rudds nbn accounting trick, page-17

I don't think a lot of people here understand the issue is not technology.

TLS has effectively a FTTN ready to go.
There are technologies and infrastructure waiting to be switched on. Fact. Ever wonder why there is that mysterious 1.5Mb limit on ADSL1, ever wonder why in exchanges where competitors put their own DLSAMs in then magically TLS enables ADSL2+ the next day? think about it.

Anybody that wants direct fibre is free to pay for it now and get 100megs to your door. Now.
NBN is here in all but name - but its owned by TLS.
Don't discount the tier 2 providers like powertel, they have lots of fibre too.

Crappy state of telecoms pricing for consumers is due to market distortion i.e. private ownership of majority of backbone in a company that is part govt owned and regulated to death.

But two wrongs do not make a right. Duplicating existing backhaul and spending mountains of nonexistent, unallocated cash is not the way forward. (observe budget accounting trick: its an investment not a cost, nothing is set aside in budget except nominal amounts etc., funding model has no detail because they don't HAVE A VIABLE ONE) Case in point: why has no private company run fibre to far flung suburbs and areas of low density? because its uneconomic. So NBN has to subsidise this. Does that release TLS from its universal service obligations? Or do we repeat the cable rollout fiasco from a few years ago?

Buy the assets back from TLS and have a full FTTN network up and running in two years tops with direct fibre to apartments, commercial buildings and other areas of high density/return, FTTN w/ ADSL2+ or VDSL @ 20Mb+ for everyone else. That is the only sensible and affordable course of action. Plan it right and it will migrate to FTTH in due time as economics and demand allows.

In fact they should have just bought back TLS and structurally separated it, hey presto instant NBN. I have nothing but disgust for all the governments (state and fed) in australia who sold off public monopolies into private monopolies then wondered why the market wasn't working, then had to intervene to distort the hell out of it, resulting in one giant cluster----

And for those arguing for 'hey we don't know what magic uses this 100Mb for everyone will drive', I present to you: Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea. What revolutionary communications or technological developments has ubiquitous fibre driven in the last 3-4 years? I'm from Hong Kong and I tell you: yes internet is everywhere and guess what its used exactly same way as it is here, just a bit more widespread and taken for granted (but hey we're approaching that point here as well).

I tell you things out there are so messed up now you have new residential estates being built WITHOUT COMMS INFRASTRUCTURE because: NBN is in name only right now, but why would TLS commit money and resources to something that the govt may just grab off it later.

Two wrongs do not make a right, the economics behind the NBN does not make sense, if it did it would be a great idea.
Nobody is saying that we don't ideally want an NBN but we don't live in a greenfields ideal scenario, in reality things are a lot more messy and complicated and I can think of a lot better use for 43 billion dollars (like driving company tax down to 25% or a truckload of schools, hospitals and public transport).

spend 1/4 the money for a FTTN design predicated by cutting a deal with TLS and I'm all for it.

In the meantime it remains a game of poker as to whether Conroy and his master are determined to fly in the face of economic and technical reality just to prove a point. After observing the RSTP debacle I'm not so sure.

disclaimer: traded TLS recently 2.96 --> 3.18, do not hold anymore and would definitely NOT recommend from a technical/trading perspective. If you're a long termer there are better gambles out there and make no mistake this is a gamble predicated on which way govt policy will turn, you're better off gambling whether someone digs up something in WA, RSTP or no RSTP