• Enjoy the freedom to innovate and grow your business


    [ad] With Microsoft Azure you have hybrid cloud flexibility, allowing your platform to span your cloud and on premise data centre. Learn more at microsoftcloud.com.

  • IT Admin: No Time to Save Time?


    [ad] Do you spend too much time patching machines or cleaning up after virus attacks? With automation controlled from a central IT management console accessible anytime, anywhere – you can save time for bigger tasks. Try simple IT management from GFI Cloud and start saving time today!

  • Free Forrester analysis of CRM solutions


    [ad] In this 25 page report, independent analyst house Forrester evaluates 18 significant products in the customer relationship management space from a broad range of vendors, detailing its findings on how CRM suites measure up and plotting where they stand in relation to each other. Download it for free now.

  • Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites


  • Reader giveaway: Google Nexus 5


    We’re big fans of Google’s Nexus line-up in general at Delimiter towers. Nexus 4, Nexus 7, Nexus 10 … we love pretty much anything Nexus. Because of this we've kicked off a new competition to give away one of Google’s new Nexus 5 smartphones to a lucky reader. Click here to enter.

  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Monday, May 14, 2012 10:49 - 262 Comments

    Is Abbott consciously lying on NBN costs?

    news Opposition Leader Tony Abbott appears to have again misrepresented the cost of connecting to National Broadband Network fibre infrastructure, in comments which the Government has said represent a deliberate attempt to mislead the Australian public on the issue.

    In his budget reply speech last week which was nationally broadcast from Federal Parliament, Abbott questioned the need to “spend $50 billion on a National Broadband Network so customers can subsequently spend almost three times their current monthly fee for speeds they might not need?”

    “Why dig up every street when fibre to the node could more swiftly and more affordably deliver 21st century broadband?” he added. “Why put so much into the NBN when the same investment could more than duplicate the Pacific Highway, Sydney’s M5 and the road between Hobart and Launceston; build Sydney’s M4 East, the Melbourne Metro, and Brisbane’s Cross City Rail; plus upgrade Perth Airport and still leave about $10 billion for faster broadband?”

    It’s not the first time a leading Opposition figure has made the claim that end user retail NBN prices will cost more. Earlier this year, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated several times that NBN prices would higher than those currently on the market.

    Some of the basis for the claims has come from the fact that the NBN will see a new, government-owned company, NBN Co, entrenched as a wholesale monopoly in Australia’s telecommunications market, which Turnbull has claimed is an uncompetitive structure which will eventually see prices rise. Other such claims have come from the idea that as broadband usage increases, consumers will naturally be paying more, or from stipulations in NBN Co’s wholesale agreements which are slated to allow it to raise some of its wholesale costs which it charges ISPs.

    However, despite these factors, analysis has consistently shown that it is unlikely that retail pricing levels under the NBN will significantly rise, compared with existing prices available on ADSL and HFC broadband networks.

    NBN Co has committed to the Australian Competition and COnsumer Commission that it will maintain wholesale prices to a reasonable level over the 30 year period governed by the Special Access Undertaking document which sets out many of the rules for its operations. The states that NBN Co’s basic broadband pricing will remain the same until June 2017, and that after that point, price rises will be limited to half of consumer price index rises in any one year. They also can’t be accumulated over time. In addition, analysis of current NBN pricing has shown that the NBN plans released by major companies like Optus, Telstra, iiNet, Internode, Exetel and others are virtually identical to their existing broadband plans on ADSL or HFC cable networks.

    In a statement last week, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said Abbott’s claim that consumers would pay three times more for broadband under the NBN was “just wrong”. “Prices for NBN plans released to date are cheaper than, or equivalent to, existing ADSL plans, but with much improved quality of service,” Conroy added. “For example, Skymesh is offering NBN services from $29.95 per month. Exetel’s entry-level plan costs $35.00 per month. A number of other retail providers, including Optus, offer NBN services starting from $39.95 and $49.95 per month. Thanks to the NBN, competition between retail providers is increasing.”

    “Tony Abbott should check his facts before delivering a national address in the Australian Parliament.”

    Another aspect of Abbott’s speech may also be incorrect; his statement that the funds being ploughed into rolling out the NBN could be invested instead in building transport infrastructure such as roads, whilst still leaving “$10 billion” to invest in broadband as well.

    Abbott made this same claim in February. However, at the time, analysis showed that the NBN is not an expense in terms of the Federal Government’s annual budget, and cutting the project would not free up money to be spent in other areas. This is because the project is an investment expected to make a return for the government — a long-term profit. That return is currently projected to be between $1.93 billion to $3.92 billion.

    According to a research note recently published by the Parliamentary Library of Australia last year, Labor is technically correct to account for the NBN on this matter, and the Coalition is wrong.
    “Australia has adopted internationally accepted accounting standards, and these are applied in the budget treatment of the NBN,” the library’s Brian Dalzell, who works in its economics division, wrote in the report (available online here in PDF format). “While the applied accounting treatment depends on the specific transaction conducted between the Government and NBN Co, this treatment is governed by accepted accounting standards and is applied equally to all government business entities (GBEs). This treatment is not determined by the return generated by NBN Co (or any other GBE).”

    In this sense, cutting funds from the NBN would have the potential to limit any return the project makes in the long-term, potentially even costing the Government money instead of saving it. Even if the NBN project ended up making a long-term loss on the investment, the Government’s loss in that area would not constitute the entire cost of the project — merely how much money it had lost once NBN Co’s revenues had been removed from the equation. Conroy acknowledged this fact in his statement.

    “In his budget reply, Mr Abbott also pretends that investing in fast affordable broadband should be replaced by additional spending on roads,” the Minister said. “Mr Abbott clearly doesn’t understand that the NBN is classified by international accounting standards as an equity investment rather than a budget expense. This is consistent with long-standing budget treatment applied by this and previous Australian Governments.”

    “The equity investment in the NBN cannot simply be shifted to pay for more roads, unless those roads are being run by a government business making a return.”

    opinion/analysis
    Right now, in reporting comments by the Opposition on the National Broadband Network, I — and no doubt other journalists — are facing an uncomfortable decision. When do you stop reporting that a leading political figure is ‘misleading’ Australia on a certain issue, has made a ‘factually inaccurate’ statement, or is simply ‘mistaken’, and start reporting instead that that politician is deliberately ‘lying’ on an issue in public, for political gain?

    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has taken a very consistent line with respect to the NBN over the past six months or so, repeatedly alleging that the project will increase broadband costs in Australia by up to three times, and that the Government’s NBN investment could be re-allocated to other areas such as transport infrastructure.

    However, over this time, as Conroy pointed out last week, these statements have been proven false. The NBN is not, and will not, cost Australians more, and cutting the project will not free up government funding to be spent on roads, as it is an investment, not an expense.

    Now, I am sure that some advisers within Abbott’s staff, and perhaps even the Opposition Leader himself, are aware that this kind of analysis has been done on the Liberal leader’s statements.
    In addition, it is very common in political circumstances for leaders such as Abbott to rely on their portfolio ministers to supply input in their respective fields to major speeches such as a budget reply. In this case, it is clear that Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull is personally aware of the criticisms of Abbott’s claims. Turnbull himself, earlier this year, was active in making many of the same claims. However, the Member for Wentworth appears to have ratcheted down his comments on these areas publicly, especially in the area of retail costs, since analysis of this area and of the NBN’s return on investment was published earlier this year.

    I believe that Turnbull has become aware that some of his statements in this area were on shaky ground, and that he has modified his approach on this issue in order not to risk misleading the Australian public. So the question then becomes, has Turnbull, or even Abbott’s own media advisers, discussed with Abbott the fact that many of the statements which Abbott is consistently making about the NBN are factually inaccurate? If they haven’t, why haven’t they?

    As a journalist, you can only point out when a politician is mistaken on an issue so many times before you have to draw the conclusion that the politician is deliberately ignoring commentary on the issue and is choosing to, as Conroy put it last week, “wilfully mislead” — in layman’s speech, ‘lie’ — to Australians. When that politician is an important a figure as the Leader of the Opposition, that is a very serious issue indeed. Right now, on the NBN, Tony Abbott is on very shaky ground — and it may just be on the verge of collapsing underneath him.

    submit to reddit

    262 Comments

    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    1. Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink |

      Someone is probably deliberately lying.

      Whether it is Abbott directly and deliberately espousing rubbish, or someone feeding him deliberately inaccurate information on something he is “no Bill Gates” about, as part of a collaborative effort remains to be seen.

