Scrapping or postponing the National Broadband Network rollout is Australians’ most preferred means of funding the flood relief program in Queensland and Victoria, according to a new poll, with some 28 percent of more than a thousand respondents polled in favour of such a move.
Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott has repeatedly called for the NBN funding to be diverted to the reconstruction efforts, 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. However, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has rejected the comments, describing Abbott as ignorant and as displaying an inability to understand the difference between investment and spending.
The poll was conducted by social and market research company, Your Source, and released by Essential Media Communications, an organisation which aids in conducting campaigns on behalf of organisations such as unions, especially in the political sphere. It is available online in full (PDF).
However, the survey didn’t crown a clearly preferred solution above any other. Although receiving the most votes, postponing the NBN was only one of the three most popular options. Solutions such as postponing the return of the budget to surplus followed at 24 percent; while the Gillard Government’s plan to introduce a one-off levy was the third favourite, with 22 percent of respondents in favour of that option.
Raising taxes on mining companies was one of the least successful options — chosen by 10 per cent of respondents only — followed by selling off Medibank Private (2 percent). Choices were made with significant differences across political factions.
The respondents who identifed themselves as Labor voters were the least keen on scrapping or postponing the NBN (11 percent), favouring instead the one-off levy (42 percent). On the other side, nearly half of Liberal/National voters supported scrapping or postponing the NBN (48 percent) against the one-off levy (9 percent). Greens voters were spread across postponing the return to surplus (27 percent), a tax on mining profits (23 percent) and introducing a levy (22 percent). Only 10 per cent of them supported scrapping the NBN.
The survey — which was conducted online from January 25th to 31st on more than a thousand participants aged 18 or more — showed demography could also be a key factor when discussing funding options. People aged 55 or over considered scrapping or postponing the NBN as the most feasible solution (40 percent).
Furthermore when asked about whether broadband services were better run by the private sector or by Government, more than half of the respondents — 53 per cent — answered they believed private companies were best suited for the job. In this respect, both Labor and Coalition voters expressed their favour to their private sector.
In fact, 44 per cent of Labor voters would like to see private companies running broadband, while 38 per cent of them support the Government. Liberal/National voters clearly preferred broadband services being run by the private sector (63 percent) against Government (24 percent).
Image credit: Ayhan Yildiz, royalty free
Going by my reckoning, 28% in favour of scrapping the NBN to fund the flood recovery means that 72% are against scrapping it.
Fairly convincing.
Interestingly enough, I don’t think the survey really showed that — I think it more showed that people thought there were other options.
I think there is still a great deal of misunderstanding out there about what this whole “NBN” idea is about, however.
I read it again, and I see your point. Turning it the other way, 28% wanting to scrap it isn’t exactly a damning reaction to it.
Its the highest rating on the list, second to delaying the 2013 surplus
Whatever way you want to cut it, the coalitions stance is working
They are also ahead (according to a poll that has just been done in the new year) in 2PP, at 51/49
It’s still only 28% of people saying “scrap it” – nothing like a majority. Did they ring Malcolm Turnbull’s house(s) 280 times?
Those poll results would actually only be important if there was an election happening right now.
@Micheal Wyres
You need to read it in the context of preferred ways of funding the flood damage repair, this conclusion was reached from the report in the PDF link.
“the most supported ways to fund flood damage were to scrap or postpone the NBN (28%)”
It’s a pity that scrap and postpone were lumped as one, it would have more interesting what a breakup of scrap and postpone as separate questions would have been, I would assume postpone would have got a higher % as the word scrap put people off answering yes to it.
“48 per cent identified themselves as Liberal or National Party voters.”
What a surprise! The Fony Tony and Malcolm TurnBULL brainwashed army play right into the Coalition’s hands.
Yep, its Australians most preferred method??? bwhahahah … I could think of several more preferred methods for paying for a flood! The government for example, well they could borrow the money like many of the nations top economists are recommending!!!
Clearly its another baited rubbish attempt at a news story posted on the delimiter … people who are informed dont make it more then 2 lines down your crappy columns before they work out its just another cheap shot at one of this nations greatest projects ever undertaken!!
Dude that is seriously uncalled for. Renai is an admitted fan of the NBN, and so are the majority of people that follow his articles.
However that does not prevent him from, being a journalist, reporting the facts. The facts say that this survey reported 28% of respondents in favour of scrapping the NBN to pay for the floods.
It also doesn’t mean that he can just accept in blind faith the project. He has a duty of care to report on both sides of the agruement, which he does, even if he doesn’t agree with what is being said.
This article is no more of an attack on, what I can only assume to be given the content we are referring to, the NBN, than you saying that when asked more people prefer white bread than brown. You may really love brown bread, and brown bread may have numerous health benefits over white, but in the sample of people you asked, they still said white.
I personally will continue to read Renai’s “crappy columns” because I find his articles insightful and most of all relevant to the Australian Tech Industry.
“Renai is an admitted fan of the NBN”
Well, it’s a little more complicated than that … I am in favour of it technologically speaking, as I believe fibre to clearly be the future. However, I believe that technology should be funded by the private sector, and I am uncomfortable with various aspects of the NBN policy, especially the decision to shut down Telstra’s competitive HFC network, and the creation of a new, government-owned telecommunications monopoly to replace the old one.
However, none of this means that we wouldn’t report basic NBN news like this survey. If it wasn’t news, it wouldn’t have attracted 64 comments in less than 24 hours.
“I am in favour of it technologically speaking”
See, a fan! :P
In seriousness, your political views on the NBN are almost as complicated as mine (which I actually take to mean a sign of intelligence). I was oversimplifying for the sake of agruement.
Likes the technology/Doesnt like the government … its not hard to see that!
Its fair enough, i dont care what side you vote for!! My problem with the whole NBN debtate is that we have a solution and a goverment that is trying to implement it … then people continue to feed the liberal hate bandwagon.
Just accept it, its only money, it doesnt matter where it comes from, we have a trillion dollar economy … its not like this project even makes a splash in it!
Ever heard the saying:
“This is unacceptable, we must do something! That is something, we should do that.”
Just because the NBN is A solution to the problem does not mean it is THE solution to the problem.
So with that in mind, do you think that we should just accept everything our government does, even when we know there is a better idea?
If we did that, we’d have the ISP filter, because that is doing “something” about the Child Porngraphy industry. If we did that, we’d have a “three-strikes” policy, because that is doing “something” about the copyright infringment and illegal downloading problem. If we did that, we would have gotten rid of the MA15+ rating instead of there being talking of bring in an R18+ rating because that is doing “something” about the violent games that are innapporiate for teenagers coming into this country.
