Australia To Build Fiber-To-the-Premises Network

candiman writes "The Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, has just announced that none of the private sector submissions to build a National Broadband Network was up to the standard, so instead the government is going to form a private company to build a fiber to the premises network. The network will connect to 90% of premises delivering 100Mb/s. The remaining 10% will be reached with wireless and satellite delivering up to 12Mb/s. The network cost has been estimated at 43 billion AU dollars over 8 years of construction — and is expected to employ 47,000 people at peak. It will be wholesale only and completely open access. As an Australian who voted for the other guys, all I can say is, wow."

Comments

Damn...

[Elitist_Phoenix]

8 Years?! Oh god won't someone please think of the pornography?!

Re:Damn...

[Namarrgon]

Don't worry - if you're in Tasmania (and who isn't?), they'll start building your PornoPipes as early as July.

What's the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is a censor black hole. If anything this is a trick to install filtering equipment everywhere.

Re:What's the point

[BrokenHalo]

For the last time, this has already been voted down in parliament once.

Sure. But until it is slapped down definitively, Conroy is going to keep talking the thing up. Trouble is, there are still far too many nanny-state idealogues in Parliament, and I am not nearly so confident that this censorship won't be imposed. There are also too many naive twits there who fail to see the "thin end of the wedge" aspect of the thing with regard to freedom of speech.

Re:What's the point

[mjwx]

Conroy and labour lost the support of Xenofon (Anti-gambling) and the Greens (anti-pollution) so unless he gets 6 Liberals to help him out this is all but buried.

To be totally honest I don't think that Conroy hasn't got much of a career left, if labour has any brains they'll drop him for the next election. The Greens and Xenofon want the public to forget that they were ever in favour of this because they need the public to vote for them as they don't have what the major parties consider safe seats.

For all the idealoges in Australian parliament there is enough people who rely on public popularity and sentiment just to stay in parliament to counter them. Conroy's getting plenty of negative press regarding the internet filter (which is why the NBN announcement came from Kevin Rudd not the Minister of Communications), although enough people see through the "think of the childern" rhetoric (the more he says child porn the less people beleive him) but that's no reason for us to let up on him.

Filtering

[james.mcarthur]

Wow, a fibre-to-the-home network by the same Government that wants to filter the internet out of existence.

If I was cynical

[davisk]

And I am, I'd label this an attempt by Senator Conroy to backdoor his internet filtering into existence by tacking it onto a massive government controlled network. Also, being Australia, we'll likely have to pay $100/month for access and be limited to 20GB of data traffic (both up and downstream) per month.

Re:If I was cynical

[mjwx]

And I am, I'd label this an attempt by Senator Conroy to backdoor his internet filtering into existence by tacking it onto a massive government controlled network. Also, being Australia, we'll likely have to pay $100/month for access and be limited to 20GB of data traffic (both up and downstream) per month.

Not cynical enough good sir. The next Liberal government will just privatise the entire network just like they did to every other bit of government infrastructure to raise enough cash to give themselves a pay rise.

Re:If I was cynical

[Namarrgon]

I'd label this an attempt by Senator Conroy to backdoor his internet filtering into existence

He doesn't need to spend $43B to do that; passing legislation to force ISPs to do it for him is quite sufficient.

we'll likely have to pay $100/month for access and be limited to 20GB of data traffic (both up and downstream) per month.

We'd be wishing for $100/20GB, if Telstra built the network. Because this is wholesale-only (no Telstra-style conflicts of interest), ISPs can compete fairly.

The other side of the coin is our overseas links. Right now there's a comfortable duopoly keeping prices high (and quotas low), but that may change a little when PIPE Networks gets their Guam cable built. We're going to need a lot more, though, when 19M people get their connections bumped up to 100Mbps.

Sounds Great

[Frogbert]

It sounds great in theory, and I applaud the thought, but the cynic in me says "I'll believe it when I'm connected to it".

Telcos in the United States

[Jane Q. Public]

took the Federal money that was to be used for fiber to the home, and used it for other things instead.

