blog In the photo above (please forgive the poor quality), we have what I will describe as Exhibit A. This is a photo posted on Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Twitter account on 5 August — just one month ago. The location is Google’s Sydney headquarters in Pyrmont, and the man standing next to Turnbull is Google Australia chief Nick Leeder.
Now let’s turn to Exhibit B, an article published by ZDNet.com.au yesterday. In the article, Turnbull states that certain companies are in a “conspiracy against the taxpayer” because they were supporting the NBN, because it would benefit their business and they wouldn’t have to pay for it to be built themselves. And who are these conspirators? According to Turnbull, network vendors hoping to sell kit to the NBN, and:
“There are the over-the-top people like Google and Yahoo and media companies … The reason why there is an enthusiasm from a lot of sectors is that they think it is not their money.”
Now, there is probably no doubt that the NBN will benefit Google, and it makes sense for the company to support Government investment in the telecommunications sector, if it will ultimately boost Australian Internet adoption and use. Google has consistently backed the NBN, and there’s nothing really nefarious there.
Howeve, our question is … to what extent were Turnbull’s comments yesterday about Google stimulated by the meeting he had at the search giant’s Sydney headquarters in early August? Did Google acknowledge to Turnbull that they supported the NBN in public because of the selfish commercial reasons he mentioned, instead of the broader productivity and innovation benefits which it and many other players usually ascribe to the NBN?
And a second question might be: Following his comments yesterday, will Turnbull be welcome back at the Sydney Googleplex? Or will Google’s long memory bedevil any future relationship the Liberal MP tries to have with the search giant?
It’s fascinating stuff.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull
Leighton, Silcar, Silverstream, Alcatel…. all the NBNco executives paying themselves ridiculous salaries from a company that “won’t make a commercial return in 30 years” (according to the CEO himself)… plenty of vested interests in this taxpayer-funded $50bln+ gravy train.
Labor’s NBN is an economic crime against the Australian taxpayer.
That’s a conspiracy?? umm ok
Is this ‘let’s nail Malcom Turnbull’ week in Delimiter?, that coupled with
“The many NBN views of Malcolm Turnbull”
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/09/07/the-many-nbn-views-of-malcolm-turnbull/
…. which links to a Forum thread authored by the one eyed biased pro-NBN 24/7 lobbyist Hubert Cumberdale whose main claim to fame is highly selective quoting, incorrect statements, copying and pasting out of context, attributing statements to Turnbull he never made in the first place and then when caught out says ‘oh I was just paraphrasing’.
“whose main claim to fame is highly selective quoting, incorrect statements, copying and pasting out of context, ”
Pot, meet kettle.
Examples?
There’s a brand new example over on this post: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/09/09/coalition-victory-could-trigger-internode-fibre-rollout/ where you misrepresent Pepe as having said Hackett is expecting subsidies from the Coalition, should it gain power. However, Pepe never actually said that.
So that’s one from today.
We have been a bit tough on Turnbull this week, but that’s not to say we haven’t given Conroy a fair serve on previous occasions ;) I think the issue is at the moment that Turnbull is commenting a bit too much in some areas — and some of his statements and actions have been a bit inconsistent.
I highlighted the forum thread because it was amusing — not because I agreed with all of it ;)
You cant call me biased alian, if you want biased go visit The Australian, everything I say about the NBN and the coalition patchwork plan is fair, balanced and above all factual. You should read my posts you could learn a thing or two from them, if you pay attention you can improve you own comments rather than the random floundering you usually resort to.
btw: http://i.imgur.com/TeQxZ.jpg
“everything I say about the NBN and the coalition patchwork plan is fair, balanced and above all factual.”
Stop it I fell of my chair laughing, your satire is quite good, what even the stuff that is in your face WRONG, amazing, your blatant delusion of the quality of your stuff is outstanding if nothing else, but mirrors the pro-NBN rose coloured biased myopic view of the rollout to a tee.
When it all gets to awkward which is nearly every other statement you make you pull out the HC256 grab bag of cliches and just state it’s ‘paraphrasing’ or ‘News at 11’ and exit.
It’s amazing that you still dont quite grasp paraphrasing is but if you really want to go down this path let’s talk about you and “context”. Seriously think about it. You wont win.
Just stick to your trolling forum pasting pithy comments over a picture of Turnbull with school yard gems like this:
Google are conspiring against taxpayer.
Reshape tinfoil hat for wireless reception.
It doesn’t even make any sense as satire.
If you are not a Liberal party member why would you care?
But it’s ok for you to attack Hubert?
If you are not a Liberal party member why would you care?
But it’s ok for you to attack Hubert?
Honestly mate, you make more blatantly rude/trollish comments on anyone who supports NBN than anyone else on the forum.