There is a difference between being in the “liberal hate bandwangon” and what we have here, which is discussing the issues, and a reporting on the the “state of play” as it were.
You may be happy with blindly accepting the wisdom of our great leaders on the NBN, but I am not. I will go along with it because I can see the merits of there plan, but that doesn’t mean I am not open to alternatives.
If you really want to yell at a media publication for being on the “liberal hate bandwangon”, might I recommend the Australian? Because they are much better at “hating on” the NBN than Renai is.
I’m all for a net filter and 3 stikes and your out …. google filter thousands of results based on your history, location and paid links … why do i care if i cant access kiddy porn because of a government filter?? 3 Strikes and your out is awesome … might encourage those who download illegally to think twice!
the R18 thing is ordinary … but its coming around.
The NBN argument is fine and i dont care when both sides of the coin are given full light. What i do care is the cheap shot trolling journos out there who think they can feed the public rubbish like the above!! Seriously, Renai could have titled his column ‘72% of Aussies dont think the NBN should fund the flood relief’ and given the story the same light from the other side … instead he (and not just Renai) argues the old argument about how we shouldnt fund the NBN. …. get over it and accept whats been decided … seriously the NBN will do more for Australia in 10 years then any of can even imagine right now!!! The costs will be insignificant and when everyone stops to wonder why it took so long … we can look at columns like this and be reminded why!
“I’m all for a net filter and 3 stikes and your out …. google filter thousands of results based on your history, location and paid links … why do i care if i cant access kiddy porn because of a government filter?? 3 Strikes and your out is awesome … might encourage those who download illegally to think twice!”
I’m not even going to bother here: you are a shortsighted, nieve, non-informed fool if you support these ideas.
Alright, I’ll throw you a bone, you at least deserve that:
3 Strikes: The policy only requires the authority, for example AFACT, in charge of the interlectural property being infringed to to ACCUSE the party of illegally downloading content, with no ability to appeal or otherwise counter the accusation. This is guilt upon accusation, and compeltely throws out due process, and one of the primary princples of our justice system, in both civil and crimal courts, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GULITY.
ISP Flitering: It doesn’t work. It is impossible to find and accurately block all illegal content on the web, and further more blocking said content achieves nothing. In the case of CP, there are still children being forced into producing CP images and videos. The majority of CP is not found on areas of the web that intend to be filtered, or even CAN be filtered. And finally, it adds an unnessiary performance burden and extra setup costs to the Internet Services, both of which will be passed onto the consumer.
“the R18 thing is ordinary … but its coming around.”
I was using that as an extreme example, but something I’m sure Tim Wallace of the ACL would suggest if he thought he could get away with it.
“The NBN argument is fine and i dont care when both sides of the coin are given full light. What i do care is the cheap shot trolling journos out there who think they can feed the public rubbish like the above!! Seriously, Renai could have titled his column ’72% of Aussies dont think the NBN should fund the flood relief’ and given the story the same light from the other side … instead he (and not just Renai) argues the old argument about how we shouldnt fund the NBN. …. get over it and accept whats been decided … seriously the NBN will do more for Australia in 10 years then any of can even imagine right now!!! The costs will be insignificant and when everyone stops to wonder why it took so long … we can look at columns like this and be reminded why!”
You don’t like a particular bias placed on an article, so you suggest instead another bias be placed instead, one that better suits your world view? I’m sorry, but the world doesn’t work like that.
And accept what has been decided? So you think that we should just blindly accept what our politcans do, with no accountablity for it? We shouldn’t question why the NBN is exempt for FOI and ask for this exemption to be lifted? We shouldn’t ask how our tax payer money is being spent? We shouldn’t ask the opposition what they think about the whole thing?
Even in more enlightened politcal enviroments, there is no blind faith, just less bickering.*
I pity you and your shortsighed world view.
*AND BOY do you Aussie’s know how to bicker about politics…
hahaha … mate I dont need your pity or your bone. The fact you cant understand my posts shows your ability to interpret anything as pathetic!
3 strikes – the thought about anyone being dumped from using the net is in a word rubbish …. show me how you would implement it and i will then be scared about it! Dont forget wireless hot spots, mobile phones, other alias, getting your friends baby sitters aunt to register a new account…. OMG somebody save me from the big scary AFACT!
ISP Filtering – you actually answered this in your post, why do i care if the government blocks half a million sites??? You can still get past anything they throw up, the burden is insignificant (if you read around a bit you would know this) AND at the end of the day, theres 250+million sites (last i checked) and out of all them, i probably visit 6 on a regular basis …. none of which will be on the list so who gives a rats arse???
Rubbish Reporting – So your admitting that there is Bias in the story … which is exactly the reason i originally posted!! game set match mate!!
BTW – i can accept the NBN, can you?
“hahaha … mate I dont need your pity or your bone. The fact you cant understand my posts shows your ability to interpret anything as pathetic!”
I can read just fine. However you on the other hand would do well to learn how to write correctly. I may make the occasional spelling mistake, but at least I try and speak in proper English. You know, will grammar, capitalisation, and all that other wonderful things that you clearly have never heard of.
“3 strikes – the thought about anyone being dumped from using the net is in a word rubbish …. show me how you would implement it and i will then be scared about it! Dont forget wireless hot spots, mobile phones, other alias, getting your friends baby sitters aunt to register a new account…. OMG somebody save me from the big scary AFACT!”
That is not the point, we know it won’t work, which is another reason we oppose it. You shouldn’t just let someone do something to you because it is no threat to you. Because then they’re try something else that “isn’t a threat to you”… and then suddenly all these little wrong, but not a threat to you things… well they become one big nasty threat and you’re like “Oh I should have seen that coming.”
“ISP Filtering – you actually answered this in your post, why do i care if the government blocks half a million sites??? You can still get past anything they throw up, the burden is insignificant (if you read around a bit you would know this) AND at the end of the day, theres 250+million sites (last i checked) and out of all them, i probably visit 6 on a regular basis …. none of which will be on the list so who gives a rats arse???”
I do. I give a rats us that that government is blocking content with no justification, and most importantly, no public review. The government should not have that kind of power. And most importantly, they shouldn’t waste money on something like that. It’s my tax dollars after all.
“Rubbish Reporting – So your admitting that there is Bias in the story … which is exactly the reason i originally posted!! game set match mate!!”
