Turnbull Dismally Fails First NBN Test

It has been a pretty common refrain from Malcolm Turnbull that the management of the National Broadband Network project by the previous government was “pathetic” – both before and after the previous election in September 2013.

Count how many times he uses that exact word in this transcript.

Morever, how about this quote?

“This is a project that they said when they published their corporate plan at the end of 2010 they said that by June 30 this year they would have passed and been able to connect by June 30 this year, 950,000 premises in brown field areas, built-up areas.”

“They in fact passed about 160,000 of which only a bit more than two thirds are able to get a connection if they actually asked for it. So there’s 33,000 customers connected to the fibre after four years I mean it’s pathetic.”

Turnbull promised us an NBN that would be “faster, cheaper, and sooner”, should the Coalition have come to power in the 2013 election.

Oh really?

“Malcolm Turnbull’s NBN plan is in tatters after revelations in a Senate hearing today that not a single user has been connected to its Fibre to the Node trial, despite announcing the pilot nine months ago.”

Not one?

Not even ONE?

Surely even 33,000 is a far better result than a big fat zero?

There have also been plenty of technical hurdles, that have yet to be overcome:

“In Senate Estimates last month, NBN Co chief operations officer Greg Adcock explained that a delay in the Epping trial was due to power supply issues for the nodes.”

“”The Epping trial in Victoria has slowed down a bit, while we work with the utility there to find a power solution. We’re working through that,” he said.”

“Close to a month later, a spokesperson for NBN Co told ZDNet that discussions with a utility in Victoria to gain sufficient power supply for the nodes were still “ongoing” with no timeline provided for where the trial will commence.”

No timeline?

Ouch.

One should remember that the previous fibre-to-the-premises model would not have had this issue, as there would have been no powered elements in the distribution network – (the fibre cables in each and every street) – but Turnbull’s move to the technically inferior fibre-to-the-node model has introduced this problem to an already complicated system.

If they can’t get power for just a single trial in a single suburb without striking difficulty, how many issues are they going to have getting power to 80,000 or more nodes across the entire country?

Does he really think this will be an isolated occurrence?

It won’t be – and the previous model would have completely avoided it – not to mention the cost involved with actually having his nodes consume power over the life of the network.

Turnbull has failed his first test on delivering his “faster, sooner, cheaper” NBN.

Dismally.

  • Tom

    It took Labor 5yrs to get 115k homes connected to obsolete #nbn and this cocksucker not once complained. Since Morrow started there has nearly been increase to double that. Furthermore, take up rates have doubled!

    Turnbull has already done an outstanding work in rescuing monumental disaster. Whilst the world is seeing rapid uptake of wireless broadband due to strong consumer demand for mobile devices, Australia is wasting billions on a cable network that will be totally abandoned in less than a decade.

    I know you’ll be too retarded to publish this but I still wanted you read it so you can get a grip with reality.

    • Sorry – but I published your comment, so clearly your inference that I am “retarded” in some way is clearly misguided and incorrect.

      Misguided and incorrect much like your understanding of how telecommunications systems work. You should take your political hat off and assess the facts as they stand, not simply believe what Turnbull says because it suits your political beliefs.

  • Tom

    It took Labor 5yrs to get 115k homes connected to obsolete #nbn and this cocksucker not once complained. Since Morrow started there has nearly been increase to double that. Furthermore, take up rates have doubled!

    Turnbull has already done an outstanding work in rescuing monumental disaster. Whilst the world is seeing rapid uptake of wireless broadband due to strong consumer demand for mobile devices, Australia is wasting billions on a cable network that will be totally abandoned in less than a decade.

    I know you’ll be too retarded to publish this but I still wanted you read it so you can get a grip with reality.

    • Sorry to disappoint you – but I published your comment, so clearly your inference that I am “retarded” in some way is clearly misguided and incorrect.

      Misguided and incorrect much like your understanding of how telecommunications systems work. You should take your political hat off and assess the facts as they stand, not simply believe what Turnbull says because it suits your political beliefs.

    • Mate the rollout speed was/is exponential, in due course it would have doubled labor or not. “Cable network that will totally abandoned in less than a decade?” Oh you must be smarter than the guys at Google rolling out fibre…..