It makes perfect sense. I’m not surprised people in the coalition are conspiracy theorists. They are very angry and paranoid.
Oh great the RS/HC troll circus is back, the discussion has just hit rock bottom again.
alian you are quite good at derailing threads and going offtopic, I certainly dont mind, to me this is just the way the conversation flows however if you insist on dodging questions dont expect anyone to take you seriously in this debate.
“dont expect anyone to take you seriously in this debate.”
Of course don’t expect me to take that comment seriously either, coming from Delimiters well established one eyed biased pro-NBN troller, where the facts never get in the way of pro-NBN agenda driven rants.
Your bias is so in your face that when links to anti FTTH comment is provided the best you can back with is ‘I cannot be bothered reading it’.
Keep up the good work, love your totally open view of the debate.
Oh noes, someone is in favor of the NBN! The sky is falling!
You are taking that quote out of “context”
At least I’m not trying to silence anyone that disagrees with me.
btw got an answer for that question I asked you yesterday?
Oh noes, someone is in favor of the NBN! The sky is falling!
You are taking that quote out of “context”
At least I’m not trying to silence anyone that disagrees with me.
btw got an answer for that question I asked you yesterday?
Did you read the linked article? The claims of conspiracy came from Turnbull’s mouth. I’m not sure how you’d expect hyperbole like this to be reported in the press, but IMO Renai went pretty easy on him.
Are those who benefit from public infrastructure spending automatically “conspirators” against the tax payer? It seems awfully odd to me. I used a public hospital recently – does this make me a conspirator since I was not able to fund the building of a hospital myself?
I cannot see what position Google could take in this instance, other than supporting any initiative that improves the infrastructure on which its business is built. I’m sure if Telstra announced massive spending on broadband infrastructure, Google would support that too. Simply because they are supportive of a model that Malcolm does not agree with, does not make them nefarious in any way.
I tell you what, Google can bankroll the NBN 100% then, and I will decide if I want to connect to it.
They are trying in the US:
http://www.google.com/fiber/kansascity/index.html
Either way, you have a choice with the NBN – you can choose not to use it if you don’t want to.
Let’s clarify what you mean by choice here compared to the multiple choice of infrastructure suppliers you have in the USA like Verizon, AT&T, Road Runner,Q-West, Cincinnati Bell etc etc .
Telstra and Optus will shut down their networks which is why Conroy is gifting them billion to do so.
The viability of the NBN depends on Telstra and Optus shutting down their fixed line networks and the elimination of fixed line choice, if I don’t want to use the NBN I therefore cannot have fixed line BB.
There is only one ONT box and it sits in your house and it belongs to the NBN Co.
“if I don’t want to use the NBN I therefore cannot have fixed line BB.”
What an absurd thing to say. It’s a bit like a homeowner complaining that the water pipes are being upgraded in their street – “if I don’t want to use PVC pipes I therefore cannot have a water service”. Why would you as a retail customer care about the technical details of how your water – or bits – are delivered to your premises? Your relationship is and remains with your retail provider (obviously Telstra in your case), not the NBN.
“Your relationship is and remains with your retail provider (obviously Telstra in your case), not the NBN.”
Yes but Telstra is not shutting down its network voluntarily, it’s shutting down its network because it is receiving billions to do so by the NBN Co owner.
As a internet user I may be totally satisfied with HFC or ADSL2+, your attitude is I need to have faster speeds even if I don’t need them because the NBN needs me to be forced across so it can prove that it is needed. lol
The US is dominated by monopoly players – the AT&T breakup left seven regional monopolies, but you still had no choice from whom you got your landline. Similar to here, others can sell products via the phone lines, but it is just the same as Telstra Wholesale.
The rest of them (verizon, comcast, time warner) are all vertically integrated, do not wholesale, and in many cities in the US, have a *legislated* retail monopoly! Forget choice, you buy service from only what the local government has decided you may. How is that a better system?
Finally, the is no fixed line choice in Australia – it is Telstra. You are deluding yourself if you think that the Optus + Telstra cable networks have been a disruptive competitive force. If anything, they have just solidified Telstra as the incumbent, and left everyone else to play in the ADSL space (also at the whim of Telstra).
This idea you have that somehow everyone needs to have multiple boxes in their premises to give them “choice” is ludicrous. Most everyone has three main drivers that govern what they want – price, speed and availability. You can debate in which order these are placed, but there is no interest from consumers in what method of transmission is employed! Just as there is no clamor for multiple electricity drop points, or no alternative water supply companies, the concept that the medium or method of delivery plays any part in the minds of general consumers is simply incorrect.
The US is dominated by monopoly players – the AT&T breakup left seven regional monopolies, but you still had no choice from whom you got your landline. Similar to here, others can sell products via the phone lines, but it is just the same as Telstra Wholesale.