      The exact source – (while we can guess, and probably be right or close to it) – is difficult to show categorically.

      But given the amount of stuff the simply get utterly wrong means they are deliberately being misleading, or completely stupid.

      I lean the “deliberately being misleading” direction.

      In other words, lying.

      • tom
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:41 am | Permalink |

        Either way, if he is “deliberately misleading” or just “completely stupid”, he is not fit to be the Prime Minister of this country.

        • damien
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink |

          +1

      • jw
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink |

        Abbot could always claim he was just echoing the concerns of many Australians, rather than questioning real NBN issues.

        There are many people who are really concerned about streets being dug up and the costs being high. Even if they are baseless, their concern is real. And he wins points/votes from them by having listened to them.

        • Bern
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink |

          But it’s not the role of the leader of the opposition to “echo the concerns” of many Australians, when those Australians are mistaken, and the leader of the opposition knows (or should know) it to be so.

          The opposition is there to try to ensure that decisions made by the government are in the best interests of the nation, not best suited for the political gain of either the government *or* the opposition.

          But who am I kidding? The only thing these pollies want is power, and Mr Abbott’s ambition seems of a particularly voracious and unprincipled sort.

          • jw
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:36 pm | Permalink |

            But it IS the role of the Head FUDmaster to exploit the fears of the uninformed.
            echo fear -> win votes -> fear is considered “proven” and “tested”

            No facts required

        • Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink |

          With the completion of the deal between Telstra and NBN Co, for NBN Co to use the existing Telstra pit and pipe infrastructure, there will be very little “digging up of streets”.

          That’s another sound bite the opposition has injected into the debate.

        • Karl
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:09 am | Permalink |

          The concerns are only there to be echoed because Abbott and Turnbull created them. I really hope this all blows up in their faces spectacularly, it could be interesting.

    2. NormanK
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink |

      Renai

      You have been very diplomatic in your choice of words to date – “misleading”, “mistaken” and so on. It is high time that Abbott was called for the lying that he does on this subject. The government’s input is not $50 billion – it is at best $38 billion, all of which will be recouped. Services provided by ISPs will be compatible in price with what is currently available. Money removed from the NBN can not be spent on other projects without dragging it into the budget bottom line which would cause the Coalition to make cuts elsewhere in order to fulfil these ‘aspirational’ commitments.
      I beg you and your colleagues to call a wilful lie just that every time it is uttered. In the latest instance it was during a keynote address broadcast live on national television. He must be brought to account for this.

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink |

        Whether it’s a “lie” or not depends on whether Abbott personally knows it to be untrue. As time goes on and he keeps on making these statements, it becomes increasingly easier to show that he — and his office — are aware that the statements are untrue.

        I know for a fact that Turnbull reads Delimiter (he sometimes comments here as well). I consider it incumbent upon him to discuss this issue with Abbott directly and determine whether or not Abbott is conscious that he is making misstatements.

        • NormanK
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink |

          Renai

          You can’t have it both ways. In order to make the assertion that NBN prices will be triple that of current offerings someone on his staff must have done some research. We all know that any research on this subject would come up with seriously different conclusions. Either he and his staff are just making stuff up without checking the facts or they are lying. Which is the greater sin?

          I admire your diplomacy (a rare thing in the media these days) but how many times does he have to repeat a falsehood before he gets called on it? This is not some backbencher at a regional branch meeting. This is the LOTO during his Budget Reply speech.

        • Luke
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink |

          Ahhh…the old George Costanza quote: *Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.*

          Everybody has a little bit of George in them…. :)

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink |

          I’m convinced he is consciously deceiving people. I dont think he cares, he doesn’t have too, it’s not important to come up with a decent broadband plan of your own, the important thing is getting elected and Abbott has proven he is willing to do anything to become prime minister so lying is in his grand scheme of things rather irrelevant.

          • Simon Reidy
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink |

            Exactly. Abbott has been caught out telling porkies for years. This is a man who openly admitted on national TV that he tells lies in the heat of the moment and to not believe anything he says unless “it’s in writing”. He also was recorded as calling climate change “crap”, until one of his advisers no doubt pointed out that even the Liberal party understands global warming (regardless of whether they are actually serious about tackling it).

            Ironically, while personally denying global warming, he was interviewed several years ago as saying the best way to handle a market based approach to tackle climate change would be to put a tax on carbon (unless it’s done by Labor of course, when all of sudden it inexplicably becomes a “toxic tax”).

            I could spend the rest of the afternoon pointing out just the major lies and backflips I remember. There are certainly plenty more to be found. The point being Abbott is a man who harps on about honesty, transparency and integrity in Government, when he personally possesses none of those qualities and in reality is a lying snake, who will do or say anything to worm his way into Government.

            Hence my opinion is that Abbott’s comments about the NBN are outright lies and he knows it.

            • Dan
              Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:30 pm | Permalink |

              Labor should hire you to write their campaign ads. ;)
              I sincerely hope they have a campaign ad showing all his backflips and lies…

              • Noddy
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink |

                Why wait, collect audio and video and put together something on Youtube. There may be something there already. That is the current day ad space.

                • Simon Reidy
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink |

                  Plenty of people have assembled footage of Abbott speaking horseshit on YouTube. The few major lies I pointed out are all there on video, including him advocating a carbon tax, and claiming they would be no new taxes under his Government; then 6 months later that’s exactly what he announces he is doing to fund his parental leave scheme (which most analysts say is simply political posturing to try to be more likeable to women).

                  Going by polling, more women than men find Abbott untrustworthy and allround unlikable – which is hardly surprising given his outrageous, invasive and derogatory comments about women in his early political life (he claimed boldly during univeristy there were some things men will always be better at and was forever clashing with women’s rights groups) and of course because of his public intervention on personal female issues like abortion (remember his highy offensive an insensitive rant in question time about our abortion rate being a national disgrace?).

                  It’s not hard to see why so many woman hate him, it’s just a shame more men don’t despise him for the same reasons. The fact that he’s friends with Cardinal Pell (and turns to him for advice!) is reason enough alone for me to despise the man.

                  • Noddy
                    Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:31 pm | Permalink |

                    Yes, it’s hard to understand. I wish I understood human nature. Some women think Sam Neuman is great. That is even harder believe. There is some sort of attraction to misogynists?

              • Steelo
                Posted 08/01/2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink |

                Ah, but at least people are talking about these things, that is also part of a journalists job don’t you think??

        • Matthew Lyon
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink |

          No Renai, a lie is just something which is not the truth.
          He most certainly IS lying, the question is whether he is knowingly or unknowingly lying and if he is being misled, is he fit to lead the country?

          • Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink |

            No, a lie implies knowledge and intent to mislead.

            • djos
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink |

              and Abbott is most certainly lying by that definition!

    3. Glenn
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink |

      “Why put so much into the NBN when the same investment could more than duplicate the Pacific Highway, Sydney’s M5 and the road between Hobart and Launceston; build Sydney’s M4 East, the Melbourne Metro, and Brisbane’s Cross City Rail; plus upgrade Perth Airport and still leave about $10 billion for faster broadband?”

      To continue that analogy, realize that all the local roads (last mile) are crumbling, and you want to spend money duplicating interstate highways.

      • Luke
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink |

        Because roads are generally a state issue, and fixing the corrupt state of our telecommunications industry (arguably one of the most important industries in the 21st century) is a federal issue?

        • Glenn
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink |

          The point i was trying to make is that the NBN is going the last mile, to the home, its a complete solution.
          The coalition broadband policy is to have fancy big pipes to towns, but then have huge choke points and technical problems when people get off those big fat pipes/highways.

          So i think there analogy is a bad one, it demonstrates the flaw in their plan.

    4. Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:34 am | Permalink |

      Renai, how dare you?! It’s not a journalist’s job to point out when a public figure is lying. Just report what s/he said and find someone who said a different thing to balance it out. Don’t give away which one you think is more credible or introduce any facts on your own — it’s well known facts have a left-wing bias. Just make sure you give both sides of the argument equal space for their assertions and let readers make up their own minds. Didn’t you go to journalism school?

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink |

        lol frankly I didn’t go to journalism school — that’s why I keep on making these novice mistakes ;)

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink |

        Part of journalism is comment. He isn’t a news reader or reporter, he is a commentator. Read the columns in any news paper. The facts are reported and invariably a columnist interprets them and presents his views in another area.

