Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has delivered a verbal double barrel shotgun blast in the direction of Tony Abbott, claiming the Opposition Leader has displayed a “woeful ignorance” regarding Labor’s vaunted National Broadband Network project.
Yesterday, Abbott again called for the NBN initiative to be scrapped, claiming Queensland residents suffering in the wake of the state’s catastrophic floods would rather have transport infrastructure rebuilt than the “interactive gambling” that he said the NBN would offer.
This afternoon, Conroy fired back.
“Tony Abbott’s repeated calls to scrap investment in the NBN – now shamefully using the devastating floods as his latest justification – demonstrate not only his inability to grasp basic economic principles, but a woeful ignorance of the productivity benefits that the NBN will create,” Conroy said in a statement.
“His inability to understand the difference between investment and spending is matched by his inability to offer any positive policies for Australia’s future.”
The Coalition has called for capital which Labor plans to invest in the NBN to be re-allocated to re-build infrastructure in flood-stricken areas of Queensland. However, the Federal Government instead plans to levy a flood tax on the Australian population, as well as drawing from other funds.
There has been no indication that the planned NBN rollout in Queensland will be negatively affected by the floods; with NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley stressing his company’s willingness to work with incumbent infrastructure owner Telstra to re-build and reconnect networks in the state.
This afternoon, Conroy said investing in infrastructure like the NBN was “exactly” what Australia needed to build a strong economy — the sort of economy which “would help communities affected by the floods rebuild and recover”.
“Mr Abbott is quite willing to rob Australia’s future in order to score a cheap – and tasteless – political point. The long term economic infrastructure we are creating in the NBN will repay Australians’ investment many times over,” Conroy said.
“Mr Abbott’s short-sightedness is a danger to Australia’s future prosperity and security. Imagine if politicians in the 19th and 20th centuries had stopped building crucial economic infrastructure every time there was a natural disaster. Luckily for Australia, our leaders of old had more vision than the current Leader of the Opposition.”
Image credit: Kim Davies, Creative Commons
RULE 1: Stephen Conroy knows nothing about anything.
RULE 2: Except this.
RULE 3: But he didn’t think of the NBN himself!
Feels kind of weird and wrong to agree with something Conroy says.
Agreed. But here’s the thing; you just *know* that Conroy himself doesn’t quite understand the NBN either. And Gillard certainly doesn’t — otherwise she wouldn’t refer to it as “the broadband”. In light of this, there’s nothing wrong with laughing at all of the politicians at the same time ;)
Is that not what politicians are for? Entertainment?
I certainly hope so. Otherwise, I’m not quite sure why we pay so much attention to them :)
ROFL
I feel dirty saying this, but I find myself in complete and utter agreement with everything Conroy has said. It’s exactly the stance I wanted Labor to take and they have.
Let’s hope the majority of Australians listening to this argument are clever enough to tell FUD from fact.
Think we can crack another century on this thread as well?
The worst thing about politics is not the politicians, it’s all the people that follow the political speck and blinding side with one particular view point.
Because when these people suddenly clash over a particular issue the sparks do fly. It’s assuming in some respects, kind of sad in others. :(
Then look at the mandatory internet filter proposal and that is “ignorant & dangerous”
But then again I don’t trust any politicians as they are always full of crap.
It is a sad day indeed when I actually agree with Minister Conroy on something but I have to admit that the Mad Monk has not got a clue with respect to… well… anything really. The sooner the Libs roll Abbott and work with someone with a brain the sooner they will be in government.
Enough talk all around lets have some action. When is Senator Conroy going to establish a contract with Telstra that can be taken to Telstra shareholders and allow the NBN to be viable with the transference of Telstra customers to the NBN?
If this doesn’t happen all bets are off and Telstra must move to compete with the NBNCo., and one would assume with the blessing of the ACCC, that bastion and promoter of free and open competition. Optus also must make momentous decisions in the near future concerning the NBNCo.
Telstra doesn’t need to compete with NBN co, neither does Optus. NBN co is wholesale only. They are the hardware. The hardware that Optus / Telstra owned that could “compete” with NBN, NBN is buying (already bought the Telstra part).
Telstra, as a retail arm, will compete with Optus and TPG and iinet and all the other ISPs and phone carriers for retail customers, all the while paying NBN for the privilage to do so.
Enough talk around ones shares, when is Telstra going to stop wanting more and more and establish a contract with the government?
To those of us NOT greedy TLS shareholders, let’s hope the government tells these greedy bast**ds, you have told us “hands off Telstra – we own it”… ok, sign up for the NBN now or fix “those flood damaged exchanges, that you own and want us to keep our hands off”… yourself.
As much as rebuilding the destroyed telecommunications infrastructure in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria with NBN infrastructure would be a great idea, this is a situation that needs to be looked at differently.
It would takes months to organise, order, and deliver the equipment to get it done. Repairing the copper infrastructure could happen RIGHT NOW.
The people in those areas need basic services returned as soon as possible – as much as I am a huge supporter of the NBN, they way to do that is copper. For now.