The rest of them (verizon, comcast, time warner) are all vertically integrated, do not wholesale, and in many cities in the US, have a *legislated* retail monopoly! Forget choice, you buy service from only what the local government has decided you may. How is that a better system?
Finally, the is no fixed line choice in Australia – it is Telstra. You are deluding yourself if you think that the Optus + Telstra cable networks have been a disruptive competitive force. If anything, they have just solidified Telstra as the incumbent, and left everyone else to play in the ADSL space (also at the whim of Telstra).
This idea you have that somehow everyone needs to have multiple boxes in their premises to give them “choice” is ludicrous. Most everyone has three main drivers that govern what they want – price, speed and availability. You can debate in which order these are placed, but there is no interest from consumers in what method of transmission is employed! Just as there is no clamor for multiple electricity drop points, or no alternative water supply companies, the concept that the medium or method of delivery plays any part in the minds of general consumers is simply incorrect.
Yes I know how it all works in the USA but the USA also has a variety of infrastructure types including ADSL, HFC, FTTN and FTTH.
Unlike the USA Australia is shutting down all infrastructure types so the one that is being built by the taxpayer has a better chance of making it viable by forcing customers onto it.
The viability of FTTH doesn’t depend on it being the choice because it is the fastest technically, it depends totally on there being no choice.
alain, you keep talking in non sequiturs … You make a point about choice of suppliers, then try to back it up with statements about technology types … that does not make sense.
The viability of the service has nothing to do with the type of technology, and everything to do with customers. NBNCo is using FTTH because it meets its stated goals of 100mbps/93%, and has signed the Telstra/Optus deals to ensure the required customer base from its business case. These are totally different issues, and I do not understand why you keep trying to link them.
Well as far as the USA is concerned multiple suppliers and multiple infrastructure types go hand in hand, it’s not a matter of talking about one to the exclusivity of the other.
“The viability of the service has nothing to do with the type of technology, and everything to do with customers.”
Well that at least we agree on, although you are probably loath to say the viability depends on the customers being forced onto the NBN.
“NBNCo is using FTTH because it meets its stated goals of 100mbps/93%,”
Yes that’s its stated goals because that what the Labor Party has said it’s stated goals will be, the NBN Co is a Labor created public service department reporting to Conroy and his department, the NBN Co does what they tell it to do.
If the Coalition get in in 2013 and the NBN Co survives in its present form (I doubt it though) they will get a new set of stated goals.
The NBN requires the Optus and Telstra customers to prove its existence, given a choice of HFC, ADSL2+ or FTTH the risk is too high as far as Conroy is concerned that the majority of residences will be happy with what they have.
but it *is* exclusive – outside of the mini-bells, all of the providers are vertically integrated. If you only have Verizon FIOS running past your house, then a plan with Verizon is your *only* choice! Unless you live in an area that the players have chosen to compete over, then your choices are often limited to one provider only. The NBN will allow you to choose from any number of providers that wish to offer services – it isn’t some sort of forced march to doom.
However, it is becoming clearer that your main problem is that you don’t like Labors policy, and are making the jump to say therefore the NBNCo implementation must be flawed … it’s a shame that political ideologies keep many from looking at the situation without being blinded by the rhetoric. Eg: The business case says there will be a return on investment, but you *cannot* believe that, since it doesn’t line up with your viewpoint. If you could believe the business case, then there should be no argument.
“Unless you live in an area that the players have chosen to compete over, then your choices are often limited to one provider only.”
That’s not correct, there are many areas in the USA that have a choice of providers and infrastructure, and the plan prices are reflected accordingly.
“The NBN will allow you to choose from any number of providers that wish to offer services – it isn’t some sort of forced march to doom.”
Many providers same infrastructure, a lot of high density areas could have a choice of infrastructure but Conroy doesn’t want the viability of the NBN to be even challenged by HFC.
“However, it is becoming clearer that your main problem is that you don’t like Labors policy, and are making the jump to say therefore the NBNCo implementation must be flawed”
If it was Coalition policy I would be against it, I was not impressed with the OPEL policy either, it has nothing to do with political allegiances, the current Turnbull policy needs some work also, but it doesn’t matter, it’s not 2013 yet and therefore you or I are not voting on it anytime soon.
” The business case says there will be a return on investment, but you *cannot* believe that,”
No I don’t believe it, and have explained why many times, I am not sure the NBN Co is comfortable with it either, after all they have stated in their draft SAU submission to the ACCC that the NBN FTTH faces ‘demand uncertainty’.