Dude, find me ONE ARTICLE, I don’t care where from, that doesn’t have a shred of bias in it. That is completely impartial. Just one. Go on.
You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
“BTW – i can accept the NBN, can you?”
I already accept the NBN. I just don’t want to the government to get it wrong, so while they are still making decisions, I will question every single one of them until I’m sure they made the right decision. As is my right.
i cant believe your still here …
heres an article that exposed a lot of the crappy one sided posts that were posted by so called journalists … http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/strike-up-the-broadband-20101119-180u1.html
anything else you need??
Is it just as interesting that it required 48% of Liberal National voters think scrapping or postponing the NBN to make it the most popular point of view. I wonder of they are just strongly supporting the oppositions current position on the NBN or if it’s their considered opinion?
1,053 respondents to the survey is not a substantial enough group to determine anything meaningful.
+1
Renai tweets whenever a article gets more than one hundred comments.
Hehe not always, but I do enjoy it when that happens :)
Would it not be a suitably feasible option to delay the NBN process (not scrap it) by say 12 to 18 months to free up the cash flow to use it on the QLD and Victorian flood disasters? Surely a $43bn stockpile of funds to cover a multiple-year project has enough leeway in it to accomplish this and still deliver the promise of one of the worlds best broadband networks, just later than planned (although probably closer to when it will eventuate anyway).
Think Gillard, is sequesting funds for an infrastructure build ‘we have to have’ against rebuilding the infrastructure to support a state and the national economy it contributes to worth political suicide?
Think about it, Think About It…the NBN is NOT funded out of the budget. Scrapping/delaying/eating the NBN will not free up anything for flood relief.
Uhh, actually, thats on the assumption you can’t use debt to pay off national disasters, which actually in countries around the world isn’t uncommon at all, especially when you don’t have a SURPLUS which Labor wasted all of (and don’t say the GFC killed all the surplus, because it didn’t according to the treasury)
There isn’t just one way to pay off the the national disaster
Huh?
I don’t believe I was suggesting that the flood recovery should be funded out of debt.
Perhaps if I say – “the NBN is not being funded out of the budget, so stopping it won’t free up any budgetary funds” – it might be easier to understand?
Conisdering we have the funds, via the “surplus”, to pay for it outright, I don’t think it getting into hard-to-service debt for the purpose of flood relief is the best idea.
But it wouldn’t the be the first time Labor have chosen the wrong idea simply to claw back popularity. It kinda makes me sick in a way, that we can’t have a party that “just works.”
On the one had we have Labor that is visionary, and tries their hardest to push the country forward, but often makes silly, silly mistakes on the way, and on the other we have the Liberals, who’s sole purpose in life at the moment seems to be “to clean up the mess Labor have left them.”
And our “third option”, the Greens, seem to have an ethos not quite founded in reality.
No wonder people are confused about what to do about the floods, this country doesn’t have clear leadership.
Considering the size of the Defence budget – (approximately $100b annually) – even if the NBN – (average of $4.3b annually over 10 years) – was funded out of the budget, it would be a drop in the ocean.
They spent $0.5b on a bunch of second-hand Abrams tanks from the Yanks. For Australia. Tanks. Like Australia – (an island nation) – is ever likely to be invaded by tanks! There’s your waste – made by the Howard Government.
$1.8b for flood relief is 1.8% of the annual defence budget.
Please do not talk about something you don’t understand. The defense budget is already stretched to the limits, and you wan’t to reduce the amount of funding and put the safety of our troops in other countries at risk?
Defense spending also covers other areas, such as the army helping in events of disasters and casualties and whatnot
Furthermore a lot of our current military infrastructure is outdated and needs to be updated, else it costs more to maintain the outdated that you may as well purchase the new military infrastructure
People that are sayings “omg omg omg, defense spending is $100 billion dollars, we can just take it from there” have no clue what they are talking about, and just taking easy potshots on politically sensitive areas
If you only knew where I worked…
I already do ;)
;)
As someone who has served with our fine ADF, I have to agree with Michael that the purchasing of Abram Tanks was a poor decision by the past Coalition Government. That was money spent on an item that will never be used. Our leopard tanks are still in great condition and not a single Aussie tank has seen combat in recent history. How this is relevant is it comes down to Government’s of the day spending money where they think it is required, in this case our current Government believes (as do a vast majority of Australians) that the money allocated to the NBN should go ahead.
The thing is, stopping or stalling the NBN is not going to achieve what the Coalition are publicly stating and they know that, but their current campaign of opposing everything to do with the NBN is falling in nicely with their token interest in flood victims.
If the Coalition were that concerned about flood victims then they should have done something whilst they were in Government, they only had 4 terms to domsomething about. And by saying this I mean target certain industries such as the insurance industry. The issue of flood insurance has been around forever and a day and it has always been a flakey area in policies. Often most people don’t know whether they have flood insurance or not. Also, people who live in flood zones should be forced to have flood insurance (I have also worked in the Insurance industry)..
At the risk of sounding callus, why should the taxpayer be forced to cover those people who either refused to take out any insurance or refused to take out flood insurance? After all, governments have legislated that owners of motor vehicles must also purchase Third Party Bodily Injury cover, so why can’t they legislate that if you live in a flood zone that you must also buy flood cover?
Don’t get me wrong, the QLD floods are tragic, however there appears to be people taking advantage of Australian taxpayer to bail them out because they refuse to pay for insurance or at least the right level of insurance. Why should all Australians have to go without a future proof infrastructure project in order to bail out those people and businesses doing the wrong thing?
deteego you almost got one right, I just changed the name and amount… you used…!
“People that are sayings “omg omg omg, NBN spending is $27 billion dollars, we can just take it from there” have no clue what they are talking about, and just taking easy potshots on politically sensitive areas
Agreed
But as I said earlier, we have no “surplus”. The GFC according to the treasury (a report that was done) only wiped 44 billion off, at a time when we had a 80 billion dollars surplus. All of the rest is down to Labor’s policies and what they did.
Which leaves three options to pay for the disaster flood. Cuts on programs (its a funny coincidence that all the programs that Labor is cutting happen to be in ones located in safe Liberal seats), putting another tax (flood levy) or off government bonds.
They can’t really do government bonds, because so much bonds are already being issued due to the NBN (and other schemes), that any more borrowing would create way too much inflationary pressure and stress on the economy.