Now, they are complaining about Cable monopolies and the cost of taking fiber to the home, in order to combat cable.

Boo hoo. We have lots to complain about, with these cable companies. But the telcos are as guilty for creating the status quo as anyone else.

Bigger internet pipes first?

[WaXHeLL]

Too bad Australia needs a bigger pipe to the rest of the world first before this will be a decent benefit.

Actually that's already in the plan

[baileydau]

Not cynical enough good sir. The next Liberal government will just privatise the entire network just like they did to every other bit of government infrastructure to raise enough cash to give themselves a pay rise.

Actually, according to the Whirlpool homepage story they are already planning it's ultimate sale (in the not too distant future)

Private industry would contribute up to 49% of the funds, and the government would sell the company after operating it for 5 years, he said.

Re:Actually that's already in the plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt there is a business case for private industry to buy back a $50bn investment in a fibre network. The buyers would be lucky to turn in $2bn in revenue from household and business use of the network. Much of that revenue the industry is already making via use of existing broadband technologies such as ADSL, Cable and private fibre networks. "Up to" 100Mbps internet by 2018 is not an impressive aim either. Many large businesses in Australia already have access to private 1Gbps private fibre networks within cities. Many consumers already have access to internet speeds of 20Mbps.

There is no doubt a national fibre network is a desperately needed infrastructure project for Australia. Currently it costs ~$30,000 to get a premises connected via a 200-300m fibre run to a private fibre network. If the number of houses connected to broadband is 5 million, it works out to each household costing $10,000 to connect (and the actual value is much less considering the number of businesses that would also connect, the number of new household connections, etc).

If you compare ~$30,000 vs ~$6,000 for connection to a fibre network, it really does make sense to make this a national project. Infrastructure rollout becomes dramatically cheaper when everyone is connecting at once.

I just don't see how private industry would be interested in investing their money into this network when the return on investment period is probably going to be as long as 30 years.

Another problem is Australia will turn into a Korea/Japan situation where internal bandwidth capacity within the country is impressive, but external transit to the rest of the world is still expensive/in short supply.

Re:Actually that's already in the plan

[mjwx]

Another problem is Australia will turn into a Korea/Japan situation where internal bandwidth capacity within the country is impressive, but external transit to the rest of the world is still expensive/in short supply.

What do you mean by "will"?

Internal bandwidth already outstrips international bandwidth, and the average broadband speed is 1.5 mbit/s. Australia only has 3 pipes out of the country.

RTFA

[Namarrgon]

The other 10% will get satellite or wireless support, at 12 Mbps. It's still a big improvement for many.

Fact is, it's a big country, and running FTTH to every cattle station out in woop-woop is just silly. Can't please everyone.

Re:RTFA

[Eunuchswear]

Fact is, it's a big country, and running FTTH to every cattle station out in woop-woop is just silly. Can't please everyone.

Why? Fiber is cheap. Copper is expensive - rip out the copper and sell it.

(Ok, now the economy is fucked this is less true than it was the year before last).

Installing fiber in built-up areas is more expensive than in rural areas - here in Paris they're having to use the sewers 'cos digging new holes would be insanely expensive. (Just this morning saw the poor guy in his shit-stained overalls sat in a truck bonding connectors to a huge bundle of fiber).

Re:RTFA

[ozphx]

Digging a trench is expensive.

Also our largest cattle ranch is bigger than Texas. Literally.

Wahoo!

[mcrbids]

Soon, people down under will be able to hit their download caps in a matter of minutes! Yay progress!!!!

Re:Telstra's back door

[marcushnk]

eh?
It's 51% taxpayer funded, 49% private investment then wholly sold off after 5years of running (Like Telstra, for a fucking huge profit).