        He has balanced it out over and over. There comes a point when it’s a waste of time and you just have to call it how it is, lies and decept.

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink |

        *Sarcasm Detector activated*

        *Beep … Beep … Beep*

        *Sarcasm Overload*

        *Sarcasm Detector explodes*

        haha.

        • Noddy
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink |

          I was hoping so. You never know with the people you get on here. Besides, his website seems to be dedicated to picking on Australian journalism.

          • Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:13 pm | Permalink |

            Good – Majority of Aussie Journos are byassed as hell.

            • Bern
              Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink |

              Yeah, what with the Murdoch clan owning so much of it, there’s such a heavy right-wing slant to the media it’d be nice to see a Liberal/National government that fixed that…

              Oh, wait, that’s not what he means, is it?
              ;-)

          • Trev
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

            I think the following gave it away…

            it’s well known facts have a left-wing bias

            LOL

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

        BTW, read some of your articles. You seem to put your own opinion pretty firmly in the lot. Pot Kettle Black?

        • Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink |

          I’m not a journalist… :)

          • Noddy
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink |

            Is Renai? Or is he a technology commentator? I’d say a bit of both. He reports the facts, he said, she said, then comments.
            Reading back I see your comment was more than likely a poke at certain schools of journalism. I am not sure if they are trying just to report or being lazy.

        • Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink |

          Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and a soapbox from which to shout it.

          • Bern
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink |

            Isn’t that what the Internet was invented for? :-D

            • Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink |

              It was invented to allow communications between US military installations to survive a catastrophic attack.

              But I digress… :o)

      • damien
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink |

        Josh wrote: “Just make sure you give both sides of the argument equal space for their assertions and let readers make up their own minds. Didn’t you go to journalism school?”

        And that’s the problem with journalism when it comes to reporting on scientific or technical issues. Here (unlike politics), there is generally only one correct answer and ‘equal’ time should NOT be given to crank/fringe ideas. It’s like an article on evolution giving equal time to creationists – it should not happen.

    5. The Claw
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:46 am | Permalink |

      It’s the lie that broadband will be more expensive on the NBN that is the most pathetic. You can go to the websites of the ISPs providing NBN services right now and see that NBN service is not more expensive than ADSL. End of story.

    6. Damien
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink |

      Wow, that read like a press release from Conroy… The NBN plans which I’ve seen all have very limited data allowances compared to current ISP plans. (Besides Telstra.) If I wanted to keep the same limits which I have currently then I would have to spend a lot more with a NBN plan, even if that would give higher speeds.

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink |

        The data allowance seem the same to me. If you are refering to the TPG unlimited plans. They haven’t released plans yet. So maybe when they do they can release a highly contended service like they do on ADSL2+ that only multiple streams can get any decent speed from. Exetel will probably follow suit and kick off anyone who uses any amount of data over a limited plan.

      • stonemage
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink |

        Yep, Noddy. Took the words right out of my mouth.

        Damien… not sure where you’re getting your information from, but it is incorrect. In fact, you will find that nearly like-for-like, providers are duplicating (or bettering) their current DSL plans in an NBN world.

    7. Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:05 pm | Permalink |

      Why assume that Abbott cares whether or not he is deliberately misleading the public?

      It seems to me like that is his most tried and true political tactic. He’s even asserted, himself, on national TV, that he’ll say anything to make a political point. Facts are not important: it’s all about narrative.

    8. Dan Sydney
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink |

      Politicians should be held to the same “false and misleading advertising” laws that private companies are. Then they’d be a lot more honest.

      The reason why this has never happened anywhere in the world is because politicians are the people responsible for having new laws drafted.

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink |

        +1

      • Myke
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink |

        +1

      • emigrated to tassie
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink |

        I believe there’s a white paper on that….filed in the same tray as pollie pay cuts in times of National economic stress.

    9. djos
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink |

      Pretty much everything the coalition says is a lie atm so would they start telling the truth now?

      Frankly I’m so disgusted by the federal Liberal party right now, everything they do and say is just dishonest but the mainstream media are so right wing they wont call them out for it!

      FWIW, I’ve voted for the Federal Liberal party twice as many times as I have for Federal Labour (4 to 2).

      • Strangelove
        Posted 12/04/2013 at 8:31 pm | Permalink |

        But they accused the labor gov of telling lies and the public and the mdeia buys it! Instead, Abbott is the one who keeps telling lies!
        No justice! Non whatsoever !

    10. Malcolm
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink |

      no question of Mr Abbott’s commitment to the coalition’s broadband vision. Our approach to broadband involves continuing with the NBN, but doing it in a more cost-effective and timely basis

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink |

        “more cost-effective” just means half arsing it and hoping no one notices.
        “more timely basis” just means doing less work and employing less people for a shorter time frame.

        This is the lazy bludger option.

      • stonemage
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink |

        Malcolm, one must ask how exactly you’re going to do it in a “more cost effective and timely basis”.

        Surely you must recognise that to start, the coalitions approach is far less timely given that planning is going to have to be done all again from scratch for a different set of technology, while maintaining the course of FTTH for the majority is already under way and will, because of that, be faster than any alternative plan.

        As for “more cost effective”… re-read this article and the countless fantastic other articles Renai has plopped on his great site, and try commenting again.

        I honestly want to see a rebuttal to any of the budget commentary that actually makes sense. The coalitions response so far has been, as called out, “lies”.

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink |

        WTF does this have to do with him intentionally lying or not, or are you arguing the ends justifies the means? I am pretty sure the only ends Tony is interested is himself as prime minister.

      • NormanK
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink |

        C’mon Malcolm. Back up your leader’s assertions that money currently being spent on equity infrastructure can be re-channelled into roads and bridges without adding to the budget bottom line.

      • djos
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:48 pm | Permalink |

        How could an FTTN roll-out possibly be “more timely and efficient” than continuing with FTTP when NBN Co would need to redesign the rest of the network (6-12 months work) and a Lib Gov would have to re-negotiate a deal with Telstra to use/buy the copper (1-2 years based on Telstra existing record)?

        Frankly Malcom you need to admit that Tony is a half wit, boot him from the Lib Leadership (just as popular as Julia so every one will cheer), win the next election and let the NBN Co get on with the FTTH rollout which you full well know is going to transform Small and medium business in Australia!

      • Liam
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink |

        Hi Malcolm,

        Thanks for posting here, any conversation is better than no conversation :)

        In regards to the statement “continuing with the NBN, but doing it in a more cost-effective and timely basis”:

        It would be great if the coalition plan involved the same technical goals as the current NBN (ie 93% fttp), but aimed to be delivered in a way that is more cost effective. Your current fttn plan would cost a lot less, as it would deliver a lot less.

        In regards to timeframes, I can put up a tent faster than I can build a house. This doesn’t mean I want to live in a tent. Infrastructure upgrades take time, and doing less than half the job in half the time isn’t really an improvement.

      • Johnny
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink |

        I like how there is no comment from Malcolm on Abbotts lies.

      • Paul Krueger
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink |

        I have seen nothing from the coalition that explains how moving from the self funded NBN to some subsidized private model is somehow going to save us money, no matter how deep your”commitment” is to doing it cheaper.

        If the Liberal Party with their talk of infrastructure competition, do not know what a Natural Monopoly is they are, IMHO, unfit to govern.

        • nonny-moose
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 4:06 am | Permalink |

          absolutely.

          Malcolm, please let us know what % return you intend to derive from your FTTN plan, and how long it will take to recover its estimated 16 billion cost? particularly as you have stated intention to use subsidies, which do not generate a return.

          why is it ‘cost effective’ to build a FTTN network knowing full well it will have a likely life of less than a decade and FTTH will be required thereafter, effectively paying for two networks in the same timespan as the NBN will be extant?

          is it sensible to pay for labour cost multiple times? bearing in mind the nodes will require twice the labour as power must be run to the cabinets as well, and then the labour cost of a future upgrade to FTTH (which noone disputes is the endpoint network operators around the globe are working towards, regardless whatever they are doing now). is it not much more sensible to spend the labour cost only once, as Labors policy does? with that in mind, how can you credibly maintain your party is the one of ‘fiscal conservatism’ when the finished cost of the single build Labor policy will likely be many billions less than the all up cost of the two stage network you have been promoting?