As for the parties working together, I would disagree. We have an adversarial parliamentary system, and it works. In my opinion, the reason why Australia is one of the least corrupt countries in the world (8th least) is because of this system, where parties go head to head and point out weakness’s in the other parties policy
This situation happening now is due to the mess that is a hung parliament and the Labor gradually imploding itself. The reason why the attacking from coalition is so extreme is because they are exploiting the very weak state of the Labor government
but see thats the issue with a 2 party system
one side tries to do things while the other criticizes the party in power and when they get one right they get some points when they have something wrong it normally doesn’t affect them
Delaying the NBN is pointless because it will basically be a execution of it ever being built, which abbott knows.
and it’s ridiculous because if the libs get in theyll axe the NBN take 3 years planning there version and then something else will happen.
Yet i have people asking me to download stuff for them because they can’t get ADSL2 at all and i live on what is essentially a farm. and these people live in the suburbs of melbourne, it’s ridiculous
and then you look at some of the areas some exchanges service and logically the exchange should be in the middle of its area, but for some reason is stuck up one end of it so if your at the other end your up shite creek
“but see thats the issue with a 2 party system”
Its not an issue, its a benefit. We have an adversarial party system, and it WORKS, because it keeps governments accountable. What is going on now is because
1. We have a hung parliament
2. Labor (as a party) is slowly drowning in the toilet
“Yet i have people asking me to download stuff for them because they can’t get ADSL2 at all and i live on what is essentially a farm. and these people live in the suburbs of melbourne, it’s ridiculous”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
*yawn*
This is getting tiresome
Just because the NBN gets stalled doesn’t mean that telecommunications infrastructure in Australia will suddenly freeze, defying all laws of history and rationality, and thus nothing will happen. NBN is not the only way to improve peoples speeds, you know?
“and then you look at some of the areas some exchanges service and logically the exchange should be in the middle of its area, but for some reason is stuck up one end of it so if your at the other end your up shite creek”
Yeah well unfortunately Telstra doesn’t have a crystal ball handy so they cannot predict the future and where people will move and areas will expand.
deteego said…”Yeah well unfortunately Telstra doesn’t have a crystal ball handy so they cannot predict the future and where people will move and areas will expand”.
But YOU expect NBNCo to have that very same crystal ball (and a CBA crystal ball too), you smugly say Telstra do not have!
That’s twice today you have clearly contradicted your self…!
“$43bn stockpile of funds”
Bahahaha!
So the Gillard Government has just been hiding $43b behind the couch waiting for the NBN? Seriously? Dude, first of all it’s a 10 year project, if they were “saving funds” they would only have enough to pay for the first year, so about $4.3b by your numbers. Second of all, it’s debt funded, meaning the government intends to BORROW to fund it.
There is NO STOCKPILE of funds.
Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the NBN being funded by the futures fund? money that was generated by selling telecom? and its not $43B its $20B’ish the rest is private funded. however i see two main arguements here
a) delay/scrap/put off the nbn – fundamentally flawed, like the potshot at the defence department before, the put off/scrap etc. so that would mean that we would use the futures fund (which was previously being used to fund the maintenance of the telecoms network in the rural area’s) to fix infrastructure in 1 state! and in doing so jeapordised the NBN all together and the current telecoms infrastructure aswell! The spending of this fund and building outside in (rural to city) is because the new system wont need much management. but to divert these funds from such a critical project (dont just think internet, it is phone, tv, web, e-commerce, manufacturing, everything) to make roads is simply stupid! i guess people would rather roads to drive on than a working telecoms system to make potentially life threatening calls.
b) option b: dont scrap the nbn etc. so it will be harder, a new tax of $50,000 means (50,000 / 0.005 / 26) means a reduction in pay by $9.61 per fortnight. seriously is $10 a fortnight worht fixing QLD and still having a world class telecoms network that will be worth it well into the future. not forgetting that fiber can currently do 10GB/sec easily, in the future (if the past is the measuring stick) to get faster speeds it will be the interconnecting devices that need the upgrades not the medium (aka fiber) as it typically uses additional wavelengths to obtain the faster speds. This being said the bulk of the NBN project is laying of the fiber. the telstra/optus networks can also not be vendored into the NBN because the ‘last mile’ is HFC – coxial. not to mention NBNco has offered to build the NBN in the flood area’s to save telstra rebuilding and then overbuilding telstra’s new infrastructure…. this makes perfect sense to me. not only do the flood area’s get world class access FIRST but it also saves money from the overall project.
So lets stop there before i start ranting and evaluate.
Rob the futures fund to fix QLD infrastructure; potentially put the rural telecoms systems at risk of poor maintenance, but queenslanders can drive on new roads……. or we can build the NBN tax people at $10/fortnight (i spend more on lunches in a fortnight) and do both and have a world class broadband network!
This makes perfect sense to me. also the demographic of the survey seems a little off. given someone who is 55 now wont care about the NBN cause when its build in 12 years they will get little benefit out of it (theyll be 67yo.) not to mention i know alot of 55yo’s that dont use a computer and wouldnt comprehend what the NBN ‘does.’ and did they just ring people in QLD flood area’s???
Hi James, your calculations about the levy are wrong. The proposal only taxes income above 50k, so if you’re on $60k/yr you would end up with a whopping $0.96 extra per week. If you’re on $250k it’s an extra $33.65/wk.
For most people it’s going to be below $2.50/wk. Everybody’s complaining about practically nothing.
“1,053 respondents to the survey is not a substantial enough group to determine anything meaningful.”
Jason, actually, that is pretty significant for a survey. Just saying.
“Scrapping or postponing the National Broadband Network rollout is Australians’ most preferred means of funding the flood relief program in Queensland and Victoria, according to a new poll, with some 28 percent of more than a thousand respondents polled in favour of such a move.”
I wonder how many of these people are actually aware the scrapping the NBN will not actually yield any money to direct to the floods?
Probably not aware. If they were, they wouldn’t push it, because it is devastating to their funding argument.
Hmm, given that $43bn has been put aside from the budget (read: held in waiting as tangible funds in part or full) it would seem that even if they only had 10% of the funds at hand that would raise an immediate $4.3bn that could be deployed. Given that work has commenced on the NBN and people have been paid the funds do exist somewhere, so please don’t say the money will not be available if the program is scrapped or delayed.
Except as stated in my previous post, it is debt funded. There is no stockpile of funds AT ALL.
*facepalm*
The $43b comes from government bonds. You know, debt? Debt that the revenue the NBN produces repays.
Really, it’s not that hard.