I’m pretty sure that in the USA you rarely have choice, and in the USA what exists is akin to many ‘regional’ Telstra’s – I have heard various states referenced to as ‘Verizon areas’ and ‘ATT areas’ for example, furthermore it’s not all roses in the states, a guy I know has been unable to get anything but congested 3G living in on the outskirts of a major city in Florida and no matter how much he was willing to pay people they wouldn’t hear him. He eventually _moved house_ to get 50Mbps HFC internet. This is just one story of many I have of people I do business with online from USA who have very poor internet – on that note, those that do have decent internet in the USA, all have DOCSIS3 HFC or FiOS – lucky them – practically no US ISP’s even offer ADSL2+ yet and it’s artificially capped at 8Mbps for most :)
Must stop all this blatant spending on public infrastructure that benefits commercial interests.
All road construction must cease, there are too many transport companies using it that didn’t help pay for its construction.
And no more power station! Look at all those businesses that use electricity. Just how many of them put forward money to construct them? Bunch of free loaders.
lol
for the life of me, i don’t know why tech geeks like to devalue the concept of laying bitumen and “building roads”, as opposed to digging trenches and laying fibre.
think about it. roads are a ZILLION TIMES more valuable than laying fibre or “internet access”.
we use roads to get to shopping centres to buy food, clothes and other household goods. goods are transported to shopping centres from warehouses and ports via roads. you can’t download a rack of lamb or a pair of Levis via an internet connection.
we use roads to get to school/university, visit a medical clinic/hospital or consult a dentist and other essential social services. yes, people living in TransACT estates, Japan, South Korea, Stockholm still live normal lives and physically attend school and medical facilities instead of staring at their monitor 24/7.
the list just goes on… we need roads to go visit friends, relatives, travel to holiday resorts, visit national parks, go to a cinema, dine out at a restaurant, go to the dry cleaners, gym, physiotherapist, concert, clubbing, etc.
investing in ROADS is a ZILLION TIMES more valuable and economically productive than the INTERNET. the future for human beings doesn’t revolve around sitting in front of a 27″ monitor 24/7 tapping away at a keyboard. the vast majority of goods and services cannot be “downloaded” off the internet. if roads didn’t exist, Amazon and Ebay wouldn’t exist. if Amazon and Ebay didn’t exist, roads would still be built.
time to come back to reality.
Then people who drive can pay for it instead of everyone else.
Governments could save the money for off-road capable fire trucks and other emergency services vehicles.
Then people who drive can pay for it instead of everyone else.
Governments could save the money for off-road capable fire trucks and other emergency services vehicles.
“for the life of me, i don’t know why tech geeks like to devalue the concept of laying bitumen and “building roads””
New to the concept of sarcasm, are we?
“roads are a ZILLION TIMES more valuable than laying fibre”
A zillion times, no less! Let’s halt all non-road-related infrastructure building at once.
toshP300 Do you think the governments/public who first funded the first roads knew of how valuable roads would turn out to be where every family has 2.5 cars and Trucks are used to supply goods? Doubtful. Roads were first built when only horse and cart were using them.
While you may say “roads are a ZILLION TIMES more valuable than laying fibre or “internet access””, you cannot possibly foresee the value of either in the future. Trains are a more environmentally friendly and efficient source of transportation than cars/trucks and are being encouraged and high speed communications may also result in use of roads – another environmental benefit. This all devalues “the worth” of roads.
If you cannot imagine the possibilities of high speed communications in the future, then perhaps it’s a result of your lack of imagination rather than it’s potential (the only time I have or will ever quote Conroy I think).
“If you cannot imagine the possibilities of high speed communications in the future, then perhaps it’s a result of your lack of imagination rather than it’s potential”
Which really doesn’t explain why residences don’t sign up and need the highest speed BB options available to them today, perhaps they have a ‘lack of imagination’ but never mind what we will do is build a multi billion even faster option that they don’t need or want to sign up for.
If the takeup rates match the likes of HFC for example we can excuse it and say the problem is the majority of residents just ‘lack imagination’, it’s not really the Governments fault.
*Do you think the governments/public who first funded the first roads knew of how valuable roads would turn out to be where every family has 2.5 cars and Trucks are used to supply goods?*
they didn’t have to, because the economics at that time were sufficient to justify the initial investment in roads. they didn’t need to peer 100 or 500 years into the future to provision for monstrosities such as Hummer limousines or Mack trucks, etc.
