Demolished? No. Turnbull’s criticism has
only tempered the NBN argument

56

opinion In September 2010, Tony Abbott set one of the Coalition’s most senior politicians loose on Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network project, with instructions to wreck and “demolish” it. Fifteen months later, with Malcolm Turnbull’s credibility in the portfolio in tatters and his arguments falling on deaf ears, it is clear that mission has failed, with his criticism having only clarified and strengthened the NBN policy.

For me, the history of Turnbull’s thought process and line of argument in the portfolio can be traced back a month before his appointment as Shadow Communications Minister, to a landmark public forum he held at the Paddington RSL in August 2010. I remember the day well. It was a cold and blustery afternoon, and a friend and I had made the trek down to Paddington to hear Turnbull speak. The focus of the event was not actually the NBN; Turnbull had called the event in order to hear views from his electorate on another controversial Labor policy: The mandatory Internet filtering scheme.

But while the filter was discussed long and loud, it wasn’t long before talk turned to the NBN as well.

Questioned about the issue, Turnbull delivered a refrain which would become common over the next 15 months. His argument revolved around three key issues: The cost of the network, its imposition as a Government monopoly on the free operations of the telecommunications market, and the idea that its underlying fibre to the home technology may not be the right one, both because Australians may not need the 100Mbps speeds which it will provide, as well as the remarkable growth of wireless alternatives.

At the time, Turnbull’s ideas were fairly revolutionary, coming from the Coalition.

The MP’s predecessors in the shadow communications portfolio had largely been bit players in the national political arena — figures such as Tony Smith and Bruce Bilson, who made little to no impact on the national telecommunications debate. Where higher profile figures such as Nick Minchin had held the role for the Coalition, they had largely been seen as negative forces which didn’t really engage with the debate or provide any alternatives to Labor’s popular NBN policy.

Turnbull’s appointment to the portfolio changed all that.

Even before he was officially confirmed as Shadow Communications Minister a month after the filter forum, Turnbull had demonstrated a level of engagement with the debate and an understanding of the dynamics of the telecommunications sector which was a level exponentially higher than his predecessors.

By flagging issues such as the cost of the NBN, the popularity of wireless, the lack of demand for 100Mbps speeds and the impact of a new government monopoly on the telecommunications sector, Turnbull — for the first time in the NBN debate — provided the conservative side of politics with a bunch of weapons with which to attack Labor. His sky-high level of popularity with the general electorate also rocketed the NBN issue in general into the top of the national debate.

Following educational visits to the world’s most broadband-saturated countries in Asia, Turnbull has also taken the Coalition’s own broadband vision further than ever before, proving that he can not only oppose telecommunications policy but also propose some of his own. As I wrote at the time, there was much to like about the more minimalist telecommunications vision which Turnbull outlined in August this year.

Then too, over much of his period in the portfolio, Turnbull has been extraordinarily successful in opposing the incumbent minister, Stephen Conroy. It’s been highly enjoyable watching Turnbull mock Conroy repeatedly over the past 15 months, from offering to teach him “Economics 101”, to telling NBN proponents to “lay off the Kool-Aid” and describing the NBN as similar to communist Cuba. The Member for Wentworth has a wonderful way with words.

However, I think we need to take a step back from this process and look at the outcome after 15 months.

Turnbull’s argument about the cost of the National Broadband Network has largely become moot. Although opinions differ about the exact amount of capital expenditure required for the initiative, debate in this area has died down as Australians have started to see the infrastructure of more than an investment with eventual social, economic and even direct financial returns.

Turnbull’s argument about the nature of the NBN as a monopoly being imposed on the telecommunications sector has largely become moot, with virtually every major telco — even including Telstra — supporting the policy. Debate in this area has died down as NBN Co has navigated its way through the ongoing sea of complaints and issues about its operations.

Turnbull’s argument about the lack of demand for 100Mbps speeds has largely become moot as Australians have started to wrap their heads around future telecommunications requirements and have started to better understand high-bandwidth applications such as IPTV, telehealth, online education and more. Debate in this area has also died down.