      • Strangelove
        Posted 12/04/2013 at 8:41 pm | Permalink |

        Hi

        If you really believe in FTTN, why you buy France Telecom shares. The purpose of your policy is to dumb down the issue. Hope that no one really care. Your comments on NBN have been misleading and dishonest. But I guess when you return to the government, you just do not care about telecommunication or people in the regional area.

    11. Posted 14/05/2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink |

      However, the Member for Wentworth appears to have ratcheted down his comments on these areas publicly, especially in the area of retail costs, since analysis of this area and of the NBN’s return on investment was published earlier this year.

      I believe that Turnbull has become aware that some of his statements in this area were on shaky ground, and that he has modified his approach on this issue in order not to risk misleading the Australian public

      I’m completely flabbergasted you can write this stuff with a straight face.

      It’s perfectly okay to accept Conroy’s view of Labor’s NBN as the “truth”, and to completely ignore (or rubbish) the substance of Malcolm’s criticisms… but to make completely false claims (or however subtly infer) that your opponent in this debate has changed his mind on the issues under contention to your point of view is the height of self-delusion.

      l have read and digested Malcolm’s articles and every single one of his posts on your blog. Malcolm’s views on the economics of Labor’s NBN have not changed one iota during the period of this debate. Certainly not in response to your so-called analysis. Nowhere in any of his public responses has he conceded any points to you, Quigley or Conroy on the key issues of project profitability, broadband affordability, etc.

      In fact, he has refuted every single one of your attacks on his arguments in extensive articles and posts. Malcolm still maintains NBNco is underestimating the cost of Labor’s NBN; the NBN under existing configuration is overcapitalised; and current NBN retail pricing is unsustainable. Each successive article that he publishes repeats and re-emphasises these same fundamental points, oftentimes elaborating with more evidence.

      In my humble opinion, what is most unfortunate about this debate isn’t the complete ignorance of simple economics that pervades the pro-NBN side of the debate, it’s the attempts to subvert any intelligent progress by continuously engaging in insidious speculations about the mental state of your debating opponent.

      Everything from “I hear your arguments, but instead of responding directly to your points, my rebuttal is ‘you don’t really believe in what you just argued’” to this latest outrageous allegation which is contrary to actual facts:

      I believe that Turnbull has become aware that some of his statements in this area were on shaky ground

      It appears that the magic words in today’s journalism are: “I believe” — start a sentence with those two words and you can somehow justify appending whatever fictitious claim tickles your fancies.. . .

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink |

        Not, he has just shut up where he has made a blunder. I haven’t heard him mentioning satilites of late. His assertion that is DOES cost more is now it WILL cost more some time in the future.

        His “analysis” continually relies on contrived situations. The ACCC dropping regulation. The uptake being a lot lower than expected. He puts up these hypothesis, treats them as facts, then proceeds to cost accordingly.

        Anyway, the point of the article was the continued insistance by Abbott that it customers pay 3 times as much for an NBN connection. Something your idol has stopped saying and modified it to exclude obviously disprovable FUD.

        So, what is your opinion on Abbott. Lying or not? Should I wait for a reply with 50 links and a lot of BS dribble explaining why everything he is saying is true?

        • Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink |

          +1 to what Noddy said.

        • Posted 14/05/2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink |

          Not, he has just shut up where he has made a blunder. I haven’t heard him mentioning satilites of late.

          Satellites! Hah!

          Long after delimiter published its one-sided article, Malcolm was still asserting on Twitter that NBNco should have leased satellite capacity. He has not backtracked at all. Far from shrinking away like you falsely insinuate, Malcolm continued to encourage more public focus and pressure on the satellite issue by raising the question over securing satellite slots.

          The so-called “satellite blunder” is another piece of fiction created by the one-eyed NBN-cheerleaders in the long line of desperate and pathetic attempts to not only claim “victory” in their minds, but also preposterously claim victory in their “opponents’ minds”.

          It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

          (P.S. by the way, there’s a definite chain of logic behind Abbott’s assertion of “3 times higher retail pricing”; as a matter of fact, he isn’t even the first person to throw out a prediction of that sort. . . but I’m not even going to bother… because in the minds of NBN supporters, not only does Mike Quigley have a fixed-line monopoly, he also has a monopoly over financial forecasting and crystal ball gazing!)

          • Noddy
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

            ” Far from shrinking away like you falsely insinuate, Malcolm continued to encourage more public focus and pressure on the satellite issue by raising the question over securing satellite slots.”

            Nice straw man. I was talking about satelite capacity. He has shut up firmly on that. NOW he is on about the slots.

            “The so-called “satellite blunder” is another piece of fiction created by the one-eyed NBN-cheerleaders in the long line of desperate and pathetic attempts to not only claim “victory” in their minds, but also preposterously claim victory in their “opponents’ minds”.

            It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.”

            Is victory important to you? Is that why you create so many straw man arguments?

            “(P.S. by the way, there’s a definite chain of logic behind Abbott’s assertion of “3 times higher retail pricing”; as a matter of fact, he isn’t even the first person to throw out a prediction of that sort. . . but I’m not even going to bother”

            No, you have never bothered, nor has Turnbull, simply because at the root of your arguments is a pill of assumption and outright lies. You know damn well every time you mention the premises your arguments are based on it’s obvious they are manufactured FUD.

          • Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink |

            “The so-called “satellite blunder” is another piece of fiction created by the one-eyed NBN-cheerleaders in the long line of desperate and pathetic attempts to not only claim “victory” in their minds, but also preposterously claim victory in their “opponents’ minds””

            I would, if you are willing 1%, to have a serious discussion about the Satellite portion of the NBN. There’s alot Australia has to learn about satellites; in private industry we are relatively small players and new to the market. To simply state that arguments FOR the NBN’s policy of putting up 2 new satellites to ensure bandwidth and allow redundancy is a “desperate and pathetic attempt” to show that NBN, in this instance, is correct in its estimates of available and forecasted bandwidth is simply childish.

            If you wish to have a detailed debate about this issue, I’d be happy to provide my contact details to join in as this has been the most problematic element of ALL NBN arguments so far- very little REAL debate is taking place. The arguments are either totally biased towards one side or another or media pedalled rubbish with no basis in facts, only written for headline grabbing.

            I have found Renai’s reporting AND commenting to be usually measured and considerate of both sides of the coin. Most of us here are pro-NBN and would be happy to debate serious issues sensibly (without name calling or insulting) if serious FACTS are listed. THIS story is about the ABSENCE of those facts. It is quite clear, publically, that if you go to any ISP currently offering NBN plans, their features are either identical or better (in terms of speed and quota) and their prices are again, the same or better. This is not forecasted, nor is it “cost-benefit analysis” tested- it is simple fact.; the current NBN plans offered by ISP’s are NOT 3 times as expensive and, under NBNCo cost modelling, overseen by the ACCC, the same department responsible for ALL pricing regulation in Australia, it will climb at the same levels or slower than current ADSL and cable broadband prices.

            I would honestly be interested to hear your thoughts about how Tony Abbott can continue to assert this claim that “customers can subsequently spend almost three times their current monthly fee for speeds they might not need” is in any way, shape or form accurate to the everyday Australian?

            • Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:13 pm | Permalink |

              Actually, I can partially answer my own question in one way about Abbot’s claims; at least, this is the only place I can see him getting numbers like that.

              It will, indeed, be 3 times as expensive for the NBN plans, if you, as a customer, were to purchase a 100Mbps plan, rather the current highest plan available for most residential customers, being 24Mbps+ on ADSL 2+. This is simple mathematics- the plan is over 3 times as fast, with, usually, subsequently higher data quota and so is 3 times as expensive. In THIS case, Abbot is being completely factual- there will be many Australians who DON’T use the 100Mbps speeds and are happy with the 25Mbps speed NBN will give them if they wish, but they now have an unwanted option of 100Mbps that many will be sold by the ISP as better value, to gain the ISP more revenue.

              Explain how this is in anyway true to his statement that “customers can subsequently spend almost three times their current monthly fee for speeds they might not need”? Oh wait, it is, if you take it literally in that customers can IF THEY WISH spend 3 times more for speeds they might not need. But that is not the point of the statement; the point is to insinuate customers have NO CHOICE over their speeds and therefore will ALL get 100Mbps, which they might not need and subsequently pay 3 times more for it.

              Very clever Mr. Abbott. I take my hat off to you. You managed to not lie once whilst being completely untrue in your statement. There’s no doubt he is a VERY good politician.

              • Alex
                Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink |

                I think you may be giving Tony a bit too much credit, as to the meaning of his comments.