*Roads were first built when only horse and cart were using them.*
the kind of roads being built in the early days are very different to the kind of roads being built decades later or even TODAY. this is why you build what you need NOW. average monthly user IP traffic in South Korea, which has extensive fibre-up estates, is only 40GB, or constant throughput of 120kbit. this is despite the fact that 100Mbit connections are heavily-subsidised in South Korea with no CVC charge. to suggest that the average household needs 100Mbit or 1Gbit pipes is completely bonkers.
the point is, at various points in history, the Govt invested in some form of transport infrastructure that was commensurate with need at that particular point in time. Labor has yet to show what concrete value FTTP will generate for the average Australian household. iiNet has published a study showing that their average subscriber is connected at 11Mbit. yet, their average download is btw 10-20GB/mth (50kbit). there’s still shitloads of underutilised capacity in the tail circuit.
all those exponential growth data on IP traffic that NBNco is trotting out is traffic growth at the highest levels of the network topology, i.e cross-border IP traffic, etc. by definition, traffic in these upstream segments of the “internet” are highly leveraged or contended. so, it should come as no suprise that small increases in bandwidth traffic in the local access networks can result in much higher or multiplied increases in these upstream links. however, bottomline, there’s still plenty of underutilised capacity in tail circuits.
if your ISP is willing to provision enough IP, you can download 2TB/mth over ADSL2 no problem whatsoever. if you’re in a broadband blackspot and can’t get ADSL2, well Malcolm’s plan fixed blackspots first.
*Trains are a more environmentally friendly and efficient source of transportation than cars/trucks and are being encouraged*
most rail networks are actually barely profitable or run at an outright loss and are state-subsidised.
*This all devalues “the worth” of roads.*
if the internet (not the phone system) was shutdown, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. if roads, on the other hand, were shutdown, the world economy would sink into a depression.
*If you cannot imagine the possibilities of high speed communications in the future, then perhaps it’s a result of your lack of imagination rather than it’s potential (the only time I have or will ever quote Conroy I think).*
well, the obvious problem with that argument is that even broadband evangelists have failed to imagine what possibilities FTTP will bring that justify the exorbitant cost. the onus lies on people who wetdream over fibre to tell us what these “imagined” or fantasy apps are.
here, for a reality check on the state of play in the REAL WORLD, read this:
http://www.telecoms.com/30002/questioning-the-unquestionable-is-fibre-to-the-home-really-the-future-of-broadband/
I can post links to random blogs too.
For a reality check on the state of play in the REAL WORLD read this:
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/44567-internet-pioneer-vint-cerf-to-push-aussie-nbn-in-the-us
“they didn’t have to, because the economics at that time were sufficient to justify the initial investment in roads”
Ummmm no they were government funded through taxpayer funds. There were no cost benefit analyses or IRR calculations done because it was not a commercial decision, so the “economics” was irrelevant. It was taxpayer funds going towards public infrastructure, which is incidentally how electricity/gas and water/sewerage networks are funded (and how the majority of our communication network was as well).
“the kind of roads being built in the early days are very different to the kind of roads being built decades later or even TODAY.”
Roads paved in asphalt (which is what we used today) were around in the mid-late 1800’s, well before Ford came and brought cars to the mass market. Perhaps research rather than just seeing cobblestones on the Champs Elysees is more reliable.
“most rail networks are actually barely profitable or run at an outright loss and are state-subsidised.”
Soooooo? That’s what we pay taxes for. Sounds like an idealogical argument.
“if the internet (not the phone system) was shutdown, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. if roads, on the other hand, were shutdown, the world economy would sink into a depression.”
Perhaps – doesn’t take away from the fact the value of the roads network would decrease as less people use it because of public transport and high speed communications networks.
“well, the obvious problem with that argument is that even broadband evangelists have failed to imagine what possibilities ”
You clearly have selective reading goggles if you have never read of any of the possibilities. Besides most of the applications would not have been thought of yet, just like the governments who constructed modern asphalt roads before cars where common could not possibly fathom their future importance.
“Which really doesn’t explain why residences don’t sign up and need the highest speed BB options available to them today”
I thought it was quite obvious that when high speed BB is ubiquitous new business models that we have not thought of yet will pop up and provide increase productivity gains/efficiencies, create wealth in new areas of growth/products. Those models don’t exist currently, but when they do everyone will want them – you don’t have to be Nostradamus to see that (i.e. look at every technological development in history from the car to the tv to the pc to the smartphone – just because not everyone had a pc in the 1980’s didn’t mean that everyone wouldn’t have won in 2011, along with an iphone, a tablet and internet connection on your fridge, oven, toaster, hair dryer and every other bloody electronic device).
*Ummmm no they were government funded through taxpayer funds.*
the immediate economic benefits from building the infrastructure justified the outlays. what? you think governments hundreds of years ago built roads or other public infrastructure just for “fun”? of course not – they had their eye on the underlying economic benefits. just because they didn’t have sophisticated mathematical models back then doesn’t change a damn thing.
*Perhaps research rather than just seeing cobblestones on the Champs Elysees is more reliable.*
so, you’re telling me they built miles upon miles of eight lane expressways with extensive night illumination back then during the French Revolution?