RS again I do not understand where you are coming from. Do I understand, that, as a Telstra shareholder, you do not expect Telstra to seek a fair and reasonable remuneration for Telstra assets that will be transferred to the NBNCo? Would you be agreeable for Telstra to sacrifice itself (and its millions of Australian owners) to assist a government owned monopoly who had used blackmail and threat to establish itself? Sensible answer please RS.
Sydney, as Paul Grenfell rightly pointed out, Telstra are getting a fair deal (I believe even you have indicated so previously – Telstra can rid them self of the PSTN which has earned them $b’s but needs upgrading, the USO and regulations… and still have a sizeable stake in the NBN)!
Even one of the most vocal NBN nay sayers here and ZD, keeps saying that Telstra and Optus (although an Optus deal is still speculative) are rubbing their hands together at the motza war chest they will receive..!
But my answers according to you are never sensible (usual suspects add childish troll here….now, thank you) because imo, your common sense is completely clouded by your stake in Telstra, as a shareholder. You would NOT go from blog to blog heralding Telstra if you were not a shareholder, would you, seriously?
You are saying come on Conroy, get a deal done… but the deal is 2-way Sydney and I’m sure with all the backlash from the opposition, Conroy would sign right now if he could, so it is Telstra who, imo, are holding everything up…!
But again I reiterate (sans nastiness just for Renai) – TLS shareholders such as your self Sydney, have told us time and time again – “hands off Telstra – we own it”… So I say ok, “sign up for the NBN now or fix those flood damaged exchanges, that you own and want us to keep our hands off… yourself”.
Can’t have your cake and eat it too Sydney..
If Telstra want to hang out for a better deal, until such times as a deal is done and the copper decommissioned, the exchanges should be Telstra’s sole responsibility (of course companies who have their own DSLAMs would also need to repair those if need be).
Telstra gladly accept the profits derived from these exchanges! So when the tables are turned, they should foot the bill. Of course, again, they could sign with the NBN for the $B’s on offer now and also escape this scenario, so there’s another clear incentive for Telstra to do so, ASAP…imo!
Sydney, Telstra IS getting a a “fair and reasonable remuneration for Telstra assets” $11billion, – actually its $13billion.. In return, Telstra gets a National FTTH, which they themselves will benefit from , which they themselves couldnt build, and which they themselves will be able to provide Services they could not supply Nationally over their poor Copper Network.
There is nothing wrong with Govt owned monopoly’s .We are surrounded by them. They provide essential services.Telstra has been a Copper Network monopolist for way too long.. Time to fix the system and fix it good..I am sure Telstra Shareholders will be rewarded eventually. They havent been doing very well under their current regime..
Pot, Kettle and Black come to mind if we change the topic to another long running Stephen Conroy favourite.
Tony Abbott may not think we need the NBN, but what good is a 40 billion dollar network if Stephen’s Head-Up-Their-Arse-Brigade stop us from using it for anything they deem unacceptable?
This flood really has exposed Abbott for the scumbag that he is. The water hadn’t even get receded out of people’s houses and he shamelessly used it to push his political agenda… the same agenda he declared was his mission the moment after he lost the election.
Paul don’t disagree with you and if what you say is a fact then let the talks be agreed and announced and the sooner the better.
“His inability to understand the difference between investment and spending is matched by his inability to offer any positive policies for Australia’s future.”
“Mr Abbott’s short-sightedness is a danger to Australia’s future prosperity and security. Imagine if politicians in the 19th and 20th centuries had stopped building crucial economic infrastructure every time there was a natural disaster.”
Enough Said..
I have to agree that Mr Abbott using this tragedy, where so many people have died or had their lives ruined, where there is so much pain and suffering, simply to gain cheap political points is beyond vile. Have some respect for the corpses you are dancing on, Mr Abbott, any objective person must find your actions repugnant in the extreme.
Brendan I do not wish to offend you but really you do speak [CENSORED]. In fact your comments are so diabolically insulting as to identify you as a rabid and one eyed Labor supporter. Also you insult those of us Queensland’s who have had friends and relatives suffer in the recent floods.
Sydney, how is Brendan’s comment “misguided demented rubbish”? Abbott’s use of this tragedy to score points is quite despicable, and you should feel insulted by the political garbage, not bu Brendan, who I believe was actually giving voice to the suffering of the people of QLD, and calling Abbott to task for his disgusting, cheap ratings grab.
Gangus if you do not realise the comments by Brendan would cause serious hurt to those involved you have a very high tolerance to despicable and hurtful use of the English language. In this case I do agree with Tony Abbott as Australians were asked to give (donate) ’til it hurt, which they did. Now those same people are being forced to give more, and in many cases some cannot afford it. Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
Sydney and Gangus,
Not only is this getting off topic but you both seem to have your wires crossed. Yes, Tony Abbott using the floods for cheap political points is awful and showing of his character, but also Labor’s levy is the wrong way to deal with it. She should be giving up her $3.3b surplus to help the people of Queensland.