And lastly, Turnbull’s argument about the popularity of wireless has largely become moot as Australians have started to accept that wireless and fixed broadband connections are complementary. Very few of us have given up our fixed broadband connections, despite the fact that we now have 3G and 4G broadband on the side. The debate in this area has died down as the nation has realised we need both.

Now, all of these debates have been furiously fought in Australia over the past half-decade. However, what we have witnessed over the past several months has been a calming down of the discussion. A consensus is emerging that the NBN policy has weathered the storm of controversy which has raged around it over the past few years.

Nowhere is this calm more evident than in the end of year wrapup rant which Turnbull published earlier this week. In it, the Shadow Communications Minister doesn’t further develop any of the Coalition’s previous complaints about the NBN, because those complaints have been debated and addressed exhaustively over the past 15 months. Instead, Turnbull is reduced to publishing a series of quibbles.

NBN Co isn’t transparent enough, he writes, although the company’s CEO, Mike Quigley has been nothing but, and tirelessly so. NBN Co’s financials aren’t solid enough, he writes, although that issue has been addressed through countless reviews and projections after projections. And the rollout is not what it should be; despite the fact that it’s actually going rather well, and with no real deal-breaker problems so far.

All of these things are mere quibbles; skirmishes around the edges. Right now, Turnbull is finding himself flat out of substantial arguments when it comes to the NBN policy. Why? Because, through a democratic process of debate and argument, all of the possible arguments about the NBN have been debated back and forth over the past several years; and many of those arguments could now be described as having been objectively settled, with a fairly large consensus existing.

This leaves us with the Coalition’s own policy.

As I have previously noted, the Coalition’s rival NBN policy as announced was pretty good. It was a credible , fiscally conservative and more minimalist alternative to Labor’s NBN project, and it was precisely what the NBN debate needed at that point in time. Its publication helped clarify Labor’s own NBN strategy and keep it accountable.

However, as I have also written, Turnbull has done nothing to develop or further outline the Coalition’s policy since it was released almost six months ago. The effect that this has had upon it is pretty stark. While Labor has substantially addressed all of the criticisms of its NBN policy over the past few years, the Coalition has not done the same. Turnbull has not continued to push his policy in public, outline it further or respond to criticism. This has had the consequence that it has largely been rendered obsolete; out of sight, out of mind. Australia has moved on.

One further item is worth noting. Turnbull’s personal credibility — while very high with the general population — has likely hit record lows in the telecommunications sector at this point. The MP’s incessant personal attacks on Mike Quigley earlier this year, his constant repetition of his core arguments (increasingly against the consensus) and now, with his line of arguments reduced to minor issues with the NBN policy; all of these things are affecting Turnbull’s ability to get the Coalition’s message out when it comes to telecommunications policy. I believe the Member for Wentworth’s relative silence on issues in his portfolio over the past few months constitutes evidence that he realises this fact.

What does all this mean? For the Coalition, it’s bad. Turnbull’s attempt to “demolish” the NBN has only succeeded in flushing out the strongest arguments against the policy and having them refuted. For the Government, things are great: Its NBN policy is even stronger than before Turnbull was appointed, and it has addressed all of the substantial arguments against it.

But perhaps most importantly, Turnbull’s failure as Shadow Communications Minister is a success for democracy. In any age where all political debate tends to turn cynical quickly, the Australian debate over the NBN has illustrated that out of the fire of vitriolic political discussion, good policy may be tempered and clarified. And that can only be good for the nation.

56 COMMENTS

  1. In regards to demand for fast speeds:
    http://i.imgur.com/Rb3mq.png

    Very interesting to see, granted, early adopters might be skewing the results a little – regardless, it’s interesting to see that the slowest AVC is the _LEAST_ popular.