*just like the governments who constructed modern asphalt roads before cars where common could not possibly fathom their future importance.*
you still don’t get it. the roads were built back then because the existing “applications” (be it horse and buggy or whatever) were sufficient to justify the construction. we currently have TWO HFC networks serving 30% of the population and Telstra/Optus are barely able to attract any meaningful interest in the premium speeds offered over these networks.
*I thought it was quite obvious that when high speed BB is ubiquitous new business models…..*
that’s just feel-good fluff with zero substance. it seems like any expense of any magnitude can be justified as long as you bandy around words such as “future proof” and “ubiquitous”.
you think governments hundreds of years ago built roads or other public infrastructure just for “fun”? of course not – they had their eye on the underlying economic benefits.
So you don’t think there are economic benefits to ubiquitous Broadband? I know you don’t think there are enough benefits to justify a project like the NBN, but you can’t infer that the NBN is being built “just for fun”.
so, you’re telling me they built miles upon miles of eight lane expressways with extensive night illumination back then during the French Revolution?
Reductio ad absurdum. You cannot equate building fibre to every home as building superhighways everywhere, a flawed argument that although does demonstrate that over-provisioning is a bad concept, does not show to what extent FTTH is over-provisioning the problem. You’re engaging hyperbole and then applying it across content.
you still don’t get it. the roads were built back then because the existing “applications” (be it horse and buggy or whatever) were sufficient to justify the construction.
So we needed a four lane highway across Sydney Harbour in the 1920s when very few people owned a car? Roads were not built because the existing applications justify the cost. If that were done then we would have a problem that we have an even more limited crossing of the Sydney Harbour. This bridge is a classic example of how you need to sometimes think of future applications, and bless the NSW State Government at the time: they did. Despite the fact it would take them over 50 years to pay it off.
Look, Tosh. It’s great that you’re so passionate about this, and trying to prove that roads are awesome. I agree, they are, but you might want to realise that the original statement you were replying to was pure and rampant sarcasm. Maybe, just this once, you took it too seriously?
“you think governments hundreds of years ago built roads or other public infrastructure just for “fun”? of course not – they had their eye on the underlying economic benefits. ”
Exactly – just like the NBN it seems. You think the NBN is built for fun or their is no consideration for underlying economic benefits? No clearly you want it to make a profit (this has been gathered through reading your posts and the comment you made about trains being unprofitable), which implies IRR calcs, something you did not require of the roads network.
The initial spend justifies the project – according to the government and many posters and people who work in industry. The cost may not be justified for you and the Opposition and other posters, but you and they are not in the position to be passing legislation, and in a democracy that is what matters.
“No clearly you want it to make a profit (this has been gathered through reading your posts and the comment you made about trains being unprofitable),”
Well the NBN Co want it to make a profit so does Conroy
, the whole basis for Parliamentary approval is underpinned on it making a profit, then it can be sold off to the highest private bidder.
“The initial spend justifies the project – according to the government and many posters and people who work in industry.”
Well yeah the Labor Party are building it as a political face saver and the industry wants to sell it back to the taxpayers that built it in the first place at nice healthy margin, funny they think the the ‘spend justifies the project, as long as the industry doesn’t have to pay for the build that is they are right behind it. lol.
“The cost may not be justified for you and the Opposition and other posters,”
Well even the NBN Co admit the FTTH faces ‘demand uncertainty’ but what the heck let’s build it and they will come ….. maybe,probably, we just have use our ‘imagination’ a bit better.
I completely disagree that roads are “a zillion” times more valuable than internet infrastructure. I’ll grant that they certainly are “more valuable”, but Australia already spends ~$10b per year on roads — http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/94/Files/IS29.pdf and that’s an on-going spend. The NBN will cost ~$4b per year for the next 10 years before paying for itself, so I would say the spend is fairly inline with the value provided — that is, we’re spending a fraction on the NBN compared to what we spend on roads, and the NBN is a fraction as “valuable” compared to our roads.
A recent study showed that the internet contributes around $50b per year to Australia’s GDP. $4b per year for something that contributes $50b? Sounds like a good deal to me.
“A recent study showed that the internet contributes around $50b per year to Australia’s GDP. $4b per year for something that contributes $50b? Sounds like a good deal to me. ”
So that’s what it contributes now WITHOUT FTTH, I tell you what let’s not do anything, we can save the $4b a year and still make $50b.
“So that’s what it contributes now WITHOUT FTTH”
1. Imagine what it could contribute with ubiquitous, uniform and fast internet
2. Are you seriously suggesting that we don’t invest in something because it contributes significantly to our GDP?
@Dean H
“1. Imagine what it could contribute with ubiquitous, uniform and fast internet”
yeah let’s imagine, we can make $50b now without FTTH and having to spend $4b year to get it so if you we do spend $4b a year that takes it down to $46b a year, add on all the extra imaginative stuff that FTTH can do for us that HFC or ADSL2+ cannot like umm err you know all the stuff that is your imagination that no one has thought of yet like umm err….. cue Star Wars theme fade out to 2020.
