Strongly disagree that they improved the economics at all.

I will say that, if they did improve the economics, then I agree that 'something' failed in getting that point across. They did crow about how bad the original economics was, but really just using scare tactics by quoting the large number that out's of the range of reasonable comparison by the average citizen. Most information I read was that they wasted additional money including paying for a lot, like a lot lot, of copper for last mile connections, including paying Telstra for some of their existing copper infrastructure - the dilapidated state of which was part of the reason that FTTH was the proposed solution for 9x% of the Australian population.

In fact, it's almost impossible that improved economics making changes and causing the (decade+ in some cases) delay of the rollout of FTTH.

One of my favourite pieces of graffiti: https://gadgetguy-assets.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wor...

I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, along with explanations, or if there are mitigating factors to anything I've written above.

Edited to add: My rant may be on a different interpretation of 'economics' than which you're referring to. Mine's purely based on the cost of the project - not how it's been charged to ISPs or Customers.

Edited to add post-reply below: Thanks for the detailed reply, that's very interesting information that I had read peripheral information around, but was less intimate with. Thanks for taking the time, two thumbs up.

▲

protocolture 7 months ago | parent [-]

When I refer to the economics, I refer to the market that the NBN act creates. This is largely divorced from political spending, like purchasing the Optus HFC network to which you refer.

The original labor approved cost for accessing the network made it unreasonable to purchase enough CVC to provide services for customers.

Bevan Slattery used to discuss this alot, but NBN had the capability, and in one case threatened to use that capability, to cut off any wholesalers they like. So Bevan was the only one in a place to really publicly criticise them. A gentleman I know wrote a whitepaper about how bad the NBN Fixed Wireless service was and his employer forced him to scour it from the internet after threats from NBN Co.

So as to publicly allowed criticism of NBN Co you dont get much other than that.

I will see if I can dredge up the numbers.

Under labors watch, they assigned engineers and specialists to design a fibre network. It was over engineered (should have been ULL with no active hardware) but we didnt get that. It was to consist of 21 points of interconnect and effectively would have provided an alternative to buying backhaul from Telstra/AAPT etc.

The ACCC, after prompting from the big 4, changed the plan to include 121 points of interconnect. NBN co also mandated that Wholesalers be able to reach a very large number of them before they could connect to the system (with a plan for all 121).

What they didnt do was change the pricing structure. So now to play ball, you now need 100 more points of presence on your network (very expensive) and you are paying a quite hefty fee for an extremely small amount of CVC. NBN Expected that more CVC would be purchased by providers, but as it worked out, this did not occur. Some providers purchased more CVC just to get started, and then phased it out. Others didnt bother. Ultimately, CVC proved to be lossmaking for ISPs, who at best had a dollar after the customers monthly sub with which to find Support/Hardware/all their other costs. This lead to a significant number of user complaints, regardless of last mile tech.

LNP pops in, and they are looking for any way they can "fix labors mistake". ISP lobbying finally makes an impact and NBN starts bundling in CVC. The LNP also mostly stop talking about the NBN becoming a return on investment in x years, which takes pressure off of NBNCo to needle ISPs. This is where people with fibre connections started going from just having less dropouts, to having very significant speed increases versus other technology types. ISPs gained a very small amount of breathing room (still heaps of room for improvement) and the economics were somewhat improved.

The thing is, the LNP didnt market this success. They went and fiddled around with the rest of the project, bought the optus network etc and campaigned on that nonsense instead. Really if they wanted to they should have done more to highlight and correct the actual failures of the NBN rather than the issues their donors had but w/e.

▲

hilbert42 7 months ago | parent [-]

"A gentleman I know wrote a whitepaper about how bad the NBN Fixed Wireless service was and his employer forced him to scour it from the internet after threats from NBN Co."

I know, this bullying and like threats are just part of a much bigger problem. As I've said in my post to this story, that's just part of a much bigger problem with Australian communications and communications policy. When it comes to Australian governments and communications what we end up with is inevitably some sort of major fuck-up, and often it's monumental.

If I were an alien I'd draw the conclusion that Australian people have a congenital abnormality that makes them lose all sense and reason when they hear strings that contain words like 'communications'. What else could it be, the fuck-ups are continuous and span over a century?

Methinks, some grad student could likely get a PhD sorting this out and pinning the blame. Oh, but what a horrible job!

▲

protocolture 7 months ago | parent [-]

I think the Australian disease is an addiction to the great big national solution.

If 1 state is falling behind, they strip all the states of the responsibility and push ONE MASSIVE SOLUTION to everything.

NDIS? We had years of disabled people complaining that their state benefits were better, or lost completely after the NDIS rollout before they got their nonsense together. Now its always new and interesting ways the scheme is failing.

NBN? You could hand pit and pipe to local councils to rent out, but nah we need another failed monopoly.

Housing? Make sure states are meeting their land release obligations? Nope needs a massive funding splash from the federal government.

Education? We used to use the US as an example of poor education policy. Standardised tests? Nope those force teachers to teach the test rather than teach the child. Suddenly, national curriculum and standardised tests. Genius.

▲

hilbert42 7 months ago | parent [-]

Right. From my experience philosophising over the national characteristics aren't of much help as it changes nothing. Nevertheless, I find it very frustrating whenever the matter comes to the fore during debates over such issues.