However it is important to note, Sydney, that this levy is only being applied to the 50-100k tax bracket. Meaning only those who earn 50k or above will need to pay it. The families you refer to who can ill afford this levy will likely not be earning in or above that bracket for individual income.
So please, be realistic about the whole thing okay? It is important that we understand everything that is happening before responding to it.
Thank You.
Sydney as usual…?
One is a charitable donation to the “victims”, the other is a levy for “infrastructure”…A levy which will be less than $5 per week for someone on $50k.
Being a Queenslander yourself, I assumed you’d be thankful, but…!
Nightkhaos….Ok. And thank YOU.
Conroy misuses the truth pretty heavily himself, when it suits his political agenda. You have to remember that any modification of the NBN means a personal slap in the face for this man.
He is too proud and inflexible to consider that perhaps we could achieve brilliant changes in our so-called NBN targets without the spending of $27+ billion. It is NOT necessary, and will NOT deliver the Utopian economic benefits claimed by Conroy and his camp.
If the NBN was fully in place today, how would that deliver any possible economic benefit to those affected by the Qld floods?
It wouldn’t – it can’t. More red herrings from a desperate Conroy. More fabrication and emotionalism.
Turnbull is correct – most Australians – in suburbia – do NOT need 100Mbps so why feed the cables out there to begin with? This is a serious and very unnecessary exercise in Labor mismanagement and over-indulgence once again. I have a consistent 1500kbps (1.5Mbps) on copper wire, and it is adequate for everything I do. I am on a 50GB peak/offpeak plan for $69/month. A large number of Australians could manage with that – but Turnbull’s proposals will still ratchet that much higher as well.
We need to listen to the man – he IS a voice of reason amidst all this euphoric and silly “100Mbps-for-all” talk. Australia needs to pay down debt – not spend, spend, spend!
Give the buggers $5 and they will spend $500 – Labor and financial responsibility didn’t go through the same door. In their desire to leave a Keating-like legacy, this current crop of Labor wannabe’s is seriously stuffing this country.
“I have a consistent 1500kbps (1.5Mbps) on copper wire, and it is adequate for everything I do. I am on a 50GB peak/offpeak plan for $69/month. A large number of Australians could manage with that – but Turnbull’s proposals will still ratchet that much higher as well.”
A large number of Australians can and do manage with 1.5Mbps, you are correct. However you cannot deny that the trend for increasing bandwidth continues. Or did you not forget the time when a large number of Australians could and did manage with 56K dial-up?
An no actually, Turnbull’s proposals will not “ratchet that much higher as well”. They will, in effect, clean up a few black-spots where a few are stuck on dial-up or very congested ADSL and keep us effectively at the status quo. They will also invest $2b in an ineffectual technology, fixed wireless, in effect putting more strain on the spectrum crisis, spectrum which should otherwise be used for mobile wireless solutions and wireless for remote rural areas, not a replacement technology for ADSL and Cable Broadband in the burbs.
“We need to listen to the man – he IS a voice of reason amidst all this euphoric and silly “100Mbps-for-all” talk. Australia needs to pay down debt – not spend, spend, spend!”
No, the voice of reason would not suggest we do nothing in the fact of a problem, the voice of reason would suggest we take more reasonable measures. I have talked directly to Mr Turnbull on Twitter quite often, and I have found that he is anything but the voice of reason. He is another voice in this political mess pushing a flawed agenda.
And FYI it is actually “12Mbps for all” not 100Mbps for all that NBN will deliver, however 93% of the population can, if they chose to pay the extra for it, get services up to 1Gbps/400Mbps, which is, as Conroy put it, future proofing.
The NBN may be overkill for the solution, but if you try and tell me that the plan for “Real Action” Mr Turnbull is pushing is well reasoned and thought out and will address the issues of Broadband for Australia, you insult Australia. There is a middle ground here, and a reasonable man would try and find it, not, as Turnbull has and does, completely destroy the other guy.
Are people that silly enough to believe a word what these politicians say?
If Gillard and Conroy get their way to censor the internet its basically a big waste of money for the NBN.
Politicians have no interest in whats best for our country all they want is control
Pointless having a very high speed internet when its going to be controlled by wowsers and politicians.
“Are people that silly enough to believe a word what these politicians say?
If Gillard and Conroy get their way to censor the internet its basically a big waste of money for the NBN.
Politicians have no interest in whats best for our country all they want is control
Pointless having a very high speed internet when its going to be controlled by wowsers and politicians.”
Is it not fortunate, then, that NBN and the Filter are mutually exclusive policies? And it is technically impossible to link them because of how a Level 2 access network works.
Don’t worry, the evidence against the filter is mounting. With countless countries that have already implemented filtering, like for example Thailand, and Europe, coming out and stating “it doesn’t work”, the environment is becoming more and more hostile against filtering. As was predicted by those, like myself, who follow both issues closely.
