard a lot but am unable to conclude is that Turnbull had been recommending copper that seems to be of interest to him. It does seem that the roll out is occurring in areas set for development, and in a recent interview with the CEO of Telstra John Durie stated that "our aim is to continue to build on.... our growth into the ever-important Asian region.
This slight benefit to our nation seems to 'behind closed doors' be an attempt to continue development into the global economy and use our land (or Indigenous land rather) as an asset.
I do definitely understand that wireless towers, on a financial level, are more viable in remote areas however we are far too focused on financial benefits over the wellbeing of the nation. (i.e streamlining of enviromental assessment.) We already pay too much, and now to set up a new connection it costs the same as my having my overpriced plan for 9 years? They are feeding off us.
I can only go around in circles and can not conclude anything without hard evidence, our politicians and corporations are too dam good at not being transparent.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Malcolm Turnbull has some financial (pecuniary) interest in the deal; as many politicians have shares in companies or directorships going on past experiences.

This has gone on long enough, I was advocating for VDSL as an intermediate technology in areas where the copper was good enough (which would probably be quiet a bit of australias urban areas), but this has become silly. They should just offer competitive tenders (at or below international average) for building out fibre as a non-government owned public utility, which puts out many regional tenders for maintenance contracts, and do the same for the exchanges.

Then anyone can pay the fee and put their equipment in the exchanges, and provide their own routing from there or rent other peoples, then do the usual peering. And it will be a race too the bottom for prices.

OK so here it is from some varying points:
howard sold "telecom" which owned the copper lines with "telstra" which was the retail section for $60 + billion note that without the telecom component telstra was worthless.


we are now buying back an outdated and potentially under repaired version of that same infrastructure for $11 billion now only the copper lines not the fixed towers or other assets just the copper so is it a bargain you decide.



Next if you are in a major city and can get adsl 2/2+ congratulations your already on fiber to the node which has been rolled out for the last 20-30 years.  I know this cause at the age of 7 I helped pull some fiber lines thru a trench for an elderly telecom worker. (lets ignore the OH&S implications here please).



More interestingness
Optus:


Today’s agreement will see NBN Co progressively take ownership of elements of Optus’ coaxial access network in those parts of the country where it represents the fastest and most cost effective way to deliver fast broadband to families and businesses.


Telstra:


The revised definitive agreements between the two companies will see NBN Co progressively take ownership of elements of Telstra’s copper and Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (HFC) networks in those parts of the country where it represents the fastest and most cost effective way to deliver fast broadband to families and businesses. 



now as nbn is taking both the major companies hardlines off them as they do there rollout where the copper/HFC network " represents the fastest and most cost effective way to deliver fast broadband to families and businesses." i would imagine all of the major cities will be on NBN by next week as the copper is already in place and with a couple changes to the language that the modem uses (VDSL/Bonded ADSL) can achieve "access to download data rates of at least 25 Megabits per second."


will we see this probably not as the fiber running to existing nodes will need to be duplicated by NBN and then connected to the copper. 

Even Moar interestingness


Fiber to the node v Fiber to the door comparison (ignoring speed of connection)



fiber to the node weaknesses


 Powered network i.e. needs 240V in the street to be functional.
 powered network i.e. not flood resistant (see major flooding in townsville required a whole new rollout of FTTN)
 powered network i.e. potential for electric shock if poorly maintained
 
Fiber to the door weaknesses


 Cost are slightly higher 
 powered at both ends of the network meaning a power outage at ones home (assuming no battery backup) will sever connection
 more costly to repair if dug up accidently
 more time consuming to roll out as access to every premises must be obtained. 


Fiber to the node strengths:


faster to rollout due to less time per premises.
able to be rolled out to MDU (multi dwelling units) and MDF (main distribution frames) easily with no additional work needed by the tenants/Body corp. 



fiber to the door strengths:
easily upgraded by changing the devices on each end only i.e. the fiber converter.
capable of speeds of up to 20 gigabit and beyond per strand (in theory) as such can be split at a MDU for multiple units as a fiber to copper sub node (the current way unit blocks are put on the NBN (AFAIK)). 


But wait there is more!

the NBN is missing a huge potential saving that nobody has asked about, there is already fiber in the streets servicing existing fiber to the node (or RIMS) that is owned by telstra/iinet/Optus/other provider here this could be purchased by NBN and save on rollout altogether in some suburbs however this has not been looked at AFAIK

but wait the shenanigans are still not over. 