“2. Are you seriously suggesting that we don’t invest in something because it contributes significantly to our GDP?”
No, but determining what that ‘something’ is is the key.
“I wonder how much roads contribute to GDP? Let’s not do anything with them, either. We’ll still make all that money and save ourselves $10b per year!”
Roads does not equal HFC, ADSL2+ FTTN or FTTH choices, which all contribute to internet GDP, what is it about 93% FTTH that indicates it is the sole solution to contributing to internet GDP in the future?
As Australia is going all FTTH what is your prediction of at what stage Australia will be number one in world in its % of internet contribution to GDP?
All the suburbs in Australia already using FTTH and have been for years I assume contribute more to the internet GDP than suburbs that are suffering on bog standard ADSL, or is this a case where I have to use my ‘imagination’ to fill in the factual gaps?
“Roads does not equal HFC, ADSL2+ FTTN or FTTH choices, which all contribute to internet GDP”
Of course roads have nothing to do with the internet, what a silly comment! But roads do contribute to GDP. And by your logic, if they’re already contributing to GDP, there’s no reason to invest in them. We could save $10b per year we’re spending on roads, because roads are already contributing!
“what is it about 93% FTTH that indicates it is the sole solution to contributing to internet GDP in the future?”
Nothing, where did I say that it was?
“All the suburbs in Australia already using FTTH and have been for years I assume contribute more to the internet GDP than suburbs that are suffering on bog standard ADSL”
For sure, that sounds perfectly logical to me.
Considering the length and volume of your posts on Delimiter I’d have to question that.
If the internet didn’t exist Amazon and Ebay wouldn’t exist either.
If Amazon and Ebay didn’t exist something else would fill their place.
Indeed. Fibre is the future. Get used to it. That is reality.
*Considering the length and volume of your posts on Delimiter I’d have to question that.*
well, my dear Hubert, some of us are actually interested in exploring the economic and political issues surrounding the NBN debate, as opposed to outright trolling as exemplified by this thread in particular:
http://delimiter.com.au/forum/national-broadband-network/345-turnbull-nbn.html
stop panicking – the contracts begin in Nov, you will have around 2yrs worth of fibre being rolled-out. if you’re lucky, your house might be one of them. after that, i doubt the PC will come out with a favourable report on the NBN.
since i’m only one of < 20mln taxpayers, whether the NBN is built to completion or not doesn't really affect me directly to a significant degree.
i'm lucky enough not to rely on publicly-funded social services. (touch wood.) the people who will really suffer from this collossal squandering of taxpayer funds and national resources are the poor and the disadvantaged.
if you even bother to pay attention to matters outside of broadband, you will realise that the current budget deficit has meant that the Fed Govt has had to cut spending on a whole raft of social services. it's mostly stuff that you won't hear about or even notice unless you're directly affected because you personally depend on them.
there are stories out there of parents of autistic children suffering because govt funding for special schools have been cut and the schools closed, disability services in crisis needing an immediate annual $5bln boost in funding, etc. these are the areas in genuine need of taxpayer assistance.
of course, you won't get many votes helping the people in these special needs or disadvantaged sectors. middle class welfare is what gets you votes and helps you win elections and the NBN is one HUGE middle class welfare project. businesses such as engineering firms, etc benefit too! everybody loves a handout!
oh look I hit a raw nerve with that thread, you are the second one to whine about. Keep crying, your tears say more than your ill-informed posts ever could, speaking of which…
Want a cookie?
Trolling.
Is that all you got now? The trolling card? Why am I not surprised.
Must stop all this blatant spending on public infrastructure that benefits commercial interests.
All road construction must cease, there are too many transport companies using it that didn’t help pay for its construction.
And no more power station! Look at all those businesses that use electricity. Just how many of them put forward money to construct them? Bunch of free loaders.
Must stop all this blatant spending on public infrastructure that benefits commercial interests.
All road construction must cease, there are too many transport companies using it that didn’t help pay for its construction.
And no more power station! Look at all those businesses that use electricity. Just how many of them put forward money to construct them? Bunch of free loaders.
Just as a note here, Google did admit that they support the NBN because it would greatly boost their business regarding things like youtube and whatnot
We’ve been over this before Deteego, in an epic argument I would rather not repeat. And further, the article isn’t about this. Even Renai pointed out in the article he knows that Google will benefit.
Everyone knows that Google will support and benefit from the NBN, but it’s not a huge conspiracy. They have been transparent about it, and further, their support likely goes further than pure commercial interest. Which is what I believe Renai is trying to say.
Commercial interest will benefit from the NBN rollout more than the sucker taxpayer that is bankrolling this infrastructure turkey ever will.