The problem now that faces us is Turnbull’s Commitment to demolish the NBN if they Liberals come into power. How do we convince him not to do this? Or more precisely, how do we convince him to take a course of action that both meets the needs of Australia while addressing the flaws of the NBN rather than throwing it out, as has happened twice now with changes in power, and leaving us back where we started?
Sam what you say is 50% correct…imo!
Politicians can’t be trusted, but ALL politicians can’t be trusted, not just one side (the 50% you mention)…ALL!
Whilst I currently support the NBN (and subsequently Labor – plus, like Malcolm Fraser, I do not like the ultra-conservative approach of AbbottCo), I certainly don’t trust any of them!
But have more confidence in Mike Quigley and his years of experience, than I do in either Conroy or Turnbull…!
NightKhaos
You have totally destroyed and dismantled very methodically, all of my argument.
You have left me with nothing.
Are you Stephen Conroy?
Luckily I have a thicker hide than that – your argument is just one view – the truth is Australia can NOT afford the Utopian dream of high speed BB for all – even at 12Mbps.
I don’t buy your argument – all you have done is reveal your political affiliations – as much as you may bleat that you have none – it sticks out like the dogs credentials!
Chucking $27 billion into the ring and saying “Here, mates, the Australian people are shouting this one!” is not a structured way forward. Essentially this is what Rudd and Gillard have done with the money of Australian for more than 3 years now – and what do we have to show for that???
The NBN is just one more in a long string of Labor white elephants – ill thought out.
Your ingenuous insulting of Malcolm Turnbull by labeling his approach partisan politics, belies your Labor leaning, and denies that Turnbull just might have a workable alternative. Labor does not have a monopoly on brains … pity the rest of us if what they have shown so far is intelligent policy.
I don’t vote Labor for a reason – those reasons are now right out in the open for all to see – the wanton and grandiose spendthrift bunch that couldn’t get even ONE policy decision right in over 3 years!!!
How is the NBN going to be utilised in its current proposed form?
It won’t – I have no figures, but those figures surely exist, and I reckon they might show that a VERY large percentage of the NBN would NEVER be used to capacity in the way Conroy is stating. A very large percentage of Australian even today with your “trend for increasing bandwidth”.
Suburbia is not waiting with trembling mouse-and-keyboard for 12Mbps … perhaps 5% of “gamers” and gamblers maybe. The run of the mill Mums and Dads couldn’t give a toss – they are too busy worrying about paying their rising electricity a/c.
Australia is trending downwards into ever-higher poverty – or hadn’t you noticed – how is the NBN going to be increasingly utilised by a middle Australia that is less able to afford their retirement, let alone the luxury of 12 Mbps???
Get real, mate – this is just a carrot held out by Conroy, so he can be booted from office one day with a $27 billion monument to his credit, that strangely resembles an elephant.
That’s all good and well Ivan, but getting down to the basics, the copper network will not last forever, so then what?
And we currently have two classes of Australians re: comms, the haves and the have nots,
I notice that most of those who oppose the NBN, make rash statements such as, what we already have is good enough, because they, in the cities (like me) have perfectly good comms “for now (look back 10 years then try to envisage 2021)”…
So do we just let the have nots, continue to have not?
Ivan, after reading your comment, your’s sounds more like a political ideological approach (Labor is doing it so I don’t like it) more so than a well thought out reasoned, opposition on merit!
“You have totally destroyed and dismantled very methodically, all of my argument.”
How unfortunate for you, because I wasn’t trying to do that. I was trying to dismantle only two parts of it 1) there no need to improve infrastructure, i.e. we’re fine with what we’ve got, and b) Mr Turnbull is a the voice of reason in this debate. I do not disagree that the NBN is a waste, or that not everyone needs 100Mbps right not in the burbs, or that Mr Conroy is spinster who plays with the truth to suit his owns whims.
“Luckily I have a thicker hide than that – your argument is just one view – the truth is Australia can NOT afford the Utopian dream of high speed BB for all – even at 12Mbps.”
Bullshit. Australia can’t afford NOT to improve it’s Broadband Infrastructure. Or have you forgotten sir that was the Liberal party that first proposed improving the infrastructure with the now retired OPEL policy? Both political parties are in agreement something must be done, but as always is the way in politics, and what frustrates me to no end is the fact that they can’t agree on what needs to be done, and spend the majority of there time fighting over it.
The annoying fact is that fixing Broadband in this country can’t be done in 3 years, and that is the artificial timelimit put in place by this, quite frankly petty, politically system we have here. If you can’t finish a project in a term, and you get thrown out in the next term, well, your project is doomed.
“I don’t buy your argument – all you have done is reveal your political affiliations – as much as you may bleat that you have none – it sticks out like the dogs credentials!”
So let me get this straight, because I disagree with you, I must be a Labor supporter? I have never encountered such ill-informed, shorted sighted, and quite frankly idiotic logic in my life. I disagree with you. Get over it.
“The NBN is just one more in a long string of Labor white elephants – ill thought out.”
So let me get this straight, you tell me off for blindly supporting one party, and then you counter by quoting the dogma of the opposition? Give me a break.
