FttN+P Implementation for Australia

In "The Lexus and the Broadband Network" I likened the choice between the ALP's  FttP National Broadband Network (NBN) and  FttN Coalition Broadband Policy to be like the choice between a new Lexus and a ten year old Toyota Camry car, with the kids wanting a scooter (wireless broadband). The Coalition won the election and so the Fibre to the Node (FttN) option is the one which is to be implemented, but will have elements of the ALP's NBN Fibre to the Premises (FttP, sometimes called Fibre to the Home FttH) in it. The current fiber which has been installed will not be removed. So perhaps the new approach might be termed FttN+P.

An on-line petition proposes "The Liberal Party of Australia: Reconsider your plan for a 'FTTN' NBN in favour of a superior 'FTTH' NBN". To ask a government, which just won an election, to reverse part of its platform is at best a waste of time and may be counter-productive, reducing the chances of getting FttP.

Even if the government thought FttP a good idea, they couldn't be seen to be admitting their previous policy was wrong. Pressure via a petition for FttP would have the effect of requiring the government to defence its policy and thus limit its ability to provide FttP (even where the Government thought it a good idea).

A better strategy would be suggest the FttN policy be "enhanced", without admitting this is a reversal. Some new term, such as FttN+P could be invented, indicating Fibre to the Node, plus Premises (in some locations). The exact meaning of this would be kept vague, so it could cover both roll-out of just fiber in new green-fields sites and the option of fibre in some FttN installations.

Broadband Choices for Australia

My "The Lexus and the Broadband Network" analogy was picked up by Australian Science Media Centre and is quoted in "Rural areas to lose in Coalition internet plan, says expert" (Toowoomba Chronicle, 4th September 2013). Expecting more queries from the media on this, I thought I had better summarize the main points of the options offered by the parties. The ALP's  National Broadband Network (NBN), is well known, the Coalition Broadband Policy less well.

Both parties propose a model where different retailers can market essentially the same wholesale product. Cable will be used in the city (fibre for ALP and hybrid for Coalition), fixed wireless in rural areas and satellite in remote areas. The NBN is planned to be completed by 2020 at a cost of  $44B, Coalition by 2019 at $30 billion.

The ALP offers 1 Gbps, Coalition 50 Mbps, on twentieth the speed. But this is only on the cabled networks, the wireless networks will be 25 Mbps (realistically 12 Mbps) and satellite 12 Mbps (realistically 1 Mbps). The NBN fiber system has potential for faster speeds, the hybrid network less so.

Charges for the NBN are around $50 to $100 per month. The NBN wholesale access prices start at $24 a month for 12 Mbps. For the Coalition alternative they are likely to be similar. This has little to do with the cost of the network or technology, but more to do with competition.

Both the party's policies assume one network where the only competition is between retailers offering essentially the same product. But in reality these retailers will be competing with the mobile phone companies selling wireless broadband, currently "4G", at up to 100 Mbps (more realistically 1 Mbps).

ps: I wonder what my former tutors at the University of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba make of this.

Coalition’s Proposed Alternative to the NBN

The Australian opposition have released "Fast. Affordable. Sooner. The Coalition’s Plan for a better NBN". This proposes halting the roll-out of the NBN Fibre to the Home in Australia and using Fibre to the Node instead. We have had TFFN in Canberra for just over a decade, with the Transact system. If you have power poles handy, and the citizens don't mind more overhead wires, it is a cost effective system. Also it works okay in new buildings. My apartment building has a fibre optic node in the basement and twisted pair copper to each unit. But if you are going to the trouble of putting new cables underground, then they might as well be fiber-optic, as most of the cost is in digging the trenches.

If the government, whoever they are, want to save money, they could prioritize fibre roll-out in greenfield sites and areas with no, or poor broadband. The areas with copper phone and Pay TV cable could be left for last, where it is working okay. This would be a slight change to the current government's NBN FTTH to achieve cost savings proposed by the opposition.