I wouldn’t favour scrapping the NBN… but then I would say the expansion of Brisbane’s inner city rail is a far more important piece of infrastructure, in fact it is critical not in 5 or 10 years time but yesterday, and they not only talked about scrapping that but actually did it.
Michael pretty much nails it with the first comment, I’d be really interested to know what the figure was before the flood disaster… oh wait no I wouldn’t because what ever it was was still a minority. Bring on the NBN.
It is important to note that if the Coalition had supported the NBN – (ie: gained Wilkie, Windsor, and Oakeshott) – they would be in government right now. It is a big factor in their disdain for the whole project.
Malcolm Turnbull remember said early on that regardless of what is in the business plan, they would not support the NBN. Even if it printed money. Even if the business case was overwhelmingly shown to be viable, they would still stop it.
Whether he is right or wrong, that’s arrogant.
The business case does not realistically show the NBN is viable at all. I mean if you call that a business case, then you can make a business case to show that ANYTHING is viable, including the government purchasing everyone futuristic hovercars to solve our transport problems
As John Linton said from Exetel, this is not a business case, its a joke. The assumptions being made are not realistic as well, and no one can predict what happens 20 years into the future, which is when it (apparently) is supposed to break even
I think people have lost the plot of this whole NBN thing. Here are some facts:
1. The National Broadband Network IS being built and operated by a company.
2. The Govt. is the major shareholder, BUT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT.
3. The Govt. has made the initial investment.but will sell down its interest in the company within 5 years after the network is operational.
4. The company is jointly owned by the Governmemt and the private sector will invest up to $43 billion over 8 years to build the network.
5. The Governments investment in the company is funded through the Building Australia Fund and the issuance to Aussie Infrastructure Bonds (AIBs), which will give the opportunity for households and institutions to invest in the NBN.
6. The $43 billion estimate will be reduced considerably when Telstra joins the project and hands over their fibre network.
“2. The Govt. is the major shareholder, BUT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT.”
Wrong, the current private sector investment is a massive $0, and after reading the buisness case, it will probably remain that way
“3. The Govt. has made the initial investment.but will sell down its interest in the company within 5 years after the network is operational.”
They can sure as hell try
” 4. The company is jointly owned by the Governmemt and the private sector will invest up to $43 billion over 8 years to build the network.”
If by private sector you mean government bonds + tax injunctions, then sure
“6. The $43 billion estimate will be reduced considerably when Telstra joins the project and hands over their fibre network.”
Uhhh, Telstra has as many fiber estates that I can fit on my hand. As for backhaul, that isn’t saving NBNCo anything
“Wrong, the current private sector investment is a massive $0,”
Where is your evidence?
Why did you miss out point 5?
” 4. The company is jointly owned by the Governmemt and the private sector will invest up to $43 billion over 8 years to build the network.”
If by private sector you mean government bonds + tax injunctions, then sure”
Get your facts right,
“Where is your evidence?”
There has been no private sector investment in the NBN at all. You need to show evidence of a company investing in the NBN.
(Hint, it hasn’t happened)
“Get your facts right,”
Uhuh, have you read the business case?
Even the business case said for the capital it will use government bonds, and later on start borrowing on its own in private equity markets if they can’t get the bonds. The private sector is not investing $43 billion dollars, if it would have then we already would have an existing NBN, and it wouldn’t require any government funding (debt or otherwise)
Actually I could not give a rats about some dumb goverment business case. The Govt had already made an enquiry and produced are report and simply implementing its recommendations. This enquiry and report cost the taxpayer several million dollars already. It is evident the “opposition” does not comprehend the report and I am not surprised.
As for your ignorance you can go all the way back to when the NBN was announced.
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/022
Obviously your Internet usage is limited to email and the web browser, private usage.
You will soon complain once the network you are on is congested and your speed drops 50%. Happened to me already and btw I live in the Sydney CBD.
“Actually I could not give a rats about some dumb goverment business case. The Govt had already made an enquiry and produced are report and simply implementing its recommendations. This enquiry and report cost the taxpayer several million dollars already. It is evident the “opposition” does not comprehend the report and I am not surprised.”
Well good, in that case you don’t give a rats about the NBN then. If you are going to ignore the buisness case given by the company, there is no point in arguing with you
“As for your ignorance you can go all the way back to when the NBN was announced.
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/022”
And I don’t give a rats what Rudd said 2 years ago, its freaking clear that the NBN will receive no private investment, and it hasn’t.
Rudd is a dudd, and he doesn’t know anything in this area. He oversold the NBN, expecting private investors to put their money into it. Clearly thats not going to happen
“Obviously your Internet usage is limited to email and the web browser, private usage.
You will soon complain once the network you are on is congested and your speed drops 50%. Happened to me already and btw I live in the Sydney CBD.”
Uh what?
What year are you in at UNSW deteego? Your second, third maybe?
You certainly come across as someone who believe he knows it all, but really, just knows just enough to get himself in trouble, in a true debate of “all the issues” involved here, not just the tech side…!
Personal attacks aside, what company has invested in the NBN to date?
As I understand it the Aurora has pulled it’s partnership with NBNCo and decided to be a contractor only. Is there any other company that has such an interest in the NBN on the mainland?
No company has invested in NBNCo, and with an ROI of ~7% (with complete best case optimistic assumptions) its highly unlikely that any private company will invest in NBNCo in the future, especially taking into account the incredible risk NBN has
deteego says – “The private sector is not investing $43 billion dollars, if it would have then we already would have an existing NBN, and it wouldn’t require any government funding (debt or otherwise)”
Exactly… which is why the government need to take the reigns… good boy, you are learning at last!
Also the capital is ~38 billion, not ~43 billion, that is also in the business case
Only if Telstra joins up
* What is the impact of the Heads of Agreement between NBN Co & Telstra?
If the Heads of Agreement are formalised, the two largest benefits for NBN Co are likely to be:
• a saving in CAPEX as NBN Co will gain access to Telstra’s physical infrastructure (including ducts, pits, exchanges and backhaul) to roll out the new fibre optic cables, thereby reducing the need to duplicate infrastructure; and,
• an accelerated migration of customers to NBN Co’s network and therefore an increase in the revenue of NBN Co.
The agreement with Telstra improves NBN Co’s business case and reduces the total costs to build for NBN Co.
* Does NBN Co have a business case? When will it be released publicly? What period does it cover?
As part of its three-year Corporate Plan, which is required of every Government Business Enterprise, NBN Co has prepared a business case. It will present its three-year Corporate Plan to the responsible Minister in accordance with the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
It is a matter for Government what detail of this Corporate Plan is to be released publicly.
