Pacnet CEO: Coalition’s broadband figures were more than adequate

“A metropolitan ring in a city like Sydney or Melbourne would cost around $US200 million,” he said. “At $1m a piece you could probably put 30-100 wireless towers with a range of 3-4km each."

This is a factor of ten smaller than the number of mobile towers ALREADY in place in Sydney and offering an ALREADY inadequate broadband service.

“Can you be a first-world country with wireless to the home? I think so.”

We ALREADY have wireless to the home in every town in the country with a population over 500 people. It is also manifestly inadequate as any wireless broadband customer in an area not serviced by ADSL of HFC will tell you.

At the tower density you would need to service a metro area SOLELY by wireless, it actually becomes cheaper to install fiber since you already have fiber cable running up pretty much every street in order to service the radio towers.

The reason Bill Barney, Pacnet CEO, is opposed to the NBN is because Pacnet's business model disappears under an NBN.

“Is your average 60-year old going to be using 12Mbps? Probably not,”

That depends. Maybe he wants to watch those old movies on cable TV that aren't available on free to air.

Certainly he isn't going to be able to watch cable TV over an ADSL copper pair.

Maybe he would like to make a video call to the kids interstate.
Maybe he would like his medical problems monitored.
Maybe teleworking would become a real option rather than dragging himself into the office just to sit in front of a computer.

Just to name a few reasons why a 60yo "might" use 12Mb/s broadband for.

Bill, have your head check. Can a wireless technology deliver high bandwidth, high speed content in a RELIABLE fashion to the MASSES in the coming 10 years? You should know, given you are the CEO of Pacnet.

Take the example of full HD video call to a desktop PC in two years time, taking place in a metro. The shared bandwidth will not make it possible if a couple of people are assessing the same cell base for this apps. Current ADSL 2+ can barely do that when you are living far away from the exchange.

Think consumer and business expectations 5 - 10 years down the road, Bill.

In only 5 years I will be able to confirm my own belief that Bill Barney is absolutely wrong when he says “Is your average 60-year old going to be using 12Mbps? Probably not.” Currently the fastest connection I can get is ADSL2+ at about 5500 kbs, and it is not really meeting my requirements.

I have also been in many situations where people are running both 3G wireless and point to point (not mobile) wireless solutions and I can tell you with absolute certainty that wireless is not a substitute for the 5500kbs ADSL2+ I get at home, let alone a 100mbs fibre link. Drop outs, congestion, latency, interference, the list of issues with wireless goes on and on. It's great as a substitute for a real connection when you need to send a quick email from the car, but its limited to that really.

It's not just the bush that misses out on proper broadband connections either. I am in a regional area, 40k from Melbourne, we have suburban blocks here and about 1/4 of them cannot get ADSL (there is no cable at all here) for one reason or another. Some because Telstra installed RIMM on new estates in the past 10 years, others because they are simply to far from the one exchange in the area. This is for all intents and purposes a suburban area.

Bring on the fibre!

and taking into account coporate/business users..banks, FSI's, media companies, support centers etc..high speed internet is definitely the road ahead..so from that perspective NBN is a good thing for the country...but i suppose there could be more than one way to provide the same high speed internet