The NBN could be rolled out for minimal (government) cost by changing a couple of laws namely:
currently it is NOT a legal requirement (once again AFAIK) for a rental to have any phone line at all "If you are moving into a property which has been newly built, or where there has not been a connection for some time, it may be necessary for the line to be laid or re-installed. This can be extremely expensive and you cannot recover the cost from the landlord. "
if this was changed to be considered an essential service (like the USA title 2) it would resolve a lot of issues because if there is no existing service then "The federal government's Fibre in New Developments Policy (FIND Policy) details who is responsible for the provision of infrastructure and services in new developments as a "provider of last resort". Where NBN Co is the provider of last resort and has an executed agreement with a developer, it will cover the cost of fibre infrastructure. Developers are responsible for installing the required pit and pipe/pathway infrastructure for use with the fibre (to NBN Co specifications), and ownership of this pit and pipe infrastructure needs to be transferred to NBN Co before NBN Co can install fibre." 
something similar could be made mandatory for all new connections in any area that the NBN has an "active interest" i.e. any hardware at all. 



And the second law:


any changes (moving or repairs due to damage) to an existing phone line requires a registered cabler:
"To become a registered cabler you will need to undertake the requisite training course for the type of cabling registration that you are seeking—open, restricted or lift registration. There are a number of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) around Australia that can assist you with your training needs. "
if the law was amended with:
"where there is an existing interest by NBN Co in the vicinity it is a requirement that a NBN Co technician is to attend to all lineworks and where deemed necessary (by NBN Co ) the line is to be replaced with a suitable NBN Co solution at the cost of the applicant"
this would stop telstra charging the $300 connection fee for copper to the home when it is already installed as any new lines would require NBN Co to take over and any existing lines can not attract the fee. 

now thats over 1000 words so ill leave it at that now and if anybody wants more info ill give anything I'm aware of. 

Sorry I've left this so long. I'm definitely not fully aware of all the implications of creating this network however I can see that right voices are not getting heard. I know my local area is way more concerned about digital tv reception, which is getting more outdated every passing day. My concern is that the issue of open and competitive internet services, rather then monopolistic corporations are not represented with any form of seriousness in the parliament. It's just a battle of what's the cheapest to employ and will gain the most money. Of course this is a pretty common issue with any kind of infrastructure, but to ignore the users of said infrastructure and simply do 'what's best' in the powers eyes is belittling and arrogant.

If what either Geoffery or Jacobite proposed to be an agent for change on the matter saw the eyes of politicians it would just seen as a trivial matter and that's my issue. I myself can easily see that Jacobite's proposal would address the matter of monopolising by creating an industry of a competitive nature, hence rightly serving the users. But the business of Australia isn't about the users, it's about the 'owners' of land, resources and infrastructure that feed the entire population, keep them happy and apparently we're all happy. This issue just leads me on to rant as I can't see a solution myself ahah. Our systems just need a refresh and roles to be filled with passionate politicians, not career politicians.

Geoffery, I'm not too knowledgeable on the technicality of law's however are you able to play devil's advocate and explain why such changes aren't/won't take place? your suggestions seem dam simple and completely viable to me.

sorry about the delay,

The first legal thing is that a phone line is not like a water service/waste service and in fact to rent/sell a house you need to have a water/waste service not internet ....

The second legal issue is that currently jo bloggs from the dodgy cable company can be a "registered cabler"  and repair existing lines if the law required NBN co technicians to be used when a line is damaged it would be replaced with a NBN connection (if NBN has passed the house) and this would connect more people to the network at the cost of the person that damaged the existing line.

By rights i can sell a home in the middle of brisbane that has no Copper/Fiber line connected and NEVER will because of *excuse here*.


The main reason these changes wont happen is simple ............ government...... and people don't like the users pay system to much.

The best option would for NBN to buy ALL the existing hardline networks and go from there but thats expensive, instead the "crap" networks are what will be sold to NBN, as anything good is used as "Provider of last resort" meaning if Telstra has fiber in a development you have to use telstra fiber not NBN as NBN will not rollout out there because Telstra is the existing "provider of last resort" i.e. your stuck on telstra fiber, or TransACT or CrappyFriberCO who only offers the LeftArmRightLeg pricing scheme.