* Will NBN Co sell bonds to raise capital? When will NBN Co seek private debt funding?
It is likely that after an initial period of several years the funding of NBN Co would include debt market issuances (bonds and loans) in addition to existing shareholders equity.
Source: NBN FAQ
http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/resources/about-nbn-co/faqs/
LOL that was a copy/paste of your comment, so arguing with yourself now…!
Above was to deteego… hmmm!
LOL 1000 ppl poll is pretty usless it is 0.1% of a million ppl and your looking at about 5 – 10 million ppl at least that would have a say
A good estimate for the accuracy of a poll is 100/sqrt(N), where N is the sample size. This poll has an approximate accuracy of around +/-3% which is pretty good. Almost all political opinion polls like this take a sample (attempting to avoid all sorts of biases) of around 500-1000 people. History validates this since opinion polls have a damn strong correlation with the actual results in Australian elections.
The 28% of people who want to scrap the NBN either a) don’t fully understand what the NBN is OR b) don’t want to pay a flood tax.
or
c) the Luddites
or
d) they live on the other side of the “Digital Divide”. (about the right ratio)
I’m struggling to see the statistical relevance?
28% of ~1000 people. Is 280. Nearly half of whom indicated they were Liberal.
I’m sorry, but that’s about as relevant as the typical “word on the street” polls which tell you two tenths of nothing and can be distorted any way you like.
I think the single important notice is that of that number, only 20 something percent were in favour of a tax; so the logical outcome is, what’s the easiest to sacrifice?
Well that’s easy. The NBN.
Primarily because the government has done a WOEFULL job of educating people as to what it is. Pretty much every other option is a known entity. When in doubt, most people are going to sacrifice the thing the know least about.
The only thing this trivially small survey presents, is that nearly 80% don’t want to pay any Tax. Shock!
“Well that’s easy. The NBN. ”
Yeah right – it won’t be easy.
1. Tenders are well underway.
2. There are 1000s of users already – including schools who plan to do something with it..
3. Its part of the Governments Economic Stimulus package
4. The project creates employment for thousands throughout its 8 year lifetime.
If the NBN project was canned now there would be no benefit derived from any work carried out so far, as it will still be connected to the old network like Tasmania is right now.
NBNCo will suffer a heavy financial loss, which the taxpayer will have to pay for.
“1. Tenders are well underway.”
Tenders are not finalised until a contract is drawn up and ratified. Until such time they can be pulled without cause. Should a contract exist, there will be exit caluses for both parties concerned and penalties payable.
“2. There are 1000s of users already – including schools who plan to do something with it..”
Who are connected to the backbone and can be migrated to any service provider with minimal effort. You will have to take my word for how easy this task actually is.
“3. Its part of the Governments Economic Stimulus package”
Your threw this one in as bait right ?? School halls, insulation, super clinics.. I can go on if you like..
“4. The project creates employment for thousands throughout its 8 year lifetime.”
Yes for the Australian’s that have the skillset who work for larger organisations that tender for work you are correct, but as there is a significant skills shortage in optic fibre tech’s in this country a good portion of this work will be tendered to external parties who bring in foreign labour or expertise.
“If the NBN project was canned now there would be no benefit derived from any work carried out so far, as it will still be connected to the old network like Tasmania is right now. ”
There would be great benefit. As the Green’s and Independent’s played their chips to start work in regional area’s, the majority of the work that has been conducted so far I am almost positive will be for enabling works on backhaul and exchange upgrades. There is absolutely benefit in allowing this work to be finished.
I think we are all missing the point here.. Put political views aside. Put aside where the money is coming from for this and consider for minute a few things.
There is 90,000kms of road damaged needed replacement, bridges, schools, medical facilities, transit and freight and transport infrastructure needing repair in Queensland. There is a Cat 4 cyclone set to hit a 400km stretch over the QLD coast and further destroy communities that are already wiped out or still hurting from flooding. Following this cyclone is an expected 4m storm surge which will decimate the majority of coastal towns along that 400km stretch of coast, let alone roads and critical infrastructure and on top of all that the tropical rain depression will travel as far in a Mt Isa and dump massive amounts of water into already flooded area’s which will continue downstream into neighbouring states.
Parts of Victoria are still under water and more communities set to flood in the coming days. The bill for this is still yet to be counted but will run into the Billions as well.
Parts of WA are on fire.
A good whack of the northern and central coast of NSW has flooded and the bill is still to be added up.
Now thinking of all this, all these posts centre around where the money is coming from to get faster broadband. I think a reality check is in order. If our government really beleives that 5.6Bn in exceptional circumstances funding as part of their EMP for the repair of QLD they are poorly misinformed.
Make no mistake, the reconstruction required from a natural disaster will boost our economy and create more jobs than any Stimulus package that either side of government can deliver. Its just not in QLD either. NSW, VIC and WA are all in the same boat.
Just thought you all could do with some perspective..
These are all big problems, but there’s no reason to scrap the NBN to pay for them. The government’s proposal for the levy and spending cuts in other areas will provide enough money to fund the rebuilding. The NBN is an investment in the future of Australia and it’s sorely needed if we’re to keep up with the rest of the world.
“These are all big problems, but there’s no reason to scrap the NBN to pay for them.”
I agree completely. Don’t get me wrong I don’t want it scrapped as we have an ageing telecommunicaitons system in this country. I just think it can be scaled back for the new 6-12 months so we can focus on the important things like getting kids back to school and getting people back working so they can feed their familys before we need to go full tilt into the NBN.
“The government’s proposal for the levy and spending cuts in other areas will provide enough money to fund the rebuilding.”
No it wont. The 2010/2011 budget was already in deficit with nearly 8BN in items deferred to the 2011/2012 FY (aka Carbon Credit Reduction Scheme among others) as the government at the time had made an election promise to be in surplus by 2012 and couldn’t cover that amount of defecit.
The levy will raise 2.1BN of the 5.6BN that the Government is intially providing to QLD. This is not even close to what is required. State and Local can’t fund repairs and will look for a federal bail out which will add to the already abismle 9BN deficit that QLD already has.
Times this figure by 5 and we might be getting close to the funds that will be required in the next 12 months just in QLD.
“The NBN is an investment in the future of Australia and it’s sorely needed if we’re to keep up with the rest of the world.”