“Your ingenuous insulting of Malcolm Turnbull by labeling his approach partisan politics, belies your Labor leaning, and denies that Turnbull just might have a workable alternative. Labor does not have a monopoly on brains … pity the rest of us if what they have shown so far is intelligent policy.”
I do lean towards Labor on THIS PARTICULAR POLICY. Yes. Because Turnbull doesn’t have a workable alternative. Turnbull has a patchwork policy which is, quite frankly, in my opinion, an insult to the IT and Telecommunications Industry. How many times have you heard him talk about the benefits of his policy? How many times have you heard him explain to you what his policy will achieve? Not much, because he is too busy ripping apart the NBN, without any consideration as to why over 70% of Australians initially supported to policy, (it is probably less now considering the political debate going on) or why Optus, iiNet, Internode, Google and Microsoft have all come out in support of the policy.
So, do you seriously think that all these people would take the side of a “stupid policy?” Do you seriously think technology and telecommunications companies wouldn’t read the “Real Action” policy and determine if they think it is “intelligent policy?” I’m sorry, but I live in reality. And the reality says that there is something about the NBN that has gathered widespread support, and that something is missing from Turnbull’s policy, because, any logical person would go for the cheaper option. I know I would.
“I don’t vote Labor for a reason – those reasons are now right out in the open for all to see – the wanton and grandiose spendthrift bunch that couldn’t get even ONE policy decision right in over 3 years!!!”
I don’t vote full stop, I unfortunately don’t have that option in Australia, and probably won’t for quite a while being a New Zealand. So I express my opinions in other ways, like debating particular issues I feel important, because I have chosen to live her. And you know what, if I could vote, I probably wouldn’t have voted Labor either.
I would probably have voted a minor party that supported the NBN, but not the filter, because when it comes to tech policy, that is where I stand. And hopefully I could find a party that could fit my little view of the world on other matters too, but to be honest I didn’t investigate it that much.
“Suburbia is not waiting with trembling mouse-and-keyboard for 12Mbps … perhaps 5% of “gamers” and gamblers maybe. The run of the mill Mums and Dads couldn’t give a toss – they are too busy worrying about paying their rising electricity a/c.”
Then why do the two political parties make such a big deal of it? Why has it been an election issue for the past two or three terms? I’m sorry, somebody must care otherwise no one would even need to do anything about it would they? Even the Liberal party wanted to do something about Broadband, something big, OPEL, back in ’07. Remember that?
I don’t care, quite frankly, on your political associations, but I do care about Broadband since it affects my bottom line, how I am supposed to make a living in this world. I will support any party that can deliver that, and fix the millions of other issues that face our country. And let me tell you something, neither Liberals, nor Labor, fit into that category. They BOTH have glaring flaws.
NightKhaos
You are totally missing the original point of my objection.
The concerns I harbor are those associated with the ongoing waste associated with amateurish financial mismanagement.
I maintain we do NOT require a state of the art NBN in this vast country. A better and progressive system … sure … why not.
And while we are deciding – what is wrong with a bi-partisan approach? I am certain you would agree with that. But might be a big wait for the “new paradigm parliament” to get to that one!
This country can not afford it (currently proposed NBN). Just fly around in an aeroplane for a few days and you will “get it.”
This is a pipe dream, and only possible for the urbanites. The underpopulated bush certainly deserves better, but the costs will prove prohibitive. They are better with an improved version of what they have – Wireless. Notoriously unreliable, yes – but that is one cost of living in the sparse wilderness that much of the country (more than 100km inland) is.
Is it worth an extra $20 billion (or whatever) to bring “95%” of the country right up to speed.
No – we CAN NOT afford that. The economic return for that last 40% (a guess) can not be demonstrated.
Nice to have … but essential?
No.
The whole idea should be postponed until it has been better debated – Conroy couldn’t even release an official report, because he wanted to vet it to limit damage to his portfolio. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Parliament. As recently as last November he was refusing to release the report – obviously there was much that was unsavoury to Labor’s position with the NBN business plan report..
Why? If this is in OUR best interests … what was/is there to hide???
The proposal is severe overkill – not EVERY home needs the proposed speeds/bandwidth, and it is wasteful to supply it as such.
I have no issue using FTTN in “most cases”, but to just popularise the spending of $27billion by throwing it in to sprawling suburbia everywhere, is not warranted.
Your earlier argument about higher speeds being better for business, may hold water – I never brought business into my case – just the suburbian masses, from where most of the financial returns are more likely to come.
They will be the milking cows for the operators – not business – and they will have the most to lose, when they discover what they will be having to pay for these speeds. The advantage will be hardy noticeable, but the cost will not be missed amongst the monthly utility bills.
Taking Japan as an example of business prospering because of high speed broadband – this doesn’t have legs – the Japanese economy has been going backwards for many years, and they have had 100Mbps BB for more years that Australia has had even BB capability … generally speaking.
