rstuart:"I'm out of my depth"

Well why didn't you say so earlier?

Rstuart,

"In other news Telstra have recently pushed up their wholesale ADSL pricing. I guess this clearly means Telstra is in danger of gong broke next year?"

Precisely, the NBN with all competition banned can simply make a profit by pushing up prices, and the consumer simply has to suck it up.

As for the video, I did not have time to watch all of it, but it was an an obvious attempt to justify the NBN.

PS, copper cables also last 60 years.

@Shadow Minister: with all competition banned can simply make a profit by pushing up prices, and the consumer simply has to suck it up.

You are as usual distorting things so they will fit the narrative you are trying to build. The article said quite clearly the consumer prices are fixed - they can't raise them.

Also my understanding is competition wasn't banned. They just bought non-compete agreements from the incumbents for around $10 billion. You are welcome to go out there build your own competing fibre network - best of British though.

On the prices they are asking for flexibility on, not only is the competition not banned, it wasn't bought either. For streaming video there is the HFC network will still continue to operate as a commercial venture, in full on competition with the NBN. I am a bit puzzled what they planning to do with data centres, as they typically build their own trunks to the internet backbone - bypassing the NBN entirely.

And the funny thing it I suspect you have is arse about, again. I would not be too worried about the NBN raising prices in areas where they have competition. It would be dropping them. In 10 years time once they have their revenue stream, they may well be able to drop prices to force the HFC network out of business, and then raise them again once they are gone. That is what a private company would do. It is what Woolworths does to small stores in regional areas for example.

@Shadow Minister: PS, copper cables also last 60 years.

The new stuff might. The older stuff much of us are using is insulated with paper. It also suffers horribly when the joints go under water, as I know to my cost. Fibre doesn't - the manufactures are rating it at a _minimum_ of 60 years.

@Shadow Minister: but it was an an obvious attempt to justify the NBN.

Cut him some slack Shadow. He is an engineer talking about his creation. Not everyone is a tribal and political as you, so they don't view everything in those terms. If he didn't believe he was doing the job he has been charged with as best as it can be done, and wasn't prepared to defend himself against people who he wasn't doing that he should not have the job.

Besides if you want to know the technical reasoning behind why something is done he is the go-to guy, not some politician or journalist. Yet so far here we have quoted journalists and politicians, not the engineers. Me, I always find stories from engineers about the problems they faced and how they are solving them interesting. I thought you would too.

Rstuart,

I hate monopolies with a passion, especially those that use undue influence to ban competition. If the NBN was not government owned and had specific legislation protecting it from the ACCC, its directors would be prosecuted.

If the government did not destroy the existing networks, and did not ban competition, I would be an avid supporter.

As for the "technical" presentation, while there was a lot of information, there was a lot of information omitted. For example, Fibre to the node was dismissed, because of the cost of the active equipment in the node, what was omitted was the need for battery back up in each house hold and the expense single mode fibre modems in each household compared to the cost for the one node serving 200 houses.

While he did use a lot of buzz words, little of what he introduced was new or in depth, and was simply a sales presentation.

@Shadow Minister: I hate monopolies with a passion, especially those that use undue influence to ban competition.

You are not unique in hating monopolies. But the NBN isn't going to change that. Effectively all that is happening it the name of the owner is changing. Before 2004 it was the government. Post privatisation it became the Telstra Shareholders. Now its going to become the government again. About the only change is there was a small amount of data carried by Optus cable. Now there won't be. The rest was carried by Telstra. Now it will be the NBN.

In other words there is no new monopoly being created, so I simply don't get the monopoly argument.

As for destroying stuff, everything remains in place bar the copper. So we keep HFC for video, and mobile continues to offer data. The copper is only being replaced because it is owned by a private monopoly who isn't interested in using their profits to upgrade it, and no one can figure out how to bribe them into doing it. It if the Libs hadn't of sold it off as a private monopoly, then upgrading the copper would have been an option. But they did sell it, so it isn't.

I keep repeating this, but it is the crux of the argument. Both sides tried to do what you suggest and upgrade the copper. Both failed.

@Shadow Minister: what was omitted was the need for battery back up in each house hold and the expense single mode fibre modems in each household compared to the cost for the one node serving 200 houses.

Looking on the web, they are using an Alcatel-Lucent ONT which it seems you can buy for around $250 retail. http://islamabad.olx.com.pk/nayaltel-ont-alcatel-for-sale-iid-42078963 I presume the NBN will be paying 1/2 that. They aren't that expensive. They don't maintain the battery - that's your problem. They don't have to power it, cool it, house it or visit it regularly. Besides, he didn't say it cost less up front, his point was it cost less to maintain. I'm sure he is right.