Agree completely on the investment into the future, but keeping Australians in jobs and repairing local economys in regional and semi-regional area’s so that the people in those area’s can actually afford the NBN or have a home or business to install it in should be our immediate concern.
Its all about prioritys.. Now is not the immediate time to be spending funds on this project when they could be used elsewhere.. Investment or otherwise..
Survey schmurvey – its an opinion poll.
The sample is neither truely random nor representative so can’t be extrapolated to present broader community views (though it might inform and influence them). The sample size is meaningless if randomisation is only assumed.
Further, with no tests of significance, its impossible to tell if the differences between sub-groups would be expected in the population or simply sampling error.
No error terms were published.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Looking at their methodology of “Your Choice”:
“An invitation is sent out to approximately 7000 – 8000 of their panel members. The response rate varies each week,
but usually delivers 1000+ responses”
So if responses were from people that are Anti-NBN, it only takes 280/8000 or 3.5% of invitees to get that result.
The FFMA is a little bit bigger than 20bn – all incoming monies to govt spend some time there, even the GST before being routed out to the states. The interest on these investments is kept in the fund.
I don’t think we should scrap the NBN, just put it on hold for about 6-months for rebuild allocation. If we do this, it will mean that the infrastructure required to support the NBN – power, cabling, etc, can be built as a part of the National Disaster levy – allowing the states effected, not just QLD – Vic, NSW, WA, SA are all in the grip of floods & fires – and the Cat5 cyclone coming is certainly going to destroy essential services and infrastructure, If the funding was diverted into the FFMA for 6-months, the dividend would be the ability to continue a rebuild of the effected states off the interest earned. The remainder could then be used to fund the NBN.
$71.76 billion Future Fund assets at 31 December 2010 – taken from http://www.futurefund.gov.au
“I don’t think we should scrap the NBN, just put it on hold for about 6-months for rebuild allocation”
Except in the next 6 months, even the next year, NBN Co isn’t actually going to be doing all that much. They are going to connect about 60K houses by the end of 2011. They are going to sign contracts. They are going to order equipment.
All of these things, including the roll out to 60K houses, consist of minminal expenduitre. While we’re cleaning up the floods is the perfect time to get all the adminstrative work, the Telstra deal, out of the way, so that when we have managed to deal with the diasters like the flooding, we can just “jump into it”.
knightchaos, allocating the interest dividend from FFMA to the levy would reduce the overall impact to the australian taxpayer. in turn, putting the levy fund into a managed system with FFMA would allow it to become a revenue raiser via interest. The impact to NBN would be minimal, and we could fund two initiatives, one being the Natural Disaster Levy – ongoing, and the NBN. The problematic with just “jumping into it” is where the funds for the disasters come from, either taxation or other source. the timeline for the cleanup and recovery may well be in years, which will hamper provision of NBN services to all effected areas. The levy has to have a high priority to enable recovery and a client base for the NBN to be able to grow the offering. If the levy is placed on a low priority, this has the potential to stall the NBN rollout in areas like Vic – floods and fires, NSW – fires and QLD – cyclone, floods.
My point was that you don’t “put projects on hold” for 6 months, you stall them. The project will still tick along, furfilling any contractual obligations, etc, etc, etc. The commiments that the NBN has over the next 6 months to a year are minimumal.
We over simplify things often by saying 10 years, is $4.3b a year, but we all know that it’s more like $1.6b this year, $2.5b the next, and $5b for next three years, etc, etc. Which is consistant with the business case.
Now, if, and I stress the if, the recovery efforts hinder the NBN progress, for example a town on the rollout list is still missing essiental infrastructure, then that can be ressessed when NBN Co gets to it, maybe even selecting another release site.
But it is not like NBN Co is going to start a massive rollout in Queensland next week, is it?
I think you are assuming that the NBN projects takes presidence over flood recovery, it doesn’t, and futher more, this country is, I don’t know if you’re noticed, kinda big. And some areas were minimally or not at all affected by the floods, the Cat 5 cyclone, etc. While we clean up Queenslands, we can wire up Tasmania. While we clean up Victora, we can do Perth and the rest of WA, while we clean up the remote parts of NSW affected, we can do wire up the Sydney…
My point is that we can’t exactly “delay” the NBN, but we can slow down the rollout yes, we can descrease it’s budget for this year and reallocate some of the debt, yes. But we can’t “put it on hold” because there is still a lot to be done before it starts rolling out proper, there is still equipment it has ordered it needs to pay for, etc.
“Putting it on hold” makes very little sense. That was the point I was trying to make.
You could always scrap it for QLD/VIC and provide them with the funds, then in the future let them do their own thing….
Alright, you convince the QLD and VIC governments that the NATIONAL Broadband Network should actually be the EVERYWHERE BUT QLD AND VIC Broadband Network then. ;)
Would have been a better headline Renai is the answer to this question in the question in the survey because the % result is overwhelming.
Q. Which of the following are better run by the private sector and which are better run by the Government?
Broadband services: 53% private 29% government.
Lot of faith in the NBN Co out there it seems!
Well, I for one agree with that assetment, in general. But in the case of Telstra? Nope. I’d prefer the government ran my Fixed Line Broadband than Telstra. And that is probably why something like 70% people according to the Swinborn University survey support the NBN.
But I can’t draw that conclusion, just you can’t draw the conlusion that that question meant the NBN to any of them when asked.
If asked “Would you prefer the Government stepped in and fixed the Broadband situation by providing a new level playing field or allow the current status quo to continue?” I’m sure you’d get a different response.
“But in the case of Telstra? Nope. I’d prefer the government ran my Fixed Line Broadband than Telstra”
Well Telstra is and has been the biggest private communications company running Australia’s communications, BigPond has the largest BB customer base , the response 53% prefer BB to be in private hands includes them not excludes them, you are in the minority.
“, just you can’t draw the conclusion that that question meant the NBN to any of them when asked”
Oh really! so what do you think end users think about the NBN rollout then, it is everything BUT broadband ?
Sorry some of you answers are quite valid, but that one is really grasping at the proverbial straw.
“Well Telstra is and has been the biggest private communications company running Australia’s communications, BigPond has the largest BB customer base , the response 53% prefer BB to be in private hands includes them not excludes them, you are in the minority.”
1) I prefer Broadband to be run in private hands, I said that. Or weren’t you listening?
2) Telstra are unfortunately rated last in terms of customer satisfaction. See: http://www.itwire.com/your-it-news/home-it/42108-internode-slays-other-isps-in-customer-ratings-telstra-comes-last
3) As I pointed out, 70% of people, at least at the time of the survey, supported the idea of the NBN.