So you don’t want commercial businesses to do well?
Down with commercial interests!! I say we ban all companies from making money. That will fix our economies. Those poor tax payers can’t afford for governments to support commercial interests.
Just think about it, a world without commercial entities, will also be a world (almost) devoid of tax revenue!! Thats a win-win right alain?
I have no idea why this thread has become so long ;)
it would be a fascinating experiment if you limited each post to only 20 words.
twitterise delimiter ;)
Heh but that wouldn’t give me enough scope to write properly :)
Heh but that wouldn’t give me enough scope to write properly :)
or say limit reply posts to other posters, to say 5 per person, per discussion.
you could still post as many actual start up comments as you wish, but only 5 replies.
that way posters would need to be a little more selective with whom they reply to and what they actually say! if posters want to waste one reply post saying troll, well one down 4 to go!
i know that is contrary to forums wanting many comments, but it may limit the unwarranted replies!
… or even better perhaps we could have a system where multiple banned posters cannot just change their name and carry on as per usual, sound like a good idea ‘Pepe’?
as hubert said,
‘at least I’m not trying to silence anyone that disagrees with me’.
… or even better perhaps we could have a system where multiple banned posters cannot just change their name and carry on as per usual, sound like a good idea ‘Pepe’?
it would be a fascinating experiment if you limited each post to only 20 words.
twitterise delimiter ;)
“I have no idea why this thread has become so long ;)”
Anything with ‘Malcom Turnbull’ in the title drags them out of the woodwork, I think deep down they prefer him to Conroy, it’s a love hate relationship.
:)
over 20 comments from just one poster obviously explains it.
over 20 comments from just one poster obviously explains it.
Kill two birds with one stone. Close article comments after a period say 48hrs. Create a new board on the forum specially for article discussion. After the 48hrs post a link “Continue discussion on the forum”
Hmm no, I don’t like closing comments on articles; it’s censorship
Because of your pet troll alain =P
*points to politeness policy*
Stick to it.
*points to politeness policy*
Stick to it.
well, i just got round to reading the actual linked ZDNet article.
love this bit:
“Let me tell you who the conspirators are. They are the vendors, who want to sell lots of kit for the NBN. They’ll tell you privately they think it’s bonkers, but they want to sell the kit.”
PRIVATELY THEY THINK IT’S BONKERS….
ROFL…. of course, it is…. the joke is on the Australian taxpayer and these vested corporate interests are laughing all the way to the bank to the tune of billions.
wake up Australia.
In other words Turnbull hasn’t got a source to back up his claim anyone said anything of the sort.
Perhaps he’s been reading your posts.
That makes no sense. I am in favor of the NBN. I have not said it was “bonkers” ever.
… and he’s just paraphrasing HC256, so it’s all ok.
… and he’s just paraphrasing HC256, so it’s all ok.
“context”
“wake up Australia.”
Well they will but election 2013 will have zilch to do with Communications policy, outside of areas that just want to get off a RIM or they just want fixed line BB period, which the Coalition could cover as a priority instead of rolling out FTTH into areas that are saturated with fixed line BB already like Brunswick in Melbourne, interest in having FTTH is not high on the decision making agenda of the average punter voter.
Google and Yahoo don’t sell networking gear, if Turnbull is going to attack people who wish to sell the ‘kits’ he should go after Cisco and Alcatell ffs – that aside, Google certainly don’t think it’s bonkers privately, if they do, why are they building a 1Gbps fiber network in Kansas City in the USA with THEIR OWN money and ZERO government subsidies? Furthermore Yahoo have a large stage in FTTH through their YahooBB brand in Japan, granted I believe they are retailers and not actually building the network – but the point is, they certainly don’t think it is bonker.
Dunno what ‘kit’ Malcolm is talking about, he does realize he is calling out Google and not Cisco right? Gotta laugh at ‘they would not put their own money into this technology’ also when Google is doing exactly that to premises in USA, not to mention they operate one of the largest backhaul networks in the world. Yeah, Google have no confidence in fiber – I’ve got a bridge to sell you Malcolm :)
that experimental fibre build by Google is only limited to a few municipalities. also, it’s dependent on subsidies provided by the municipal councils (presumably coming out of the federal broadband subsidies provisioned in the Obama stimulus bill).
When can I haz my uber-fast government subsidised interwebs connection?!?! I needz to keep up with Jersey Shore and True Blood in the US!
In truth, I’m absolutely sure I wrote something on this very site saying that many of the proponents of the government funded blackhole known as the NBN were painting a picture of this “ultra connected” future because it benefitted them financially and it didn’t cost them anything to have this infrastructure laid.
Whenever the government opens the trough, some people exaggerate the benefits and downplay the cost because they stand to profit from such government largesse.
Comments are closed.