China's FttH an inconvenient NBN truth for Libs

China's FttH an inconvenient NBN truth for Libs

Summary: The Coalition has been berating journalists for not looking at overseas plans for nationwide broadband networks — but now that the world’s most populous country has committed to FttH, what are we now to believe?

SHARE:

The foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-National Broadband Network troops at The Australian were so excited to hear that China is planning to build its fibre-to-the-home (FttH) network for around $10 billion that they plastered the story on the paper's front page in a sort of presumed comeuppance to the spendthrifts over at NBN Co.

shutterstock_78471586
(Many of people reach their hand by zhaoyan, shutterstock.com)

While this announcement may seem to suit the Coalition's ongoing ideological NBN warfare, it is a double-edged sword: given more than a cursory examination, the project is not only technically different to Australia's, but profoundly contradicts the messages that the Coalition's NBN attack dogs have been espousing.

One of those messages, of course, is that we should be looking to overseas examples of other nationwide broadband deployments for inspiration on how to model our own. Turnbull's presumption in making this statement is that everybody in the world is supposedly deploying VDSL, just like the Coalition wants to; nationwide FttN. He therefore concludes that the NBN is a frivolous waste, and if we could just see what's happening in other countries, we would see the light.

But how does his argument compare when overseas countries are, in fact, replacing copper with fibre? What will Turnbull make of China's FttH investment? Will Australia's "so-called specialist" and "parochial" journalists continue to be harangued as — how Turnbull put it — "unbelievably uninformed" by Liberal Party stalwarts if they point out that by the time China's project is finished, nearly one in seven people on earth will be using FttH?

By the time China's project is finished, nearly one in seven people on earth will be using FttH. This is hardly a minority opinion, and it's truly an inconvenient truth for those arguing that FttH is unviable as a universal last-mile strategy.

This is hardly a minority opinion, and it's truly an inconvenient truth for those arguing that FttH is unviable as a universal last-mile strategy. Even more, however, it's an indication that the real cost factors behind Labor's NBN are not only completely unrelated to the choice of FttH technology, but will also be factors in any Coalition Fibre-to-the-Node (FttN) plan.

Those costs, in the main, relate to anything but the actual fibre and switching equipment; the costs for these components of the network are well understood and subject to economies of scale that will, of course, suit China's rollout.

I'd wager that the lion's share of the cost differences between our rollout and China's relate to several very obvious factors — most importantly, the yawning gap between workers' wages in China and Australia.

I have never employed a Chinese labourer to dig a ditch in China, but if I did, I bet it would come in at around one-twentieth of the cost of paying a labourer in Australia. There is a reason, after all, that the Western world shifted its manufacturing to China.

I addressed the issue of relative worker costs last year, noting that in most Asian countries, the obvious plan of action for a civil-works project of this magnitude would be to import tens of thousands of workers from India, Bangladesh, Indonesia or elsewhere, then keep them in appalling conditions, while paying them substandard wages to work long hours with few safety protections.

Given the storied history of Chinese worker protections, I would suspect that a similar approach will be taken in building China's NBN.

Australia, of course, long ago decided that it would simply not tolerate anything resembling these kinds of working conditions; toeing the other side of the line, our workplace policies have evolved to such a point that we nearly have to find someone with three postgraduate degrees to dig a hole.

The net effect of this workplace environment is, ironically, seen most obviously in the relatively high expenditures of NBN Co: it turns out that people with the skills to build a 21st-century fibre network are, in fact, commanding healthy salaries, even when the government is paying them. These costs are trickling right down the food chain, to the point that even NBN Co subcontractors are said (in a report that generated considerable controversy and rebuttals from all involved) to have been complaining that their staffing costs were taking all the fun and profit out of their contracts.

Another salient point about China's rollout is the market structure in which it's occurring: as even The Australian report concedes, China's telcos are state-owned. This means that they have very little recourse but to implement the technology they're told to, at as low cost as possible. Conventional private-sector profit margins don't apply here, nor does the NBN Co's less-than-commercial 7 percent profit target. Having two strong domestic producers of cost-competitive networking gear, in Huawei and ZTE, doesn't hurt either.

China's telcos are state-owned. This means that they have very little recourse but to implement the technology they're told to, at as low cost as possible. Conventional private-sector profit margins don't apply here, nor does the NBN Co's less-than-commercial 7 percent profit target.

Not even BT, Turnbull's oft-lauded FttN darling, can lay claim to that sort of flexibility. Certainly, our own government might have stronger leverage if Telstra were still government-owned — but it is not, thanks to 15 years of pushing the pendulum well and truly away from state ownership. The government must now negotiate, mano-a-mano, with Telstra around every aspect of the NBN build and transition.

It's also worth mentioning that state ownership will save China's telcos from having to navigate a morass of local planning laws, conflicting and politically-driven state governments, or a dysfunctional government and opposition. The project will simply be designed, implemented, and completed for a price that will, I would venture, probably be a tad more than the predicted $10 billion.

Then there's the issue of technology: the Chinese project, according to reports, will target speeds of 20Mbps in urban areas and 4Mbps in developing regions. This suggests a much higher rate of backhaul contention and premises bandwidth-splitting, just to deliver speeds that are well below what many Australian customers already get over copper. And by the Coalition's maths, replacing this infrastructure with fibre is a waste from the get-go.

So why, then, are they doing it? We could all probably come up with a dozen of different answers, but the most interesting ones will no doubt be those that come from Turnbull himself.