    • Also I might add that instead of giving Telstra 200,000 free customers on node “trials” they could have opened it to other RSPs and other local contractors to each area, I thought this whole NBN was meant to increase competition, not hand entire areas to one provider… As for speed of the entire rollout, they could have just increased that by removing the current NTD that gets installed to a single port in a wall then have the RSP/customer supply a generic GPON fibre modem/router, not only would that have saved time, but also money. Then there is the issue of the large amount of POIs, instead of 121 there could have been 14, that would be much cheaper, would have provided a backup if one POI goes down, would have increased competition because smaller businesses could have more easily created a national presence by installing their hardware in only 14 instead of 121 points, could have been completely been separated out of a Telstra exchanges by building only 14 new buildings and thus no reliance on Telstra at all.

      • I’ve always felt the “correct” number of POIs was 66 – one for each of the 66 CCAs – which would have closely matched existing infrastructure.

        Having Telstra involved *does* save money – using their pit and pipe saves digging and laying new pit and pipe for new fibre. Using their existing exchanges saves buying up land and building new “exchanges”.

        This is the model both plans use – except that the FTTN model continues to use a lot of copper that in some cases is decades old.

        FTTN limits each premise to a single service – whereas the FTTP model allowed for four data and two voice services per fibre drop. For home users, not immediately useful, but for businesses a godsend.

        FTTN removes that advantage completely because it relays on an analogue connection between the premise and the node. FTTN is not a modern solution.

        Where multiple connections become useful in the home is for IPTV services, and similar “extra” services. It also allows for future innovation.

        The Turbull “MTM” provides none of this.

        • 14 new buildings may have been cheaper to build than paying Telstra access to 121 POIs forever. Business’ could opt in to have a 4 port NTD installed, 99% of users are residential, remember when customers start wanting 10gbit and gpon get updated, all those NTDs that got installed are going to be thrown, better to have one port in the wall and have the customer/isp supply a 1gbit gpon router/modem.

          • Sure – I’m not disagreeing with that, and the NTDs are an interesting point.

            The problem was – and the ACCC agreed – that backhaul providers would have had a great amount of investment in existing infrastructure stranded and unusable under a 14 POI model.

            The other problem with low numbers of POIs is that a failed POI would have brought down a greater percentage of end users.

            The CCA model would have nicely met existing infrastructure concerns versus cost. I do believe the number of POIs is too high, but this is what the ACCC has given us, so that’s what they have to work with.

          • Here is a quote from http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/440972/accc_finalises_list_nbn_points_interconnect/ NBNCo engineers designed an optimal architecture with two redundant POIs in each capital city and a highly resilient intrastate network with multiple redundant routes to those cities.

          • That’s what they wanted. That’s not what the ACCC gave them.

            More POIs gives more opportunity for redundant links – consider a mesh network.

            The initial design was for reasonable redundancy while still limiting costs.

            Just don’t forget WHY the ACCC made its ruling – to protect *everyone else’s* infrastructure.

          • Yeah, everyone else’s interests, mainly Telstra and large ISPs, not the consumer 🙁

          • One of the “C”s in “ACCC” is “competition” – 14 POIs would have decimated competition in the backhaul market. This is what we have to work with. I don’t think it’s the “best” outcome, but it’s a “better” one…

          • Yeah I know its what we are working with, though it would have created competition… a large amount of POIs insures only large ISPs can enter the market because they have the capital.. sorry Im just having a whinge 😉

          • …versus ISPs being able to be selective about which areas they cover – but I do know where you’re coming from 🙂

    • Reg Lansfair

      Learn about technology before you go on a rant. As a previous network programmer. Wireless tech can be quite limited, Message packets sent via wireless can fail at a very high rate and have to be constantly resent, with increasing uptake of wireless for everything, interference increases and fail rate will continue to be a problem. Fiber is far superior, it is important infrastructure.

    • You are either ignorant of how infrastructure building works, or more likely deliberately choosing to ignore to emphasise your political bias. Under Tony’s plan to “build the roads of the future” it will be *many years* before a single car will drive on them. Applying your view then, all that money spent on building those roads over the next xx many years will be completely wasted because nobody can use them.
      As has also been discussed in many places, wireless broadband is *NOT* the same as mobile broadband. Mobile broadband does *not* replace fixed broadband, it complements it, and wireless broadband in *not* a universal replacement for fixed broadband *because physics*.
      Morrow has done *nothing* to increase anything. Take up rates have doubled because that is what they were always going to do. Not a single user has been connected to the new MTM or FTTN trials. All those take up rates have been on the Labor NBN model.

  • Pingback: The Refined Geek » Turnbull’s MTM NBN Will be Later, Slower and More Expensive.()