As you don’t have a vested interest in this country – you don’t vote here, I am wondering if you will still be around to help my grand-kids pay for the mess Labor is going to leave this country with, when they are finally booted from office by a soon-to-be more disillusioned electorate.
The reason I brought Politics into this is plain – Labor mismanagement has badly hurt me and my family. Badly. My professional career was destroyed by the policies of Whitlam, and Rudd just picked it up and ran with the same – Gillard ditto.
I loathe them and what they stand for. We will again see rabid inflation in this country, but of course Labor will not accept the blame for it. It will always be somebody else’s fault.
From Whitlam hence, they have been fiscal destroyers. From state to federal – Labor stinks. I can’t work out what their problem is – but neither than they. I don’t know why the brilliant minds within the organisation can’t manage a chook raffle – and if they could, they would lose the proceeds somewhere between the pub and the bank!
This is what is biting me – and anyone my age would understand where this is coming from. I have been up too many dry gullies to be fooled by the cute young things with big ideas in Labor ranks – I know where the true fiscal responsibility in this country resides, and it is NOT with the likes of Conroy or his grandiose spend-big-for-a-big-future pie-in-the-sky. Academic non-descripts!
Let’s proceed wisely and within our means. We cannot afford this experiment at this time, or ever.
All moot points really Ivan… because if we are to believe NBNCo’s business plan (and why wouldn’t we, it was one of the main, early negative, argumentative aspects, prior to it’s existence) the NBN will pay for itself…!
But like NightKhaos said, if there was a better, cheaper alternative don’t you think we’d all be here promoting that…instead? Pretty obvious, common sense comment, kudos NightKhaos.
Of course there are cheaper alternatives which inevitably are add ons and patch-ups to our old worn out PSTN or wireless with it’s limitations, but only one nationwide, fair, fully encompassing way, the current NBN, imo.
So we either do it properly now and pay (and receive payment back in full over time, anyway) or we keep patching what we already have (with subsidies as no one else will pay) for no return, as it belongs to Telstra… and just wallow along in global economy mediocrity!
Again your political bias is sad…because, both sides of politics have good and bad ideas. So even if Labor (heaven forbid) had a good idea – perhaps like the Snowy Mountains scheme or Medicare, you would do like the current opposition, simply oppose for oppositions sake, rather than actually give due credit!
FYI – I voted for Howard back when, but simply got sick and tired of his insistence to let national infrastructure go to rack and ruin (to con a phrase – even when the roof blew off, he left it off) just for him to say, look at me, look at all these dollars I have under the mattress, what a great fiscal manager I am…
At some stage infrastructure needs upgrading and/or renewing and those dollars under the mattress need to be used (the OECD have even said our infrastructure needs attention) which is why I later voted for Rudd. And to be frank, I am glad Rudd was in at the time, because Howard with his conservatism, wouldn’t have acted as quickly with his mattress $ and we would now be in a much more precarious position that we now find ourselves in imo (formed after hearing from global economists and those who actually know)…!
Just to clarify Ivan, wireless is of course part of the NBN in smaller areas (as too is satellite). But above, I was referring to a complete wireless network, Australia wide!
Cheers
Thanks for that RS
Don’t get me wrong – I can clearly see why you and NightKhaos hold the views you do – but I also (politics aside) believe I have made a case for approaching this more conservatively that throwing dollars out into the wilderness, where it is hoped the people in the marginal communities and properties will derive an economic benefit.
My argument is that they won’t – their quality of life will improve for sure – they will enjoy the email/movies/Internet access and so on that are taken for granted by urban-folk.
But as far as an economic return goes – I can not see that the NBN will actually produce a break-even result, let alone a profit. In fact I think the costs of scattering Fibre through the remote vastness of this widely uninhabited expanse of “internal Australia” will prove to be a money hole for a very long time, and a management headache.
Methinks they promised too much.
I am not blinded by the realities of Howard leaving infrastructure behind, but I disagree with the premise that he did it just to run surpluses. And I don’t believe Costello would have simply sat on his hands during the GFC – he would have received the same advice (from the IMF who set targets for all nations – which proved to be too extreme) – that Rudd and Swan did.
Only I believe Costello, with his experience, would have proceeded more prudently, in contrast to how the inexperienced Swan knee-jerked his way into bursting the money bags and scattering our savings all over the floor like he did.
I don’t know what has to be done for folks to understand what inept fiscal managers Labor has been historically, and that that ineptitude follows the current crop of managers like a stench.
Nothing has changed – it is always easier to spend OPM, but did Labor EVER put money back into the bank?
Did Labor EVER leave office with a better savings record than when they received office?
Yes, my political bias may seem sad to you, but try losing your business and life savings because of the policies of EG Whitlam – a man so dishonest that he attempted to circumvent the Parliament of the people. Remember the Khemlani Loans affair anyone? Dr Jim Cairns was unfairly sacked over that, and Rex Connor, who was told to desist from seeking overseas money, continued “unofficially” to do just that! And they make Whitlam out to be a folk hero!!!
It irks me no end that he is still collecting a benefit from the Australian people.