    • Yes that is interesting duideka however I have no doubt that the 12/1mbps plan will always remain the least popular regardless of how much it rises. NBNco’s prediction was always conservative and you have to take into consideration the only real reason why this plan exists on fibre is because of the wireless and satellite plans.

    • @duideka

      It’s also interesting to see that those graphs are based on pilot NBN residences receiving a FREE service ‘hey I’ll take the fastest plan it’s the same price as the slowest’ – free!

      LOL

  2. Am I the only one who actually sees glimpses of brilliance on the side of Tony Abbott? This way he diminished a major political rival by letting him proxy battle at wind mills, without getting his own hands dirty.

    If you thought in such Macchiavellian terms, you’d applaud this. Not that I would ever accuse our fair elected representatives of operating like that.

    • I don’t think Turnbull’s popularity with the general population is down, however; quite the opposite. Turnbull’s stand on principle on the environment has earnt him that. The NBN is a side issue for most of the mainstream.

    • Very true, and while I am no means a fan of Abbott, it was an excellent political move against his former party leader.

      Either Turnbull succeeded and won the policy debate, thus strengthening the Coalition’s position, or he failed and lost significant political face in the process.

      What is more surprising is Turnbull took the portfolio, no doubt knowing these risks. He obviously though he could best Conroy, Quigley and to some degree Thodey

      • “He obviously though he could best Conroy, Quigley and to some degree Thodey”

        Well that’s Turnbull’s ego for you ;)

        I also think Turnbull took the portfolio because he was genuinely interested in it and genuinely wanted to make a difference. You have to give the guy some credit where it’s due.

        • Also very true, and one of the reasons I would vote for his party if he was again leader (and cleaned house on the front bench).

          As you stated Renai, his expertise in industry far outstrips anyone else on the Coalition benches (to my knowledge) so he was a natural fit and probably would have been booted from the front bench had he declined the role…

          He is also clearly driven by a level of passion and, dare I say this, more than political ideals here. Sad he has been forced to argue against aspects of the NBN policy when it was clearly obviously his technical mind didn’t believe what his political one was saying.

        • Yeah, he probably does want to make a difference, and his main goal is to not have Government owned businesses, he is one of those, “oh the free market is so wonderful, it will fix all the worlds ills”.

          But he is just smart enough to realise most Australians actually don’t think like that so he professes that there needs to be strong regulation.

          Oh and he likes to give public money to private companies with no return…what a load of shit.

          I think government grants to private industry should be banned…they could buy some non voting shares or something instead, an interest free loan, I don’t really care what the mechanism is to spend money in the private sector for public good, we should actually get some return on it though.

  3. Well, that’s an interesting read. Quite the red rag. I will check back later to see what the bulls have written :)

  4. Forgive me, but I don’t see where, exactly, the Labor party has resolved ‘most’ of the criticisms of its NBN. The sticking point is the fact that is replacing one 800 pound gorilla with another 800 pound gorilla, and banning everyone from competing with it. Free markets and competition are core Liberal policy and Conroy hasn’t done anything to answer the criticism. I also had to laugh when you mentioned, incredulously, that even Telstra was onboard, as if they had a choice in the matter. They either faced the government banning them from competing in next-gen 4G wireless, forced divestiture of the cable network and forced structural separation; or they capitulated to the NBN. Of course they chose the latter.

    As for the so-called industry ‘consensus’, that is actually not surprising given that most of the industry doesn’t have real skin in the game, i.e. substantial nationwide infrastructure. Most of the industry simply sits on top of the national Telstra network, even Optus prefers resold copper to its written-off HFC network. So when the government comes along throwing around in excess of $50 billion, it’s absolutely not surprising that the industry, by and large, is in consensus that the NBN is ‘mana from heaven’ because they don’t have to take any risk to build and maintain their own networks – the taxpayer is bearing all the risk.