What do you think? Do China's FttH plans support or repudiate the Coalition's anti-FttH position?

Topics: NBN, Government AU, China, Australia

About

Australia’s first-world economy relies on first-rate IT and telecommunications innovation. David Braue, an award-winning IT journalist and former Macworld editor, covers its challenges, successes and lessons learned as it uses ICT to assert its leadership in the developing Asia-Pacific region – and strengthen its reputation on the world stage.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

11 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Man, I wish I had some popcorn...
    Hubert Cumberdale
  • costs

    Its never going to get any cheaper, we all know its worth it in the long run, lets just do it and get over this already so the ZDnet can get back to writing iPhone stories.

    The NBN will fundamentally change how we live life in Australia the same way unlimited data has for mobile apps in the USA. Any attempt to justify costs on a single page article will fail.

    The decision has been made, lets start talking about how to get the most from the new network for the Australian economy.
    deancollins
    • We "know" no such thing

      we should look to others examples to compare projects. In the case of high speed internet these are going to be overseas (nature of the beast).

      The China project, the opposite of what the author claims, is another projects that should be part of this comparison. Whilst a surprise to the author it's obvious to eveyone else China's labor costs are significantly different, as is the revenue potential!

      That China (a controlled economy) chooses FTTP doesn't end the debate over NBNCo value for money, nor does it invalidate comparsions to other projects like that in the UK. Lessons can be learnt from all of them.

      What's obvious is nothing comes close to the expenditure of NBNCo. Competely missing is any CBA to justify such expenditure va the alternatives.
      Richard Flude
      • Dum de dum de dum...

        "What's obvious is nothing comes close to the expenditure of NBNCo."

        Hmmm what about the $350B tax payer subsidies paid by the US, Abel brought to your attention only a day or two ago... ? *sigh*

        "Competely missing is any CBA to justify such expenditure va the alternatives."

        Err no not "completely"... a CBA form the Productivity Commission (ironically Mr. Private Enterprise here who claims private companies do everything better wants the PC, a government department, to do a CBA - GOLD) haven't done one. But...

        Here's one from 2 years ago, ironically from our friend David here (who being from Priavte Enterprise surely knows better than some PC/governmental sloth dept, eh Dick)?

        http://www.zdnet.com/merry-xmas-nbn-grinches-heres-your-cba-1339308176/
        RS-ef540
        • Another classic

          "350B tax payer subsidies paid by the US"

          Recovery Act funding:

          "Meinrath [New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative] said the United States, with $7.2 billion, is spending about $24 per capita, while Australia is spending $1400 per capita."

          Rest of FCC's OBI redirection of existing universal service obligations and selling spectrum. You'll also notice competition is enshrined in the plan.

          The PC does do great work for the public sector and the appropriate dept to do the CBA. They weren't requested to. There's no irony (yet another strawman).

          David's CBA link is hilarious; reflecting a total ignorance on the subject. Good work.
          Richard Flude
          • Dumb and Dumber

            Richard, you seem to get dumber and dumber everytime i come back here. Unfortunately after i read your crap i know i am dumber for having read it... :( Go back to the unOZ newpaper and troll there. Or better still move to UK where you can FTTN your ass off. You wont be missed here...
            GENIII
          • Richard .... what the

            Mate have you ever actually done a CBA or any BA work in your life?? (No we dont count personal budgeting..)

            I've been reading your drivel for a couple of days now and theres a bugger all fact. While your detractors are inflamitory and I Initially found them annoying too, heck I now get why they do it.

            Standard conversation:
            Author: (usually) fact filled article about the sky

            Richard Flude: sky is Purple, god you people, take the indicies of the highest wisbob in the multiverse of quantium physics. See, I'm smart!! Dont you seeee !!

            Detractors: Actually mate due to the refraction of the light with the molecues in the atmosphere it has to be blue-ish during the day.

            Richard Flude: Detractors your Blue light "Theory" is stupid, it doesnt even explain my wisbobs!

            Detractors: Maybe you didnt read my statement: if you missed the point you can find it here, here, and here on the internet.

            Richard Flude: zzz You guys make me sleepy

            Detractors: WTF Dick! are you deliberately obtuse or were you dropped as a baby!

            Richard Flude: Ad Hominem Attack!! Ad Hominem Attack!! Ad Hominem Attack!! Ad Hominem Attack!! Ad Hominem Attack!! Ad Hominem Attack!! Ad Hominem Attack!!

            Detractors: We'll I'm drunk now and dont care about explaining this again so I'm going to outright attack you #@$% ^&%* %^!@ $!@% $%^ &*
            Yettie79
  • 3 days later ...

    and that's all you could muster... ROFL

    "we should look to others examples to compare projects. In the case of high speed internet these are going to be overseas"

    Except the US $350B, we'll need to find a way to massage those figures.. GOLD.

    So government departments do, do things better... thank you.

    David's comments aren't as hilarious and as obviously cycloptic as your's Dick!
    RS-ef540
  • Cyclopic

    :)
    RS-ef540
    • Dunno about a cyclops

      but he is definitely a one-eyed dinosaur!
      Tinman_au
  • Wait for Turnbull's about face once elected

    Turnbull ain't stupid and is quite a smart man when it comes to technology. After the Setember 14th election if his party wins power, knowing full well that FTTH is the best option, that he will say "Labor have locked us into this mess now with the NBN and we just have to finish it as originally designed. Our plan would have saved billions but the contracts entered into with suppliers are just too tight".
    radforms