[LINK] Detailed analysis of NBN Co’s finances shows FTTP better value than FTTN

[David Boxall]

On 5/01/2016 10:23 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> On 5/01/2016 9:12 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
>> On 04/01/16 20:46, David Boxall wrote:
>>
>>> ... FTTP was significantly cheaper to run on an ongoing basis ($220
>>> less per connection per year ...
>> Because optical cable doesn't corrode like copper?
>
> FTTP is cheaper because there are no electronics or batteries to install
> or maintain.
>
> And FTPP is probably even cheaper over the long term because upgrading
> the network can be done at the end points, rather than in those big ugly
> expensive boxes they are having to install.
>
A follow-up:
<http://valman.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/fttn-vs-fttp-2-fast-cheaper-sooner-vs.html>
“FTTP is much more profitable for NBN Co. than FTTN, even when running 
eight years later.”
“FTTN never makes a profit, nor generates positive cashflow even after 
20 years.
“FTTP is generally superior to FTTN whenever the gap between 
availability is less than four years.”

-- 
David Boxall                         | "Cheer up" they said.
                                     | "Things could be worse."
http://david.boxall.id.au            | So I cheered up and,
                                     | Sure enough, things got worse.
                                     |              --Murphy's musing