    Overall, I can’t help but think this article is completely fanciful. That debate is alleged to have ‘died down’ means Turnbull has lost the argument is as ridiculous as it is incorrect. Firstly, Stephen Conroy simply ignores and belittles requests for clarification or any criticism of the utterly poor uptake; and secondly, the majority of this year was spent by both sides debating the carbon and mining taxes. As such, the NBN debate has been drowned out, rather than having ‘died down’, over arguably more mainstream issues.

    Finally, the contention that Malcolm Turnbull is broadly popular in the electorate is unfounded. The Liberal Party’s fortunes only turned once Abbott became leader, which until then, Turnbull had not been able to achieve. He may be popular with those who normally vote for the Labor Party, but I don’t see how that is an accurate measure of popularity when the Labor party, at best, represents just 30% of voters; and secondly, Labor voters don’t generally vote Liberal.

    • What poor uptake?

      Until a month ago, the entire rollout to date had been a serious of trial installs in different sorts of areas. Most of the footprints were tiny, in bumpkin towns where Internet is far from a priority and only one was in a city of any size (Brunswick, plagued by MUD’s)

      Just wait until the NBN rocks up in broadband-poor Springfield or inner city Alderley in Brisbane – I guarantee the uptake will be nothing less than stellar.

    • hey Robert,

      thanks for your comment. I’d like to address some of your criticisms.

      1. Telstra CEO David Thodey is on the record backing the NBN and recommending the Telstra deal as a good one to shareholders. I’ve sat and listened to Thodey talk up the benefits of the NBN in person. Have you? He didn’t mention extortion from the Government at that point; I believe Telstra’s management right now thinks it’s getting a pretty good deal for its copper network.

      2. So what? Industry consensus is still industry consensus, regardless of whether there is a big fat prize there or not. The majority of the industry believes that competition will improve under the NBN. You haven’t really made a point there. Much of the industry believes that without government investment, Telstra’s dominant position will never be broken.

      3. You’re right, Conroy has ignored quite a lot of stuff. However, he will respond substantially when there’s a substantial issue, and I would also point out that Quigley responds all the time, to every issue when it comes up. It’s Quigley that has done a lot to answer questions in the debate, not Conroy — but you completely ignored Quigley’s role there. The anti-NBN campaigners have not been ‘drowned out’, they have been argued to a standstill with evidence. It’s pretty much happened before my eyes on Delimiter itself.

      “Finally, the contention that Malcolm Turnbull is broadly popular in the electorate is unfounded.”

      You’re wrong here. Every time Turnbull goes anywhere there are people asking him to become the leader of the Liberal Party. It’s now, I believe, a daily event for him when he’s in public. I’ve personally seen it a few times, and on national TV etc. There’s a strong demand from the general population (Liberal voters, Labor voters and otherwise) for Turnbull to become Liberal leader, and then PM. There is no doubt that he would win an election against Gillard.

      • ‘3. You’re right, Conroy has ignored quite a lot of stuff. However, he will respond substantially when there’s a substantial issue’

        He certainly does that, but I disagree he responds to substantial issues even when they come from his own Government Departments whose primary role is to review such projects, he ignores them.

        ‘NBN Co’s public funding model is a potential breach of the government’s competitive neutrality policies, according to an investigation by an office of the Productivity Commission.

        It has recommended the government analyse NBN Co’s non-commercial benefits and pay for those separately, and that NBN Co provide a higher rate of return to reflect the risks of the project.’

        http://www.theage.com.au/business/nbn-co-funding-under-fire-20111208-1olax.html

        That’s the nice thing about being in power you can ignore all the negative stuff with glib dismissive spin nation building BS because you know the only decision you cannot ignore is the decision of the ballot box, and that’s at least two years away and that’s hell of a lot of ignoring in the meantime.

  5. Everything Turnbull says is true. It will take some time but eventually people will see the bloat – just like they did with Aussat.

    History does repeat. And it is repeating right now.

    Turnbull was around during the Aussat fiasco (unlike many of todays juniors) and knows what a rat smells like. He isn’t following the pie-in-the-sky wishful-thinking free-lunchers who seem in such abundance these days.