                However I agree, he is very adept at playing the political game.

                He initially tried to be the (somewhat) eloquent spokesman and following the infamous head wobbling silence episode, said no… and found no worked and worked well with Aussies, who obviously feel closer to no than yes, so he hasn’t stopped.

                Unless the polls turn, he obviously doesn’t need to say anything but no, doesn’t need policies and certainly can afford to mislead when he does decide to lash out and utter a few more words than, no…

                But really, it must be galling for Turnbull (who lost the leadership to TA by 1 vote, iirc) who was, prior to his silly stance on the NBN imo, quite the statesman, but nonetheless, still couldn’t rally the polls.

                Perhaps Malcolm was simply too “Liberal” for the ever more conservative, visionless, money driven 21st century Aussie.

          • Dean
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink |

            So… what you’re saying is that Malcolm isn’t actually any better than Abbott, that they both continue to lie in the face of facts? I like your reasoning, yeah.

            • Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink |

              If we could adopt the delimiter style of debating in the real world, we’d all be World Champions in Debating without so much as generating a bead of sweat! Just imagine:

              Opposing team: “Given X, Y, Z, we can infer logically from known relationships A, B, C and draw rational conclusions that….”

              delimiter debating team: “l reject all arguments that produce conclusions l don’t like, so you’ve no arguments left to support your conclusions. Since you still standby your conclusions, therefore you’re lying! Yay! We win! Whoopee!”

              • Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:45 am | Permalink |

                That’s it, one percent poster. Welcome to the sin-bin.

                • Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:31 am | Permalink |

                  +1 Lol. Sticks and stones 1%, sticks and stones…..

                  • Alex
                    Posted 15/05/2012 at 7:35 am | Permalink |

                    He did finally bring up a relevant point though (although inadvertently) about us NBN supporters not having to raise a sweat.

                    But what he fails to understand is, that’s only because those opposing are so transparently obvious, argue with no basis and being so, prove themselves wrong and us right, with us err, not even having to raise a sweat ;-)

              • Noddy
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 9:38 am | Permalink |

                Yep, pretty much discribes your arguments:

                Opposing team: “Given ACCC will stop regulating, very few people will use the NBN because of 4G, Juliia Gillard’s pink batts scheme was ripped off by private enterprise, we can claim from a false premise that that the NBN will cost 60B, not make a cent, my Telstra stocks will rise when Tony hands them the money….”

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink |

        “Everything from “I hear your arguments, but instead of responding directly to your points, my rebuttal is ‘you don’t really believe in what you just argued’” to this latest outrageous allegation which is contrary to actual facts:”

        You nailed it. What he says is contrary to actual facts. One could assume that he is in the position where he has to argue contrary to facts. The other alternative is he is an idiot for arguing black is white. Or he doesn’t really know as may be the case with Abbott. Since he doesn’t seem to be an idiot or ignorant. He is arguing against facts. Not believing his own arguments is a politer way of saying he is lying for his own party. Maybe he will continue to. Maybe he will do something so he can stop the BS like Colin Powell did when his job was to lie for Bush.

      • Alex
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink |

        @1%

        “I’m completely flabbergasted you can write this stuff with a straight face.”

        Isn’t that ironic! Every time I read one of your politically slanted posts (which tend to deflect from embarrassing topics – err, like this was about Abbott and curiously, I don’t think you mentioned him even once) especially when you include gems such as links to malcolm turnbull.com.au and mention businessmen such as Liberal/National member and would be MOP, Clive Palmer, as you star impartial witnesses… I think the same thing about you!

        “It’s perfectly ok to accept Conroys view…”

        Only when backed by actuals – Tell us now, comparing apples/apples… which RSP’s existing plan prices are 3 time higher than their closest NBN plan prices?

        If you can’t do this, Renai/Conroy are right you/Abbott are wrong… I await your stats.

        Go on make my day and tell us you can get free broadband from Optus and you can’t get free NBN broadband. Apparently Optus’ latest sales pitch is ‘buy a bundle and receive free broadband”… So just typically omit the bits which don’t suit the agenda (shh bundle).

        “l have read and digested Malcolm’s articles and every single one of his posts on your blog.”

        Yes you have, this is bleedin’ obvious to us all, so thanks finally for the frank admission. Being so, may I humbly suggest that you venture outside your comfort zone occasionally, to source information which perhaps doesn’t fit snugly within your blinkered preconceived ideals. You may even learn to disagree with Malcolm, even if just once!

        “Nowhere in any of his public responses has he (MT) conceded any points to you, Quigley or Conroy on the key issues of project profitability, broadband affordability, etc.

        Strange don’t you think? Even an abject failure could receive “up to” (pun intended) 49%. Yet Malcolm is unable to admit to, even 1 favourable aspect about the NBN. Surely the NBN can’t possibly be 100% incorrect/bad, can it?

        As such, this admission blatantly verifies exactly what Renai says, doesn’t it, hmmm (think about it)?

        But please continue your obvious to all political crusade, because while ever we have some NBN critics whining about NBN viability and another whinging that all Australians are being forced onto the monopoly NBN, your non-stop contradictory FUD keeps amusing us all greatly.

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink |

          Great post Alex. Of course the big thing critics of the NBN neglect to mention is that a party they endorse had many years to make an improvement and failed dismally. That is the coaltion legacy for you, make a mess of everything then when people bring it up or question it pretend nothing happened and if that doesnt work just lie.

          • Alex
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:21 pm | Permalink |

            Thanks Hubert, I also enjoy your take on the NBN…!

            And as you rightly say, the opposition did neglect infrastructure when they were in.

            However, that wouldn’t even warrant a mention in the context of where we are now, if those who oppose the NBN weren’t forever attempting to dumb down this important infrastructure build to biased us vs them ideology.

            • Hubert Cumberdale
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink |

              Yes, the “us vs them” thing is concerning. It’s the sort of thing I would expect in American political debates, not Australian. I mean we are in favor of the NBN, there is no secret about it yet they act like we should apologise for it. Think about it they make excuses for the coalitions mistakes then berate and use shaming tactics on us because we want those mistakes fixed. Yeah how dare we, see even though bandwidth requirements are ever increasing WE are wrong for wanting communications infrastructure to keep up with that demand. IMO they are the ones that should be apologising to us yet we are diplomatic enough not to use such crass methods.

    12. Troden
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink |

      The NBN plans are NOT more expensive what so ever. I’m with a certain ii isp on there larger 1TB ADSL2+ plan for $99PM. The NBN plan for 1Tb @ 100mb/s is also $99PM. Exact same price.

      I’m currently paying $30PM for line rental to telstra so assuming there is no line rental for the NBN i will be paying LESS on the NBN for the same 1Tb plan but at a much faster speed.

      Three times the price my ass – Abbott is a Liar!

    13. Mark
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink |

      Technically you could redirect the NBN money in roads, in order to maintain the same accounting methology they would have to make a return on investment so thus would have be be toll roads.

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink |

        Grr, not more tol rds. I live right near Eastlink. I’ll use it to get to a friend’s house on the weekend for the odd party/bbq or whatever. Buggered if I would pay $20 a day to go to work on it. They are calling $149 for the fastest highest capacity link from the most expensive ISP too expensive. Who has $430 dollars a month to take a toll roads to work?

        Also they may do a dirty like the did with the Tullermarine freeway. Take a major arterial. Sell off the entrace section and let the company collect a toll for the majority of the people using it to get onto the Calder highway.

      • ungulate
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink |

        Mark,

        Yes, if you made the Pacific Highway a toll road then you could fund it tomorrow. Unsurprisingly Abbott never mentioned the similarity between a toll road and the NBN.

        And I also beg to differ. When you invest money into something that will yield a return, you cannot keep doing so forever, so there is a limit. But the actual money being borrowed for the NBN is a few $B per year over 10 years. That’s fairly trivial compared to the debt we incurred when the GFC caused Australia’s revenue to not grow as previously expected and thus taxation could not keep up with spending programs. Oh and btw the reason we were in such a fragile budgetary position was that Howard was too fond of middle class welfare and didn’t look after things like schools and universities and saw our productivity dive. He can claim a pot of cash saved up from surplus budgets – money made in China as they say – but in reality that money went all too fast when the GFC came because Howard had simply made too many spending promises and these telescoped into the budget.