Huge bonus' to this plan.. (stolen from the good Simon Hackett shining knight of Aussie ISP's)
Best path: FTTH (not FTTN) (Fibre To The Home/Node)

Retain ADSL2+
Abandon flawed FTTN approach
same (high) speeds for everyone
Retain copper access regime
New infrastructure in parallel
Retain competitive tension
Retain innovation
Retain competitive pricing
No overbuild protection needed
No legal battles needed
more innovation, more choice
long term consumer benefit

Like the previous NBN proposal

[Namarrgon]

build out a fiber (or wireless) from a block-level, or even subdivision level green box to the end point. After that, allow the private enterprise to connect to the boxes and then provide various services.

Building out the last mile but not the backhaul would still entail spending 96% of the money, and wouldn't leave you with a working network. This way, the whole thing is out of the control of Telstra, so that access can be sold wholesale without any conflicts of interest. ISPs will still get to compete on price (even small ones), and the bigger ones could still replace the backhaul segment with their own connection if they felt it gave them a competitive advantage.

Three upgrades are coming

[Namarrgon]

• Southern Cross have upgraded their US link from 600Gbps to 860Gbps.
• Telstra and Alcatel are landing their new 1.3Tbps cable to Hawaii
• PIPE Networks are on track with their 1.9Tbps cable to Guam.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It's always the same 90%

[kaos07]

Rubbish. Do a tiny bit of research. NO ONE in Australia has access to 100mbps. SOME people have cable (10mbps) and SOME people live next door to the DSLAM and get 24mbps ADSL2+. I live in the inner-city, but I'm stuck between two exchanges so I only get 8-10mbps. Me, and 90% of Australia will be getting fibre to the home and speeds of 100mbps. Unfortunately for rural folk, it's completely un-feasible to roll out fibre to every backwater town. So to make up for that, they're getting what they were promised at the last election - 12mbps.

Re:It's always the same 90%

[SlashWombat]

But DOCSIS is on a shared cable, so you cannot get those speeds 24/7. If 100 subscribers are all on the same bit of cable, the ultimate potential bandwidth could well drop to only 2.2 or 4.4 megabits per second!
You might think this is not reasonable, but if Video on demand becomes popular, there might well be very little bandwidth left. Where as, with 100 mbit fibre, you are not going to be sharing that bandwidth.

If Australia wants to maintain, or even improve its status with OECD countries (WRT education/poplations intelligence), this is exactly the right way to go!

It's for the cameras

[Colin Smith]

How on earth do you expect them to keep track of you without sufficient bandwidth?

 

Who pays the ISP's bills?

[the_raptor]

Oh, that's right THE CUSTOMER DOES. This is the taxpayer paying off the taxpayers debt. The only way this is worthwhile is if it leads to an increase in production. Otherwise it is just bread and HD porn for the masses.

It isn't like I don't want high speed internet, but with some states nearly going broke and having trouble keeping the health system running, this is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.

Re:Who pays the ISP's bills?

[Whiteox]

Errr... Look at the big picture for a while. Massive infrastructure projects helped pull a lot of countries out of the Great Depression in the 30's - except maybe Germany that spent all of their gdp on militarizing.
It's the jobs that count here. More infrastructure projects like Canberra's new terminal, rail, inland ports, schools and so on, on a State and National level is only good and probably the best strategy.
Yes, $2000/head of population is a lot of money, but Joe Blow can invest in it via bonds, get a job through it, and use it 6 years from now. It also involves every industry, from building towers, ditches, cable making, a whole pile of IT work as well as providing continued employment in many sectors for years to come.

As an Australian and a geek, I have to say.

[AbRASiON]

I couldn't possibly care less.

We've got a global financial crises on our hands, we've got a water shortage in Melbourne, we're relying on non self sustaining fuels and all we can spend our money on is a 900$ handout to a tonne of taxpayers who will promptly donate the money to Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Panasonic, Samsung, Dolce and Gabana, Reebok, Nike or a plethora of other companies or we'll drop a tonne of coin on fibre internet.

Really?

I've got 15mbit now with ADSL2, I am happy with this, infact considering copper lines have been layed for years and are still maintained let's look at some ADSL 3 action and how about we look at somehow increasing our average download caps which seem to be between 5 and 50gb.