    Turnbull is right, LeMay is totally wrong.

    • “Everything Turnbull says is true.”

      Bwhahahaha I hardly think so ;)

      As for Aussat … this is not like that situation at all. Nor was Turnbull tremendously involved in it at the time.

      • The sad thing is that I think if it was the Coalition in power I think Turnbull would love to roll out something like the NBN. Then Conroy would be calling it a White Elephant. Unfortunately, after all the opposition, if they get into power they have to stop the rollout of FTTH and waste time and money doing some stop gap measure. Either that or there will be some very clever spin about how it is still rolling out but somehow it’s being done the right way.

        • ‘Unfortunately, after all the opposition, if they get into power they have to stop the rollout of FTTH and waste time and money doing some stop gap measure.’

          Which is a strange thing to say because the actual process of stopping the FTTH rollout in itself means you are stopping the waste of money, and the false assumption on your part being the ‘stop gap measure’ is going to cost more than the original budgeted Labor NBN rollout anyway.

      • Sorry, after all that I missed the point I wanted to make. I think every thing Turnbull believes is true. Unfortunately he has to say things he doesn’t believe for political reasons. Sad when school yard arguments and political opposition seem so similar. “It’s wrong because you’re crap”

    • “Everything Turnbull says is true. It will take some time but eventually people will see the bloat – just like they did with Aussat.”

      If that was the case, he would not have been ousted as Leader of the Coalition.

      People have faulty short-term memory; Turnbull looks great against Abbott, but at the time he was rolled, it wasn’t Abbott that the comparisons were being made against.

      He’s unpopular with his party due to his slight lefty leanings with respect to human accelerated global warming.

      He’s also been tasked by Abbott to “destroy” then NBN, so of course that’s what he’s doing.

      However when you hold up his policy to the light of day, there are a bunch of holes the size of Texas.

      There’s no clear statement where funding will come from (appears to be Tax, so no return to us, the tax paying investor, as per the NBN) or a plan to phase FTTN to FTTH (which either means the deployment rots, or there’s a hidden, massive cost to replace).

      Also, to quote Renai’s article:

      “The cost of the network, its imposition as a Government monopoly on the free operations of the telecommunications market, and the idea that its underlying fibre to the home technology may not be the right one, both because Australians may not need the 100Mbps speeds which it will provide, as well as the remarkable growth of wireless alternatives.”

      The argument can be made that Abbott hasn’t actually properly costed his policy, it maintains the existing vertically-integrated monopoly, continues to opinion a technology that may not be the right one, and that assumes we don’t need speed (hint: yeah we do) as well as the remarkable growth of mobile connectivity, such as 3G.

      Abbott wants people to believe we neither deserve nor need broadband network designed to cope with the next 50+ years, and that it’s cost is grossly unnecessary. I strongly believe he’s incorrect on all three counts; problem is, that’s the line he must maintain.

      Otherwise, he cannot “destroy” the NBN. So we get the same tired lines, the same lack of vision; the same message.

      • I’ll just add that “Turnbull hasn’t properly costed”, rather than Abbott.

        Lastly, if speed wasn’t a concern, why are Telstra investing heavily in 4G, and pushing HFC speeds up?

        • “Lastly, if speed wasn’t a concern, why are Telstra investing heavily in 4G, and pushing HFC speeds up?”

          This is simple, the more HFC customers they have, the more money they get when they move those HFC customer onto the NBN.

          the 4G question is even easier to answer, road warriors need faster mobile broadband!

      • @Brendan

        ‘He’s also been tasked by Abbott to “destroy” then NBN, so of course that’s what he’s doing.’

        You are getting confused again and perpetuating the myth because it suits your agenda, that’s what Gillard said the Coalition would do, the Coalition denied that and reiterated any NBN FTTH rolled out at the point of time they gain power will be left intact.

        ‘There’s no clear statement where funding will come from (appears to be Tax, so no return to us, the tax paying investor, as per the NBN) or a plan to phase FTTN to FTTH (which either means the deployment rots, or there’s a hidden, massive cost to replace).’