It seems to me that to change a nation's character is a long involved process and it usually involves considerable stress on its population such as war, economic depression, etc., and almost no one wants those catastrophes. Moreover, such dramatic influences can take many years to manifest.

(As a point, have you noticed how well many of the nations that lost, say, WWII have done economically thereafter? It's difficult to generalise but there are many instances from history where losers rise victorious from the ashes. It can be argued the Ancient Greeks benefited from Rome's takeover, in more modern times look at Japan's and Germany's prosperity. At war's end who'd have ever thought a German manufacturer would get own a large part of the company that made the amazing British Spitfire or that Germany would become Europe's biggest economy?)

Alternatively, changing the national character of a country can also be achieved by educating its population but that too can take many, many decades—even then, it's often not successful.

For instance, take the current debate in Australia over nuclear power, it has become politically polarised to the extent that protagonists on both sides have upped the ante to a point where logical debate is lost in the noise. Both sides and the Country are losers.

I was once employed in the nuclear industry (on the regulatory side) so I have some understanding of its pros and cons, so I watch from the sidelines with dismay whilst this acrimonious, mostly ill-informed debate continues.

Thus, Australia will only decide conclusively which technology it's going to follow long after the rest of the world has come to a definitive conclusion. Either way, the Country will have left the ball too late to catch, by then it'll be too late to develop sufficiently advanced tech to compete competitively. Australia has a long history in this regard, it seems incapable of overcoming this handicap. (BTW, this has little or nothing to do with the ingenuity or inventiveness of its citizens.)

Many argue that Australia has only a small population thus cannot complete with larger nations. To that I'd argue poppycock—look at Finland with Nokia and the Netherlands with ASML—the most advanced manufacturer of UV lithography in the world.

Both of these counties have smaller populations than Australia, so they demonstrate that not only is it possible for smaller economies to develop high tech industries that can compete on the international stage but also that it's actually doable.

Also, take a look at South Korea with a population of about double that of Oz and its megalith Samsung. Or take a fairer comparison Taiwan with its slightly smaller population, it has the world's most important semiconductor foundry—TSMC. Tech from the Netherlands's ASML is used by TSMC to make the world's most advanced semiconductor chips, those used in high-tech computers, AI and such.

Rousseau in his Social Contract long ago defined what he called the 'national will'. Those countries I've mentioned have had and still have the national will to achieve those things whereas Australia does not.

This is not a political statement but a fact based on observation. Why Australia prefers to dig minerals out of the ground and sell them unprocessed abroad or why it sells gas/LPG internationally thus upping its local consumption price (effectively to above parity) and significantly disadvantaging its own citizens—not to mention making local availability a major problem—is the 64-million dollar question. It's bizarre that the Oz population isn't up in arms screaming.

I have my views but raising them here would only inflame the debate—no matter what I said would anger many.

Powerless, I only watch such debates in utter frustration.

	▲	protocolture 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		>(As a point, have you noticed how well many of the nations that lost, say, WWII have done economically thereafter? It's difficult to generalise but there are many instances from history where losers rise victorious from the ashes. It can be argued the Ancient Greeks benefited from Rome's takeover, in more modern times look at Japan's and Germany's prosperity. At war's end who'd have ever thought a German manufacturer would get own a large part of the company that made the amazing British Spitfire or that Germany would become Europe's biggest economy?) Yep. James mays "The Peoples Car" goes into depth on this a few times. Comparing the economics of cars and car owners between winners and losers of WW2. >For instance, take the current debate in Australia over nuclear power, it has become politically polarised to the extent that protagonists on both sides have upped the ante to a point where logical debate is lost in the noise. Both sides and the Country are losers. Its terrible. We have been working towards good pro nuclear positions in this country for decades, and Dutton comes along and destroys them all with his crazy SMR proposal. And now, anyone who suggests that nuclear can be a viable alternative is branded the same as Dutton. >Thus, Australia will only decide conclusively which technology it's going to follow long after the rest of the world has come to a definitive conclusion. Either way, the Country will have left the ball too late to catch, by then it'll be too late to develop sufficiently advanced tech to compete competitively. Australia has a long history in this regard, it seems incapable of overcoming this handicap. (BTW, this has little or nothing to do with the ingenuity or inventiveness of its citizens.) Theres an old story that Mad Max had to become popular in the united states before Australians would go and watch it. >Many argue that Australia has only a small population thus cannot complete with larger nations. To that I'd argue poppycock—look at Finland with Nokia and the Netherlands with ASML—the most advanced manufacturer of UV lithography in the world. Australian government has this weird paralysis where they never left the colonial mindset. The question is not what should Australia do, its what would the UK or the USA prefer australia do. >Rousseau in his Social Contract long ago defined what he called the 'national will'. Those countries I've mentioned have had and still have the national will to achieve those things whereas Australia does not. Australia had a national will for like 12 non consecutive weeks in the 1920s. >This is not a political statement but a fact based on observation. Why Australia prefers to dig minerals out of the ground and sell them unprocessed abroad or why it sells gas/LPG internationally thus upping its local consumption price (effectively to above parity) and significantly disadvantaging its own citizens—not to mention making local availability a major problem—is the 64-million dollar question. It's bizarre that the Oz population isn't up in arms screaming. Ditto Uranium, Lithium etc. Its insane, >Powerless, I only watch such debates in utter frustration. Yep.