I want cleaner air, I want solar, wind and wave electricity, I want money put into Australian business's which will produce products internationally, I want to see poor bastard farmers looked after who have been doing it extremely tough for 10 years.
All this and I'm a selfish as hell geek!

Don't get me wrong I'd love fibre to my house but is this really a priority? 43billion isn't chump change, we only have a population of 20million, let's piss it away on something more important than people needing more bandwidth to update their twitter pages.

Oh and I guess at 31 I've finally reached enlightenment with government PR and the media, the first thing I thought to myself when I heard of this is, I'll believe it when I see it.

It's the 21st century equivalent of building a dam

[davydmadeley]

Is it just me, or is this quite a clever way to spend money in a recession?

Building dams and bridges is no longer work that requires thousands of relatively unskilled labourers (compared to skilled tradespeople).

You need a plan that's going to take a long time to complete, and employ a lot of people who have become recently unemployed from sectors like mining. So what do you do? Propose to dig a trench to every single house in Australia!

Brilliant!

Australia announces new national broadband network

[David Gerard]

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced that the Australian government will build a new $43 billion national broadband network, connecting 90% of homes to 100-megabit fibre internet. "We believe that fast broadband is absolutely essential for our nation's future", he said.

"Telstra has raised issues with the amount of bandwidth usage this will produce, but our Great Firewall of Australia Internet filtering project should keep usage down to reasonable levels at near-dialup speeds."

The Great Firewall will reliably block all illegal material, child pornography, terrorism and unhappy thoughts on the network.

"Not only are the contents of the list illegal," said Senator Stephen Conroy, " but revealing the list is also illegal, as is linking to someone linking to someone purporting to reveal the list. So blocking Google Search is required. This will also help keep usage down to an acceptable level."

Calling it, the "single largest infrastructure decision in Australia's history," Mr Rudd said the project would employ up to 37,000 people a year scanning citizens' net access, reading their email and correcting spelling errors in their football forum posts.

A consultative process will occur to determine the regulatory framework for the network. "We're considering getting Senator Fielding to do it personally," said Senator Conroy, "since he's the dickhead who demanded the censorship in return for his vote. Hopefully it'll melt his brain. Bloody balance of power. At least Nick Xenophon's bloody sane."

Re:Telstra??? Who?

[Cathbard]

I saw Telecom privatised from the inside, it was one of the ugliest things I've ever witnessed in my life. The brainwashing ("changing the culture" as they called it) was perverse. They took a group of public servants whose main interest was providing a service and twisted their minds to focus on profits only.

The lies and deceptions that accompanied it all were no better. For example, the prices were falling in real terms faster before privatisation than after it because most of the new exchanges had just paid for themselves. Instead of the lower effective overhead going back into the network or into customers pockets it went into shareholder's pockets. The press focused on the price reductions without referencing the falls that were already happening. Pure spin doctoring. It will come as no surprise to you to learn that the very first resellers were AAP (Australian Associated Press). In fact they used a loophole in the act to effectively resell space on their private networks before it was actually legalised.

The other thing that has occurred is a lack of routine maintenance. That is one thing that private companies rarely do but government departments always do. Speak to any tech or liney working in the field that was around in the Telecom days as well and he will tell you the same thing - things only get fixed when they break now. Now it's all about time and not about quality; get in and out as fast as possible. Private companies like going back later to fix things so they can make a buck, a public servant doesn't give a crap about the money - he just doesn't want to do go back and do more work, end of story. His boss doesn't care either, he wants good performance stats not good profit figures.

The unions told everybody these sorts of things would happen and it has all come to pass. Bowing to the great god of privatisation fills the pockets of the greedy, it does not improve the lot of the public regardless of how much the media try to spin it that way. Some things should be owned by the people (basically ALL essential services). The cables and pipes on government land in the streets should always be owned by the people. Privatise what is hooked up to them sure, but the actual infrastructure, no. Unfortunately though there is too much money spent on PR to convince the average idiot voter that he is better off if some corporation is able to suck money out of things instead of owning it himself. Apparently they prefer to swallow ads like mindless sheep than to retain the ability to hold the providers of their essential services accountable.