        There was no clear indication where funding would come from when Labor gained power in 2007, which was doubly interesting because they changed the communications policy anyway after they got into power.

        ‘The argument can be made that Abbott hasn’t actually properly costed his policy,’

        Like the NBN you mean? or if you are referring to the NBN Business plan loosely defined as being the ‘policy costing’ that came out after the 2010 election, so Abbott doesn’t have to provide any figures until after the 2013 election, that’s ok isn’t it?

        ‘ it maintains the existing vertically-integrated monopoly,’

        No it doesn’t because the Coalition support the structural separation of Telstra and it is a key condition of their policy, and there is nothing in their policy that indicates it is a 100% Telstra led alternative anyway.

        ‘Abbott wants people to believe we neither deserve nor need broadband network designed to cope with the next 50+ years, and that it’s cost is grossly unnecessary.’

        That’s coming from a biased basic assertion that only a multi billion dollar taxpayer fed 93% FTTH footprint is the only fixed BB alternative for the next 50+ years, nobody has proved that as yet.

        ‘ I strongly believe he’s incorrect on all three counts; problem is, that’s the line he must maintain.’

        I don’t believe you on all counts either because you make incorrect statements, but I guess it’s a line you must maintain.

        ‘Otherwise, he cannot “destroy” the NBN.’

        That was GIllard’s statement, you are getting confused again.

        ‘So we get the same tired lines, the same lack of vision; the same message.’

        Indeed we are, but mostly from you.

    • Funny, some people (idiots) thought creating a national telephone network was just a lot of bloat too, but it returned many billion dollars in profit, and was a hugely profitable company.

      They should have never sold it, and this is merely correcting that mistake.

      I hope the gov creates a new Commonwealth Bank next, government should be in the business of providing essential services, and there is room for both private and public corporations operating side by side providing different services.

  6. “which was a level exponentially higher than his predecessors.’
    Exponentially has a very specific mathematical meaning; it does not just mean ‘much larger’.

  7. A large issue that everyone ignores is the reason why the finances of the NBN are so important. The government has taken the NBN out of the budget since it can earn a commercial return (7% barely). If it does not meet this criteria then it has to be included in budget figures and any claims of the government to surplus are destroyed. This is why people are attacking the economics as the government claims that it is a commercial business but most people seem to be treating it as a public service in which case it should be included in the budget estimates. If it is a public good then treat it as one or treat it as a commercial enterprise but not some weird mix of the two.

    As far as disclosure from the NBN it is a private government enterprise, personally I do not see a reason that it should not have similar accounting rules as publically listed companies as every taxpayer in Australia is a defacto shareholder since we have all provided the taxes to fund the project. I feel that Quigly has done an excellent job in a difficult position however most of the viel of secrecy is comming through ministerial influence as Labor’s record on sharing information has been abysmal where Quigly seems happy to share his thoughts at hearings.

    • I agree, we need to stop fetishizing a “surplus”. Australia is in a really good position at the moment and we should be capitalizing on that with a nation-building project like this, not obsessing about surplus.

      • The point of a surplus Dean (as you should know) is to say you have a surplus. It’s important to make happy the armchair bean counters not the ones that paid all that tax and foolishly thought the government was actually going to do something with it.

      • It’s not a nation building project, in case you hasn’t noticed the nation is already built.

          • The best you can do is concentrate on a corrected spelling mistake?

            wow impressive stuff.

          • Yes I apologise. My comment was almost as ridiculous as someone else coming along and saying the nation has already been built. Not quite though, phew.

          • Well if you think that ‘nation building’ totally depends on us getting a $43 billion taxpayer funded FTTH rollout so that a residence can have HD video conferencing to four points in the home then we are in deep shit.

          • The best you can do is concentrate on HD video conferencing to four points in the home?

            wow impressive stuff.

