Analysts explains why some telcos don’t want an NBN

The third last paragraph should read "NBN advocate Paul Budde, ...". Too many people in the industry either see the NBN as a way to hurt Telstra or free government money and are supporting the NBN for their own self-interest.

In comparison to the rest of the developed world, Australia's broadband networks are quite primitive and slow. Due to the monopoly that Telstra holds over the physical infrastructure there is no _real_ competition within the communications industry. The slow speeds coupled with the limited quotas and the amount of money we spend on these services is laughable. The NBN being rolled out in it's initial stages has caused many ISPs to lift their game and become _slightly_ more competitive, however we are still very far behind.

The wasted billions in lost business productivity simply waiting for data to be transferred over the internet is far greater than the proposed cost of rolling out the NBN. The past and present polices of the government and the lack of a NBN are also contributing to money being sent overseas due to the lack of high speed, low cost broadband infrastructure. Hosting popular online content in Australia is pointless, as we simply don't have the speeds necessary.

Without a reliable, high speed communications infrastructure in Australia, the next YouTube/Facebook/Google/etc startup means an Australian creator of such an idea would need to look overseas to find the resources required to kick off such a large project, we also fail miserably to attract overseas businesses at the same time. Polices such as these as well as making the hosting of certain types of content in Australia means we are also missing out on billions of dollars worth of revenue to other countries.

The argument that wireless technologies are better than fix cable technologies simply defies physics. Fixed cabled technologies will always be faster than the wireless counterparts and also ignores the fact that the backbone of these wireless towers rely on a fibre optic cable for long distance transmission. The current prohibitive cost of wireless broadband is also holding us back in certain industries which could be much more productive if it were less expensive.

The other side of the coin for wireless technologies is the redundancy they provide when a construction worker puts a backhoe through the fixed cables or there is a massive natural disaster such as was proven in the fairly recent earthquake in Chile.

Both Labour and the Coalition do not understand the modern communications landscape. One side seams to ignore scientific facts, spewing political spin in order to get into power and the other just seems to ignore expert advice in the face of pushing it's own narrow minded agenda which is doomed to fail by not meeting our communication needs and expectations.

The idea that the NBN is just for surfing the internet is a naive view that misses the greater picture. As technology marches forward, most of our telephone calls are now switched via high speed data networks rather than traditional telephone lines. The amount of space, equipment and (electronic and man) power required for these networks is much smaller as well.

I am disgusted with the way we refer to Internet speeds. We talk about Kbps and Mbps, but in reality 1kb/s is around 7.6kbps. Not only does it seem like we are getting faster speeds, it is a misrepresentation.
The NBN is not the best idea, but it's better than any alternatives. The amount of usage I get for the amount I pay is extortion, and yet I'm still on the best budget plan for the bare minimum I download. The NBN would be one of the bestthings for the youth in this country because it would not only bring our speeds up to date with he rest of the world. And not only that, but the price of standard Internet would go down to affordable levels for even people who don't use the Internet all that often.

@Tony ... you're wrong. The bulk of the cost of rolling out the NBN is in the labour of the people doing the digging etc. Whilst it is true that selectively rolling out to specific houses might save *some* money, the fibre will still have to be rolled out to every street. Then, in the future when the current occupants of a house that had previously opted out of receiving the service decide that they now want a service (or new occupants move in) then providing this will cost considerably more. It is much better and more cost effective to connect *every* house in one fell swoop, even if they don't actually want the service right now.

How can the NBN be financially viable when its plans are twice as much cost as comparable ADSL2+ plans?

For $51 (incl line rental) p/month you can get TPG 180GB ADSL2+. A comparable NBN plan from Internode is $110. That's an increase of 116%.

Hard working Australian families will have to pay more for their internet connections on the NBN & higher taxes to pay off the $43-80bn NBN debt.

I think the most telling point is that the letter states their proposal is sufficient "For the short to medium term".

The FTTH proposal is good for the *long* term. 1Gpbs is far more speed than most customers need today (but, significantly, not all!). Wait 10 years (shortly after the NBN is scheduled to be finished construction) and see what you think then.

Yes, there are technologies available now that can provide the speed we need *while* the NBN is under construction. But beyond that point, we are hitting speed and capacity limits with wireless (due to physical bandwidth constraints), and fibre looks like the best technology to take us beyond that point.

lol....

A highly paid research company CEO analyses the NBN situation and finds that not enough highly paid research has been done.

Cos the highly paid research convinces people of what ias right and wrong.

People would naturally vote against their preferred party if a highly paid research company told them that the NBN was a good idea, according to their $100million analysis...

Cos obviously the initially spent $25million study was simply not detailed enough, not enough highly paid analysis work from an analysis company that have never analysed something this big before...

So let them spend 3-6 months learning about bigger than big national broadband networks, at $4000 per day per analyst wel paid thank you, in order to come up with their report.

Which will then be nitpicked, criticised, roundly abused, belittled, ostracised, discredited etc ad infinitum.

And by whom?

Well by the other side of course, depending on what their findings are. One side or the other will NEVER accept the results, they will never be good enough and will never be accepted by the opposition.

Cos they would not accept any form of proof as they would simply claim it is no proof, and decry the waste of money on the analysis.

Just like they do right now. It will not change and such an CB analysis would indeed be a waste of time and money.

Unless of course you are the CEO of a well paid analysis company, then there is ONLY benefit in that analysis...

And until you have done their analysis, you have naturallyt not convinced the market, nor Paul Broad, nor a slather of vested interest companies that will be commercially threatened by the NBN... lol...