Hi Goresh,
I see by the number of posts that you are passionate about your subject and that is a good thing as it is passion that fuels a good debate.
In relation to your posts, you say the following that are not really 'facts' as such.
1."The reason Bill Barney, Pacnet CEO, is opposed to the NBN is because Pacnet's business model disappears under an NBN." ???? He install undersea fibre optic cables, so he knows a few things about fibre, right? Due to their experience, his company could probably tender for work installing it for NBN. Also, with so many high speed users on the new network, undersea network links to the 'real' Internet will only increase and feed his company business model.
2. Number of towers, cost etc for city size of Sydney. Most would agree that Sydney has an unusual typography that requires a higher saturation of towers due to the hilly river valleys, but most subscribers within 20-25km of the city are covered by HFC or ADSL coverage so the point becomes moot. Melbourne has far less towers due to its relatively easier typography, with the same going for most of Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane.
3. As for the hypothetical 60 year old,
:- he can currently use Skype to video conference his grand-children over current wireless broadband (or ADSL or HFC) at more than a high enough frame rate for him to be able to see them with his usual 60 year old clarity, and probably at more clarity than they want to see his wrinkles.
:- His old movies were made in the US and are probably at 525 lines 24 frames interlaced extra low definition which compresses very well. Even DVB-T (SD) is within the transmission capabilities of current wireless broadband and easily ADSL using H.264/MPEG4 AVC. TV used to be transmitted between locations over copper pairs prior to fibres easier availability.
:- Most IT workers I know already tele-work using current broadband services. Don't see many fibres at the beach and coffee shops where I see a lot of them tele-working!! Lots of wireless use though.
I am on Telstra Cable HFC and have been since it was released. If you had it, I think you would be happy too. Optus and Telstra both have offerings of over 30Mbps available today in some locations.
If someone would ask me whether you want a fibre link into your house or alternatively, $5000-$7500 to pay for your current broadband for as long as that money would last, I can tell you I would prefer to stay where I am now, FOR FREE FOR 7-10 YEARS.

Hi BB2 I suppose your the man himself!

I assume in the 1st Para of the article you mean throughout Australia, through Australia no one needs. I would like to put that focus on throughout!

Please tell me are you in support of the NBN just don't like the cost, support it including the cost or don't support it?

Though wireless may be able to provide some service it will not have the fault tolerance and robustness of fibre, it does not address issues of the existing aging infrastructure and the Telstra manipulation of the IT economy, It will require fibre distribution to the towers so a significant framework has to be implemented and has that been fully costed, it does not comply with the service level guarantee (especially for business) we expect (fails in bad weather, interference, security and crowding), and I am sure of much more without micro targeting.

Spend 6Bn and you don't have significantly better infrastructure just more people connected!

Hi Tom Brown,
No sorry, I am neither the author nor the interviewee, just a lowly commentor I'm afraid.
I guess you could surmise from my comments that I am against the NBN, but that is not true. I think fibre is the only product to be used for scaleable and resilient links in the core of any network. But as you move out of the core, I think you should use whatever provides the features you NEED in a cost effective manner. Fibre is by far the most costly approach, and is it really needed at every home? If you could take $20Bn out of the budget by using different technologies last mile, that would give you more to spend on the core services such as subsidising international links, caching and inter-exchange links making the whole experience faster for all, even those in the 7% club (ie non-93% club).
The main problem I see with the current NBN design approach is that the network is being built back-to-front from normal communications conventions. You would normally build out the core first, provide the appropriate level of back end services, and then head out towards the nodes. If you don't do this you will end up having the peak hour traffic on the Sydney harbour bridge transiting down my back driveway. A road network and a data network have many synergies. Not many have a six lane front driveway, for good reason, but if they do they probably need it.

The problems started in the politicising of the issues that has forced a choice between two completely different opposed solutions. Without going into depth on either 'solution', I can tell you they both have problems. The best design would probably take leads from both solutions, and therefore be a hybrid of both, but as the issues and how to resolve them have never been adequately debated publicly in a suitable forum and here we are now.
The issues: (sure there are many more to add)
- Telstra's alleged predatory position with regard to wholesale use of their assets
- Regional Broadband Service availability in general
- Broadband Black Spots in regional and metropolitan areas
- Remote area servicing
- Normal users perceived response speed/experience
- Burgeoning use of wireless devices
- Ongoing cost of system maintenance

The solution, is there just one, or are there different solutions to each problem? Sounds like a CBA should be done to help us all decide. $6bn might be too cheap, but $43bn is IMHO way too expensive.
Maybe let's agree on $20bn, and now debate how best we spend it to ensure the best outcome satisfying the issues.

The 'avery 60 year old' that won't be using 12Mbps will be dead within no time, the young people are the ones that will keep Australia going over the next century, at this time the network should be built for us.

When we are on our death bed, further infastructure should be built for young people, as they are again - the future.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the wireless comments, it's a terrible technology, stop beating a dead horse.