        Labor could have elected to cut the size of the budget – and that would have sent us into a dizzying spiral of depression and unemployment and low growth for a decade – and counter intuitively, more debt as our economy struggles to climb out of the mess. Or they could choose to go somewhat more into debt and keep our economy growing and use that growth to climb out. But all along what made it hard was the record spending Howard left us with – 25+ % of GDP, versus less than 22% we have now.

        Anyhow back from the side track. The point is that the NBN is a modest investment – about $26B over ten years versus an economy more like $13 Trillion over that period. About 0.2% and its not a cost since that money comes back from the NBNs users.

        My point is, finally, that you don’t have to divert the money borrowed to invest in the NBN. You can potentially do exactly the same thing in parallel to things like the Pacific Highway – or indeed with any other major infrastructure project with a good business case that can pay for itself.

    14. Simon Shaw
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink |

      Well, if he is lying, he got away with it.

      If anyone points out to him he’s incorrect, all’s he has to do is go quiet. The damage is already done.

      If Labor had any sense they would be calling him out on it as I can’t see the media will do it, (apart from this and a couple of other illustrious sites).

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink |

        They have. They tend to put the Liberal lies on the front page and the Labor rebuttal in the obituary section.

        • ungulate
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink |

          Exactly, Noddy. Just like the Daily Telegraph ran (and is still running) a beat up on the NBN, just using the exact same tactics it used on Pink bats. Only this time someone went to the trouble of taking it to the Press Council and finally even the Press Council sat up and took notice, so egregious and partisan was the Telegraph?

          Surprise, surprise, they sat on the retraction and the buried it where hardly anyone who would have read the original lies (not articles) would get to see it

    15. Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink |

      I’ll let you in a little secret Renai.

      Politicians Lie.

      Shhh don’t tell anyone.

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink |

        Shocking. Shocking, I say!

        • Sir Humphrey Appleby
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink |

          I’m appalled.

    16. damien
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:40 pm | Permalink |

      Of course Abbott’s lying, tech-head or not. He’s a congenital liar and would sell his arse to get into power, as he himself has said before. It would be so sweet if he doesn’t make it!

    17. CMOTDibbler
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink |

      Abbott, like many of our current politicians, is lying. Plain and simple. Just like Gillard with her claim the Coalition will rip the fibre out of the ground and that the choice at the next election is between broadband and no broadband. They’re as bad as each other. I wouldn’t trust the lot of them with a can of beans let alone an NBN.

      I hope Oakeshott and Windsor are proud of their new paradigm.

      • ungulate
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:34 pm | Permalink |

        CMOT, its become very clear how your Liberal views affect your reasoning and it shows in your endless concern trolling on Whirlpool. In this case you’ve forgotten to tone it down a bit.

        You’re probably a victim to the whole “Juliar” meme so it probably feels natural to you to just throw in “Julia lied when she said that Abbott would rip up the NBN”. Well, actually, he said he’d destroy it. Of course now he doesn’t use those words. My suspicion is what he really meant was destroy in the sense of let Turnbull loose and create so much FUD that everyone would hate it, just like they did to a lot of other things Labor has done that are actually positives.

        I smell the foul stench of Murdoch working hand in glove with Liberal Party lies. What about Gillard saying “its a choice between broadband and no broadband”. Well, as I pointed out to you on Whirlpool, there’s a difference between lie, spin and exaggerate. And in this case its exaggerate. But not by much.

        The reality is the NBN is what we would consider broadband today. And its going to be what we would consider broadband 10 years from now. And its going to be what we would consider broadband 30 years from now.

        What the Liberals will do, especially if its your beloved FTTN (which I believe is just a red herring – sorry pink herring) is something that will be broadband for most now, a few in 10 years, and in 30? You gotta be kidding. So Julia is fair in talking about broadband versus non broadband – providing your world view isn’t permanently anchored in the present.

        Your reaction is to hysterically go along with the whole Liberal-planted “Juliar” meme. And the rest of your post is just absurd.

        There’s a difference between someone occasionally engaging in spin to get their point across, and emitting so many lies that the truth is like a scene from Inception. That’s what the Liberals have done to this country and it makes me sick.

        • CMOTDibbler
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink |

          So now you bring your uninformed, baseless insults here as well. Is nowhere safe from people like you?

          • Noddy
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink |

            There will be people everywhere there are people like you. It’s like the Volvo driver that never has an accident but sees like. Totally oblivious that he is causing the accidents, or in this case replies.

            • Noddy
              Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink |

              sees like => sees lots

              • Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:19 pm | Permalink |

                Alright ppl, break it up, take the slagging somewhere else ;)

            • CMOTDibbler
              Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:19 pm | Permalink |

              So, calling Abbot on his NBN ‘lies’ is ok but calling Gillard on her NBN ‘lies’ is not?

              I had hoped the ‘new paradigm’ would have brought more honesty to politics, at least on the government side where the independents have influence. I’m disappointed Gillard has used those lines. I have no expectations of the Coalition.

              • Noddy
                Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink |

                I’d rather politics were kept right out of it. It’s one sure way to make a mess of everything. I do find saying “Tony Abbott is planning to rip the fibre out of the ground” in response to Tony’s comment that he is going to destory the NBN are quite a bit different. Yes, what Julia said was an huge exageration. But to argue policy for 6 months continually touting that a NBN connection will cost 3 times as much as an ADSL2+ connection when it has been shown over and over that it doesn’t is just flat out lying. Yes, Julia lied too. I don’t see the systematic attempt to deceive over a long period. If someone asked him tomorrow how much more would the NBN cost a customer he’d say it would cost them 3 times as much. I doubt if you asked Julia if they were planning to rip the fibre out of the ground she would say yes. Rip the fibre out of the ground is one of those throw away lines expected of politicians. Informing people in interviews that the price of NBN is three times higher than now is something the public believe. I’ve had people at work state it as fact. They also believe if they build a new house it will cost 5-10k to have it wired to use the NBN and that you HAVE to pay it.

                • CMOTDibbler
                  Posted 14/05/2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink |

                  The government doesn’t need to ‘exaggerate’ . There’s a good story to tell and their TV ads are doing it right now. Stick to the facts and let the NBN do it’s job.

                  Abbott’s lies about prices on the NBN will be shown for what they are as the roll out progresses and more and more people get services. This will happen well before the next election. We should also get a full year of the roll out proper which should go a long way to settling the cost question.

                  Facts and reality will do far more to counter the Coalition attack than government ‘exaggeration’ imo

                  • Noddy
                    Posted 14/05/2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink |

                    Oh, for sure. In an ideal world the parties would exchange ideas and support each other to make Australia the best it can be. People could chose who should lead based on when their is disagreement, who they thought had the best solutions. Now it’s who lies the best and who the popular media supports the most, mainly the second. It is terrible the power of the mainstream media. At least the more people that use the internet the more diverse their sources of information and opinion.

              • Alex
                Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink |

                I think Martin said it all…

                http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/14/is-abbott-consciously-lying-on-nbn-costs/#comment-413151

      • Bob
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink |

        You the same Mr Dribbler from whirlpool?

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 8:32 pm | Permalink |

        “I hope Oakeshott and Windsor are proud of their new paradigm.”

        That’s right, blame the independents, the ones that represent their electorate rather than a political party.

        • ungulate
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink |

          Yes, its the attack on the Independents that identifies a Liberal tragic.

    18. Dread
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink |

      I don’t think Tony Abbott is lying at all.

      That would imply he knows what the hell he is talking about.

    19. ungulate
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink |

      Abbott has a sociopath’s view on the world. Its all about him and the only thing “wrong” in lying is getting caught out. You can see this clearly now and then in television interviews. In one classic case, where he’s been caught out and knows he’s been caught out his response has been essentially “ooo.. that’s bad.. for me”

      Whether that’s particularly useful to know though depends on the situation. With the NBN, its pretty clear that Turnbull knows the facts and is knowingly bullshitting. Ok, I take that back, willfully misleading. Ok, lying. And in a big way.

      But that draws on his hard earned skill sets – gilding the lilly in order to hide certain facts in corporate environments, or on his abilities to just plain argue. And no one disagrees that Turnbull is capable of sincerity, which is apparent in his support for action on climate change. The problem here is who do you think deserves the more opprobrium? The “attack dog” Turnbull sent out to peddle dodgy ideas knowingly, or his task master Abbott who doesn’t actually hold view on truth as an absolute.