And I disagree with you on Kevin Rudd – wet behind the ears, and an opportunist who never made a decision while in office.
These are the folks who are trying to bring us a NBN … and you wonder why I oppose it.
Okay, RS, Ivan, kinda a big reply it seems, but I’ll do my best:
“I maintain we do NOT require a state of the art NBN in this vast country. A better and progressive system … sure … why not.”
My primary objection to any technical solution that does not implement FTTH is that you need to show me empirical evidence that opportunity cost of such an action does not unduly expense the nation in due course when a final upgrade needs to be completed, that is too say, is the cost of using an interim solution now justified when you consider the evidential costs that will arise from upgrading this system further.
In other words, can the option we chose easily be upgraded to a more advanced solution, and is selecting the less advanced solution in order to decrease the short term costs justifiable? So I welcome any ideas that might reduce the short term cost as well as allow a cheaper upgrade path in the future, in fact I have a few of my own, namely:
1) Since the HFC networks have already been built it seems a waste of resources not to utilise them, however if we do so we must force Optus and Telstra to open their networks in order to allow retail competition.
2) In rural towns, whereby in the current NBN plan, they will get FTTH, it seems needlessly expensive to give them fibre when, in general, these small towns have a low enough population density to allow for a wireless solution to be effective, as such these towns may be better served by a FTTN solution as the advances in Wireless technology are such that in the future there towns are one of the few areas that may actually benefit from the technology. It may be prudent to offer a FTTN solution for towns between the 1,000 and, say, 15,000 population market in order to reduce costs.
3) In new estates it is justifiable to install FTTH solutions straight away, provided of course that the infrastructure does not need to be doubled with copper as is current practice for the phone service, and as such I would mandate that any estates built after a certain debate must have a FTTH solution up to a certain standard in order to reduce the overall costs.
4) Businesses, who are the main beneficences of a FTTP/H solution, must be given preference over residential customers when installing any FTTP/H infrastructure.
“And while we are deciding – what is wrong with a bi-partisan approach? I am certain you would agree with that. But might be a big wait for the “new paradigm parliament” to get to that one!”
A bipartisan approach, where the concerns of all parties are laid out and thrashed out, is exactly what I want with this particular policy. However, since neither side is willing to negotiate that particular arrangement yet (I hope that myself, and others like you Ivan, can force their hand into it) I will be supporting the NBN as it, unfortunately, “the lesser of two evils” as I see it. I strongly suspect you are of the same opinion, except your lesser of two evils is the Coalition’s Plan for “Real Action”, which is perfectly acceptable, however I would ask that you be more open to criticism of your standing as I note that a lot of the agruement we have just undergone may have been avoided had we not (both) assumed that the other party was not open to finding a middle ground. :)
“The whole idea should be postponed until it has been better debated”
The whole idea of how to improve broadband infrastructure in this country has been under a “debate”, or more precisely, a “yelling match”, for the past half a decade. The reason I like the NBN over the Coalitions policy is therefore quite simple:
It offers real, TANGIBLE, results. The tests sites in Tasmania, the second release sites, all are a sign of the government actually DOING something about the problem. After half a decade, it’s about time.
“The proposal is severe overkill – not EVERY home needs the proposed speeds/bandwidth, and it is wasteful to supply it as such.”
Technically this isn’t quite as simple as you make it out to be, and here lies the problem, you can’t reasonably ask the following question of any home owner or tenant:
Will you, or any future owner of this particular residence, in the next twenty years, need or want, an improved broadband service such as FTTH, and as such, would you like to have it installed now as to do it en mass will reduce the installation costs from several thousand dollars, and the actual cost we are willing to offset by asking you to take up the service at a equivalent rate to what you would get now, thereby making the cost to you zero as we pay of the cost of install over a long period?
It is the same reason why Telstra and Optus ran their HFC networks out en mass, the costs of doing ad-hoc installs for only those who want or need it are prohibitive.
Even through it is expensive, it is actually cheaper to do it the way the NBN is being done. Which is unfortunate, but there are concessions we can make, we just need to be careful where we make them.
“As you don’t have a vested interest in this country – you don’t vote here, I am wondering if you will still be around to help my grand-kids pay for the mess Labor is going to leave this country with, when they are finally booted from office by a soon-to-be more disillusioned electorate.”
On the one level you a dramatising the effect Labor is going to have, on the other you actually seriously offend me by inferring that I might just “run off” when things get a little tight. I have a vested interest in this country now, if I didn’t I would not have chosen to settle here now would I? I am as much an Australian as you are in that regard. So what if I go and visit my family in New Zealand on a regular basis? So what if I support a different sports team to you? So what if I can’t vote? So what if I decide to retire in New Zealand and not here? I live here, I pay taxes here, I subscribe to your Medicare services, I invest in Super funds here, I am earning a degree from a University from here. This country is my home, and if I have children, it will be their home too. I love it as much as the country I was born in.