          • “$43 billion taxpayer funded”

            You still whining about this? Tell you what alinan, since my share of that $43 billion is about $4000 I promise to pay all of it with a monthly installment plan of $100 for 3 years and to sweeten the deal I’ll keep paying that $100 a month whenever I use the internet (which is the rest of my life). I’m sure I could get a few more people to pay their share too. Sound fair?

          • Yeah that’s fine, so do I get a total tax refund then if I decide to say on HFC or 3G/4G wireless?

  8. “You’re wrong here. Every time Turnbull goes anywhere there are people asking him to become the leader of the Liberal Party. It’s now, I believe, a daily event for him when he’s in public. I’ve personally seen it a few times, and on national TV etc. There’s a strong demand from the general population (Liberal voters, Labor voters and otherwise) for Turnbull to become Liberal leader, and then PM. There is no doubt that he would win an election against Gillard.”

    So true, if he was Party leader at the next election and supported the NBN largely as it is I’d vote for him in a heart beat! However that last part is prolly wishful thinking, so I’ll keep voting labour till the NBN reaches the point of no return.

    • “…I’ll keep voting labour till the NBN reaches the point of no return.”

      +1

      I wander how many other people feel this way. I wander if the pig-headed liberal communications policy will cost them another election.

          • You do know what a hung Parliament is I hope, it’s where the outcome of a election is that both major parties have a equal number of seats and cannot gain power in their own right.

            On that same basis of the assertion stated previously, the NBN cost Labor the election.

          • WTF? What sort of spin are you trying to put on this. Their broadband poliy cost the Liberals the election. It couldn’t have been more clear cut. Hung Parliment. 3 Independants to decide who went into parliment. The chose Labour and gave their reason as being the labour broadband policy was way better than the Liberals were offering. How can you say it didn’t cost the Liberals the election?

          • Here we go again, I was referring to the actual election that people voted on that led to a hung Parliament not what happened afterwards with the horse trading and pork barreling with the Independents where the NBN was one of many enticements that got the Government over the line.

  9. Good work Renai, Loved your piece here.

    I totally agree. As I live in a “broadband-poor” area as one of the other posters put it – being very close to brisbane and having no choice isnt a great feeling. While Vodafone and Optus certainly try, unfortunately you just have to be with Telstra or a reseller, even then its only barely over 8mbps – thats IF you can get ADSL at all.

    Theres nothing fun about this arrangement, NBN would see us served with choice, whereas Turnbull’s plan would leave us in exactly the same predicament. I know I’d vote for turnbull if he finally decided to embrace the NBN in its entireity and just boot out Abbott!

    • “I know I’d vote for turnbull if he finally decided to embrace the NBN in its entireity and just boot out Abbott!”

      This is what I don’t get about the opposition, what have they got to lose if they change their mind and embrace the the NBN? It’s not like they’ll lose votes cause a vote for pretty much anyone else currently is a vote for the NBN, it would probably garner them more votes and put them in a stronger position. Just shows you how stupid they are.

    • Why would Turnbull’s plan leave you in the exact same predicament, what is it about Coalition policy that specifically targets your BB blackspot postcode and ignores it?

  10. I don’t think you can claim that every telco supports the NBN, when comments coming from every Telco (apart from obviously Telstra) are very dualistic in nature, praising some parts and heavily criticising others, and I am sure that you are aware of this since you did reporting on many of these articles

    Also the pricing right now, as Simon Hackett has said, means total jack (its completely theoretical), since there is no NBN market, and NBNCo itself is not having to cover for its own expenses (at this point it is still 100% government funded)

    And you calling these issues as “bad” for the coalition is highly unrealistic, some people have already made up their mind regarding the NBN and are not likely to change people, most people simply do not care about it and are more worried about things like Carbon Tax or cost of living. The people like Michael Wyres that hate Turnbull with vitriol will continue to do so, and would never agree agree with his opinion, and so he has lost nothing and that ground, and it will remain that way

Comments are closed.