      It probably wouldn’t matter though if the media were to do its job – especially over the issue of NBN funding. If more ordinary voters were to become aware of the fact that the NBN is being paid for by its users, and not out of ordinary spending, then it would be game set and match for the NBN. There would be no point in running the line of “we’ve got a cheaper one” if a) the NBN doesn’t actually cost the taxpayer a cent in the first place, and b) what the Liberals have to offer will invariably end up actually costing tax money – for subsidies. Since their solution will inevitably mean privatisation and band aids.

      However were it does matter to point out Abbott’s sociopathic behavior is where it affects so many other lies being spread by his party. Endless spouted as truth by the unthinking. Incompetent government. Pink bats etc etc ad nauseum . And the moral tragedy is that the media sit back and applaud how “effective” he has been – effective? So was Genghis Khan.

      About the only defense you could mount for Abbott is the insanity one. That in his world truth doesn’t exist because the kind of right and wrong that most ordinary people feel doesn’t exist. Its all about him, and in a strange way, he probably doesn’t actually understand the term lie in the sense we feel it – about contradiction moral norms.

      Let the lies being told by the Liberal Party about the NBN inform everyone and open their eyes to the lies being told about everything else Labor.

      • JT
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink |

        “Let the lies being told by the Liberal Party about the NBN inform everyone and open their eyes to the lies being told about everything else Labor.”

        What about the lies told by Labor on the NBN and every other “policy” they’ve had? I think people have had enough. NBNCo’s failure to justify its own existence with a huge price tag (both to taxpayers and subscribers through the destruction of wholesale competition) has failed to captivate the general public whether you like it or not.

        • ungulate
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink |

          JT,

          Straight off you put your foot right in it.

          “NBNCo’s failure to justify its own existence with a huge price tag”

          Didn’t you actually read this article, or check out Renai’s sources? Didn’t you know the NBN is being paid for by its users so it is misleading to describe it as having a “price tag”? Hmm, guess you swallowed the Liberal Party line.

          Maybe the stuff you just wrote Labor telling lies on the NBN reflects the state of confusion you are in, and the lies being told you? Maybe then going off into the “everything Labor says is lies”.. is simply projection of the same broken thought process.

          Maybe you can snap out of it?

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink |

          “both to taxpayers and subscribers”

          Subscribers pay the taxpayers back. You just solved your own problem.

          “destruction of wholesale competition”

          Explain the need for wholesale competition.

          “has failed to captivate the general public whether you like it or not.”

          False. More people are in favor of the NBN than those that are against it.

    20. Mathew
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink |

      I’m not sure that it is well understood that NBNCo’s stated aim in the NBNCo Corporate Plan is to increase Average Revenue Per User (ARPU). That is to on average they plan to have people pay more for their internet connection.

      Here are some quotes from the NBNCo Corporate Plan to support this assertion:
      p36 – Telstra, Optus and iiNet have seen their On-Net fixed broadband ARPUs growing ahead of inflation, at about 3% per year since FY2007

      p91 – Achieves ongoing ARPU growth for NBN Co by facilitating the upgrade of services to higher speeds and increased usage.

      p103 – This has been achieved by keeping the AVC as low as possible in order to encourage consumers up the speed tiers, and relying on CVC revenues to drive ARPU growth.

      p116 – Challenge for NBN is to drive ARPU by moving customers up speed tiers

      p118 – Despite the movement of residential consumers up the speed curve shown in Exhibit 9.12, the growth in AVC (PIR) ARPU is relatively modest. This reflects the small price differential between AVC tiers, and the decline in prices for the higher tiers. However, the consequence of more End-Users moving to higher speed tiers is reflected in the significant rise in the contribution of the CVC to overall ARPU, as increased speed drives increased usage.

      p132 – If the rate at which End-Users are willing to consume bandwidth-hungry products and applications slows down over time, and / or End-Users stop moving through tiers because of price and speed inertia, then there is a risk that the growth in speed and usage will plateau after a number of years. This would limit opportunities to grow ARPU in real terms other than by price increases at that time.
      Under these circumstances, speed and usage growth would not be sufficient to generate sufficient real ARPU growth in order to deliver the expected returns.
      As mitigation, NBN Co has the flexibility to regularly monitor, and adjust accordingly, the rate at which nominal prices are reduced in order to maintain the revenues in case of lower volumes of demand.

      *How will this happen?*
      Prices for actual services will (almost certainly) decline, but at a rate significantly less than the uptake of faster services / downloading more.

      Plans for AVC pricing are outlined on page 101:
      * 1000/400Mbps falls from $150 to $90, while the average speed grows from 30Mbps to 230Mbps.
      * Price falls by 40% while average speed grows by 760%

      Plans for CVC pricing are outlined on page 103:
      * Starts at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and falls to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
      * Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink |

        Renai, is there anyway this can be put as a footer on all articles? It would save him catting and pasting it each time.

      • Alex
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink |

        Pg 0

        Go onto any ISPs website now and you will see the faster the speeds and the more the data quota, the more it costs. You want faster/more you pay.

        Same applies to the NBN…

        Wow what a revelation eh?

        Fancy faster/bigger rides on the white elephant costing more!

        *sigh*

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink |

          Who am I:

          1. Read NBN document.
          2. Get confused by big numbers and pretty graphs.
          3. Draw erroneous conclusions.
          4. Post on Delimiter hoping someone will agree with erroneous conclusions.
          5. Whine about not being able to afford anything more than 12/1mbps when 87% choose 25/5mbps and higher plans (Page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap)
          6. Vote 1 Abbott.

          ???

          • Noddy
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink |

            Yes, see my post below. This exact same post has been replied to many times but he ignores replies that show what he is saying is pure FUD:

            “The CVC is priced initially at $20 per Mbps, adding approximately less than $1 per average end user
            for a 12/1 megabit per second service with current average data usage.”

            Therefore that 720% increase in CVC is a total increase of $6.20 by 2025. But if you don’t mention that all his figures look scary.

            • Mathew
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink |

              CVC costs for a 12/1Mbps plan are more likely to fall. However NBNCo have clearly stated (page 103, 118) that they expect to increase the percentage of revenue from CVC which means at the top end will pay significantly more.

              • Noddy
                Posted 16/05/2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink |

                Yes, but my objection to your argument is you do not show figures. 720% sounds very scary. Where the real figure is that by 2025 these top end user, and i mean really top end, those that regularly try to download the world with bit torrent are up for $200-250 dollar plans in 2025. Yes very high, but the only reason they get away with it now is the likes of TPG who bought Pipe networks and may as well use the capacity is it will cost them no more to do so.

          • Mathew
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:34 pm | Permalink |

            I see that you fail to point out what is wrong about my post, only that it paints a reality you don’t agree with. Sure the prices will fall, but only if we (on average) spend significantly more. If we don’t spend more on the NBN, then NBNCo have stated that prices will need to rise (page 132 of NBNCo Corporate Plan).

          • Mathew
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink |

            I’ve looked at the links on NBNCo Product Roadmap and cannot find a document that supports your statement: “Whine about not being able to afford anything more than 12/1mbps when 87% choose 25/5mbps and higher plans (Page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap)”. I would appreciate you providing that link.

            The NBNCo Corporate Plan clearly predicts on page 118 that 50% will connect at 12/1Mbps and that this will slowly drop to just under 40% in 2028.

            • Hubert Cumberdale
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink |

              “I’ve looked at the links on NBNCo Product Roadmap and cannot find a document that supports your statement: ”

              You didn’t look very hard and it’s not even hard to find, Google “NBNCo Product Roadmap” it’s the first PDF on NBNcos website. Page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap clearly shows that 87% are choosing 25/5mbps and higher plans. Once again it’s time to admit you are wrong or get out and don’t address me again until you do.

              • Mathew
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink |

                > You didn’t look very hard and it’s not even hard to find, Google “NBNCo Product Roadmap” it’s the first PDF on NBNcos website.
                A search for NBNCo Product Roadmap returns http://www.nbnco.com.au/getting-connected/service-providers/product-roadmap.html and the first link on that page under downloads is “Initial Roadmap”. It doesn’t appear to contain a link to the Product Update presentation.

                > Page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap clearly shows that 87% are choosing 25/5mbps and higher plans. Once again it’s time to admit you are wrong or get out and don’t address me again until you do.
                How can I be wrong when I’m merely quoting the figures in the NBNCo Corporate Plan? If and when update to the NBNCo Corporate Plan is released then I will re-evaluate it.