So… let’s see… we have 58% of people who would prefer it to be run in private hands, but they aren’t stasitifed with the service from Telstra, and we also have 70% of people who support the idea of a NBN. So what conclusions can we draw from this then?
We can conclude that they want the government to do something about the broadband situation in Australia, they do not have a problem with the wholesale monoploy concept (however what they think of current implementation as provided by the NBN is undefined), and they don’t like Telstra, who are the current (privately owned Monoploy) majority provider of fixed Broadband Services.
All it proves is they have opposition to the NBN being state run. Which is good, because it isn’t state run, it’s state FUNDED.
Based upon that information, I think it is you who are clasping at straws if you think the that statistic you just provided indicates opposition to the NBN as a whole concept. You can oppose (as I do) aspects of a policy, but not the entire policy.
For example, I don’t like tomato, but I do like sandwiches. If I see a sandwich with tomato in it, I don’t oppose that sandwich, because I can ask for it without tomato.
Alain, if you haven’t figured out yet, I am quite tired of your agruements. You keep repeating the same ones over and over, and I have to keep repeating the same corrections (for example, you say that Telstra and Optus are being paid by NBN Co to migrate customers, when in fact it is only Telstra as the Optus deal has been shelfed) and althrough I aplaud you for drawing new evidence into the fray here, your logic is clearly flawed.
And I don’t think I am the only one having this constant battle with you either, by the looks of RS who’s posts have migrated from intelligent responses to mindless backlash (no offence RS, but it’s true), which I can only conclude is because he has less of a tolerance than I do.
@NightKaos
That’s your pro-NBN armchair expert spin on the results, the results don’t indicate anything of the kind, your extrapolations about wholesale monopolies, ‘they want the Government to so something about BB in Australia’ etc is pure fantasy wishful thinking.
“Alain, if you haven’t figured out yet, I am quite tired of your agruements.”
Care factor from me on that one NK is a big fat zero, responding is optional to anything in Delimiter, it’s not compulsory.
I don’t respond to a lot of posts because they are complete rubbish, and even responding to them gives them a credence that they don’t deserve
“(for example, you say that Telstra and Optus are being paid by NBN Co to migrate customers, when in fact it is only Telstra as the Optus deal has been shelfed)”
What sort of fantasy world are you living in? – so SingTel is going to hand over its HFC customer base and pull down the HFC cable infrastructure as a ‘public service’ gesture to the NBN Co without any compensation is it? – dream on.
“That’s your pro-NBN armchair expert spin on the results, the results don’t indicate anything of the kind, your extrapolations about wholesale monopolies, ‘they want the Government to so something about BB in Australia’ etc is pure fantasy wishful thinking.”
Then why do 70% of the population support the idea of a NBN network? What is about the NBN that they like?
I’m interested to hear your theories on this. Actually, I prompted it. Because I need you to explain how 70% of the population support the NBN, and 58% of the population “don’t support the NBN”, because if you hadn’t noticed, that’s quite a large “middle group” that don’t quite fit into either catagory isn’t it? I oftered one theory, you can counter. But don’t counter by calling me on being a “pro-NBN armchair expert” because 1) I am not completely for the NBN and 2) I don’t claim to be an “expert” but I do know a lot about networking, and I am willing and eager to learn here, so if I ever say something that isn’t true I’d much prefer to be corrected, because I don’t have years of experience to fall back on.
It’s okay for you to disagree with me, however, is it quite another to try and assert a claim that the facts are not consistant with. As you do on quite often occasions. You cannot cherry pick data here, as you have. You cannot, as you often do, take an article from 3 months ago that has been denied by Optus (see link) and continue to sprout it is ‘fact’.
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/363404/optus_nbn_deal_purely_speculative_/
So I ask you again, how do you explain how 70% of the population stated they support the NBN, and 58% of the population said they supported privately run Broadband over government run Broadband?
“Care factor from me on that one NK is a big fat zero, responding is optional to anything in Delimiter, it’s not compulsory. I don’t respond to a lot of posts because they are complete rubbish, and even responding to them gives them a credence that they don’t deserve”
I give posts of your I consider complete rubbish “credence”. So why don’t you name some examples of my “completely rubbbish” posts? Come on, have at it. Here is your chance to completely discredit me.
“What sort of fantasy world are you living in? – so SingTel is going to hand over its HFC customer base and pull down the HFC cable infrastructure as a ‘public service’ gesture to the NBN Co without any compensation is it? – dream on.”
What fantasy world are YOU living in? Optus have not stated weither or not they intend to migrate their customers at all. Conroy has only suggested it, however Optus dimissed the comments made by him, refer to the link I provided before.
Optus could well try and compete directly with NBN Co FTTH where it has it’s HFC cable for all we know. We CANNOT MAKE ANY DETERMINATION. All we know is that they are “in talks” with NBN Co over migration. And that has been my point all along, so far we only KNOW that they are paying Telstra. Stop pulling spectulative information out of a hat and calling it fact, at least make it obvious that IS speculative, by showing your thought process, as I do.
For example in the above comment you just slamed I stated some facts, and showed some conclusions. I didn’t just say, outright, that people want a government run monoploy and that they want to get rid of Telstra. Because we don’t know that, we don’t have that data do we?
@ alain, as usual LOL…
People are judging Telstra “as” an example of government owned, not the NBN…
Joe average only knows about Telstra, Optus and maybe vodafone (through the cricket) and has never even heard of Internode or iinet, let alone NBNCo…
But keep that FUD coming, FUDster…!
I respond to your always contradictory rubbish alain and I have offered you many times, the option to debate me… but you refuse (run/hide), LOL…
Nuff said…!
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/234424,optus-nbn-deal-makes-total-sense-says-budde.aspx
and look what Mr Budde, one of the most respected comms analysts in Australia says (exactly as I told you, when you were under another of your many aliases, advocate, LOL… over at ZD, but you argued)…
Budde did not think that NBN Co would also be interested in recycling Optus’ cable… “He said that about 80 percent of the such networks in Australia were duplicated (known as “overbuild” in industry parlance), a result of Telstra and Optus following each other down the same streets in the ’90s before the wasteful practice was halted.
Although he believes an NBN deal with Optus advantageous… but you know better [sic]… LOL!!!!!!
Well, it seems 55% of Australian’s support the flood levy:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/majority-of-australians-support-julia-gillards-flood-levy/story-e6frf7l6-1226001112609
Comments are closed.