“But as far as an economic return goes – I can not see that the NBN will actually produce a break-even result, let alone a profit. In fact I think the costs of scattering Fibre through the remote vastness of this widely uninhabited expanse of “internal Australia” will prove to be a money hole for a very long time, and a management headache.”
The business case disagrees with this, and I believe the assumptions made that lead them to their predictions were quite conservative. However, times are changing, and a problem with the NBN in my eyes, is that it doesn’t acknowledge this fact. The truth in the matter is that whomever runs a fixed line connection, will, be it paying the wholesale provider for CVC charges, or installing the infrastructure in the first place, make a loss. It is not actually an economically viable service to run. However it is, in my mind, essential to the growth of the nation, the ability to be connected where-ever you are using WiFi, and if VHA remain true to their predictions, 4G+ wireless technology. The ability to be able transmit information in mere minutes anywhere in the country. It is an invaluable asset.
So how is that we are meant to pay for such an important part of our economic? We add value to the information we send over that network. Charging someone to transmit information is as short sighted as charging people for the air we breath in this economy. So really, I don’t think that getting the NBN to be a zero cost debt funded project is the best way to go about it. I think we should just build the network, and pay the costs up front.
The problem is that we can’t afford to do that. We can’t afford to just throw $36b at an infrastructure project. Australia is too small, it’s economy will buckle under the pressure. So we need to find a way to fund it, and the NBN wants to do that by charging users for sending information over the network, which is one way to do it, but I don’t think it is the RIGHT way. The problem is I don’t know what the RIGHT way to fund this project is, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t think anyone really does.
So instead of sitting down and talking about it, Mr Tony Abbott, Mr Turnbull and Mr Stephen Conroy just seem to yell and scream, Conroy about the benefits of the project, and how we must do because it will be invaluable to the economy, well yes Mr Conroy, it will be, but being invauable does not mean anyone is actually willing to pay for it. Are you willing to pay for the air we breath? That is an invaluable resource isn’t it? And on the flipside we have Tony Abbott and Turnbull saying how this is all an excessive waste of resources, and we can ill afford, and what precisely will we actually do with the network? Which to me shows they kinda… missed the point a little bit. Yes, being economically sensible is a good thing, but sometimes, just sometimes you need to do something “just because.” I think we have one of those times.
But the “thing” we need to do isn’t the NBN, that is the part that often confuses those following the issues, the “thing” we need to do is find a way to accelerate us into the digital age. The NBN is a means to that end, nothing more. I’m all for finding a better way, a bipartisan solution as you put it.
I hope Ivan, and anyone else reading this, that you better understand where my passion for broadband comes from, where it stems from, and why I consider it important, and I hope from that knowledge that you can make sure that the issues that I consider important are addressed in any alternative plan to the NBN that is created. I hope you also understand why this means I don’t support the current “Real Action” plan as proposed by the Coalition.
NightKhaos
First of all, please accept my sincere apology for the cheap shot at you earlier, about not being here to pick up the costs later. That was straight out unfair – but I didn’t realise how it would read at the time. It was more about the next generation picking up the costs of the decisions politicians make today. However, had I been more inclined to argue my case, instead of dummy spitting, I don’t think it would have come to that.
I am sorry mate – foul point from me.
Secondly, after reading your well-reasoned presentation of why you believe what you do, I have to say that I am pretty much in agreement with most of it. The bits I am unsure about are those that I simply do not understand.
Only someone who truly understands the needs and benefits of a good NBN could have written what you did, and notwithstanding the shortcomings you identified, I have no choice but to put my hand up with your viewpoint.
The sooner politicians in Australia realise we are too small a country now on the world scene, to afford petty bickering, the better. Both sides of politics have their thinkers and capable minds – why can we not get them together to come up with what is best for the nation?
What we have is a nation divided – not only along partisan lines, but geographically, in the sense that we are the haves and the have-nots, as earlier mentioned.
My only remaining issue, is how much of the NBN we really need to building at this time – only major business centres? Major population hubs? And can we afford to put the thing on the back burner now, to avoid placing the country further in deficit while the rebuilding efforts from the floods occurs.
If we get any more natural disasters (cyclones incoming) then this question may well be answered through necessity.
I am sometimes one-eyed, but rarely closed minded, if that makes sense. I can succumb to sound reasoning, NightKhaos, and I have to say your mature approach has won me over.
On another note – (infrastructure reconstruction) I recently emailed the major leaders of all political parties, and the independents (11 emails in all) suggesting the idea of a Disaster Bond being set up to fund reconstruction after bush-fires/floods and even drought situations. The idea is that there is a lot of big-ish money floating around that would love to find a secure home at a reasonable rate of return. Mums and Dads could contribute a minimum $500 and upwards – and to my little way of thinking, this would be preferable to pouring money into an unstable Stock Market – especially in times where the GFC is still not resolved.
Off topic, I know – but threw that in as food for thought while the debate rages over the Flood Levy.
Thank you again for the decent discussion on the vexing question of the NBN.
10 points for Conroy, minus 10 points for filter.
Abbatt is minus 1000 points.
Comments are closed.