                You have also missed the key point that the figures are labelled “Early Adopter Indications”.One would assume that early adopters are significantly more likely to adopt the faster speeds, so one would expect a bias heavily towards the faster speeds. We don’t know what the take-up rates are for these figures to make an accurate assessment. 14% is the highest figure I’ve seen for national take-up. NBNCo seem very reticent to release the take-up figures, which can only lead to more questions. Note that page 77 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan clearly states that the lowest take-up rate is 40% in 2013 and that in 2014 it is back up to 58% and climbs steadily to 70% in 2028.

                More interestingly in terms of this discussion, there is no mention of the ARPU. Does anyone know if NBNCo are meeting their target of $33-34 (page 110, 111) of the NBNCo Corporate Plan?

                • Hubert Cumberdale
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink |

                  “You have also missed the key point that the figures are labelled “Early Adopter Indications”. “

                  I didn’t miss it at all. It’s right there on page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap.

                  “If and when update to the NBNCo Corporate Plan is released then I will re-evaluate it.”

                  Your evaluations are laughable and meaningless. More to the point what exactly do you expect to change in the corporate plan? The numbers are still going to be conservative and wont necessarily reflect actual take-up numbers for any periods. Time to start thinking for yourself.

                  “How can I be wrong when I’m merely quoting the figures in the NBNCo Corporate Plan?”

                  OK you AND the NBNco corporate plan are merely wrong.

                  “One would assume that early adopters are significantly more likely to adopt the faster speeds”

                  It makes no difference whatsoever. You and NBNco said “50%” would be on “12/1mbps” for the “foreseeable future”. That has proven to be wrong already as 87% have chosen 25/5mbps and higher plans (Page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap)

                  “so one would expect a bias heavily towards the faster speeds.”

                  I noticed that in your previous posts on this topic you’ve never mentioned that before but it makes no difference, it doesn’t mean the numbers for those on 12/1mbps will rise and if they do it won’t be by much and certainly not the “50%” you or the corporate plan are predicting (25/5mbps & 50/20mbps are more likely to rise if 100/40mbps goes lower)… so when do you expect the numbers for 12/1mbps to go up and what percentages are you predicting? Try to come up with an answer on your own. Go. (Also keep in mind the current take up figures that show 87% have chosen 25/5mbps and higher plans (Page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap))

                  “Note that page 77 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan clearly states that the lowest take-up rate is 40% in 2013”

                  What percentage of that 40% are they predicting will be on 100/40mbps, 50/20bmps, 25/5mbps and 12/1mbps in 2013?

                  “and that in 2014 it is back up to 58%”

                  What percentage of that 58% are they predicting will be on 100/40mbps, 50/20bmps, 25/5mbps and 12/1mbps in 2014?

                  “and climbs steadily to 70% in 2028.”

                  What percentage of that 70% are they predicting will be on 100/40mbps, 50/20bmps, 25/5mbps and 12/1mbps in 2028?

            • Mike S
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink |

              I know hubert has made this pretty easy, but I’ll just post this link to help out:

              http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/nbn-co-product-roadmap.pdf

              Page 7

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink |

        Okay, Mathew… we will take that as a comment.

        • Alex
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink |

          Only once he legitimises it with a link to malcolmturnbull.com.au ;-)

          • Noddy
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink |

            He had alreeady posted the same argument, a lot of it cut and paste into this one. So the reference in of Turnbull’s site. He did slightly edit it for Delimiter, leaving of “Dearest Malcolm” and “Love and kisses, Mathew”

            • Noddy
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink |

              “in of” == “is on”

    21. Linh T
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink |

      Abbott says we should be investing transport infrastructure instead of NBN, however Labor is seemingly trying to commit to that as well by seriously thinking about high speed rail, another infrastructure that will help build the nation. Can anyone tell me if the Abbott government is committing to something like that?

      • ungulate
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink |

        Linh,

        Abbott is waiting for the final report on the east coast high speed rail project and waiting to see what Labor has to say on it before lying, dissembling and creating daily negative soundbites like everything else.

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink |

        He might do. Would it help him win the election?

      • Mathew
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:25 pm | Permalink |

        High speed rail is not a Labor policy, it is a Greens policy like the Carbon Tax, Dental scheme, etc.

        • ungulate
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink |

          Mathew, and that puts you firmly in the Silly Party! :P

    22. ungulate
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink |

      The new corporate plan will be out shortly and Mathew will be revealed for what he is.

      • Mathew
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:27 pm | Permalink |

        Do you have inside information on the updated content or when the plan will be released to the public?

        So far all NBNCo have said is that they will provide the government with an updated plan in May and that it will be up to the government to determine when the plan is released. Base on the six monthly reports, I would expect a delay of a couple of months. If it contains good news it might be quicker.

        • Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink |

          Matthew, I’m unsure as to your statement here?

          Are you saying NBNCo is wrong in trying to increase ARPU or right? In these statements, I have found no indication that anything NBNCo plans on doing is unacceptable in any enterprise that wishes to make a return. They are planning on balancing customer upgrowth of data speed and quota with price downgrading…..which is just sensible.

          If you have a point to make about this, I would like to hear it, but I can’t actually see which side you’re taking, if any at all?

          • Noddy
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink |

            He is trying to FUD on CVC costs.

            “Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.”

            He likes using the big numbers like $20 per Mb/s, etc, but totally ignores what the actual cost of CVC is.

            From page 103 of the corporate plan:

            “The CVC is priced initially at $20 per Mbps, adding approximately less than $1 per average end user
            for a 12/1 megabit per second service with current average data usage.”

            Therefore that 720% increase in CVC is a total increase of $6.20 by 2025. But if you don’t mention that all his figures look scary.

          • Mathew
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink |

            > If you have a point to make about this, I would like to hear it, but I can’t actually see which side you’re taking, if any at all?

            I’m not on a particular side, except to say that I do think FTTP is technically the better solution and will have work connect home to the NBN on at least the 100Mbps plan (in around 4 years as part of the 1.5million who services will go active in the 4th year of the 3 year rollout announced in March).

            What I do have are concerns with the uninformed and unrealistic expectations of the NBN fanbois. Secondly I have some serious concerns that choices made by the government to introduce speed tiers will entrench social inequity and change what is technically a world leading network into something that most Australian’s don’t see the full benefits of.

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink |

              Interesting, in arguing AGAINST speed tiers with appropriate pricing you are arguing against a core Liberal Policy of user pays, you are arguing that a light user, the mums and dads and low income should subsidise the high volume and business user just to make Tony right. Hmmm

              • Mathew
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink |

                Any good monopoly should be based on a very tight relationship between costs and charges. That doesn’t exist with NBNCo.

                The fact is that exactly the same hardware is used to deliver 12Mbps or 1Gbps. All NBNCo do to enable 1Gbps is flick a software switch. Low quotas relative to the available bandwidth (324TB/month) will limit potential congestion. CVC will fund hardware upgrades as quotas increase

            • Alex
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink |

              Speed tiers?

              FFS I am an NBN fan and want it to help the needy too, but still live in reality… where people pay for what they use.

              That’s life!

              Like when you pay for a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread and a tank of fuel, that’s what you get.

              But it seems you are suggesting that with the NBN, people should be able to pay for an egg, 1 slice and a litre and get a dozen/loaf/full tank…

              Seriously, on the one hand you blokes argue NBN waste and mismanagement and on the next wish to enter an unrealistic NBN only world/nirvana of minimal cost = maximum benefit..?

              Whatever… I think I preferred your endless pg 118 spiel after all..!

    23. Bob
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink |

      I don’t think Mr Rabbit has ever done anything consciously.

    24. Sergio
      Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink |

      So in a world where technology costs are reducing people seem to be content in the knowledge that the NBN will consign Australia to 2010 broadband prices for a generation.

      Our internet prices are some of the highest in the world and will remain so for a long time

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink |

        And Sergio, in the meantime, while I’m paying $99 a month for my 100Mbps service, over my “generation” I continue paying $99 per month, but my speed is bumped to 1Gbps and my quota is tripled…..how is that staying at 2010 pricing?……

        Oh and to completely debunk the point “technology” doesn’t get cheaper. Consumer goods technology gets cheaper. That’s called supply and demand. When new technology comes out, all of a sudden, I’m paying the same price for a top of the line smartphone as I did for last years’ top of the line smartphone. At the same time, I’m STILL paying $99 a month for my broadband, even though they’ve just added 100GB to my quota…..again, 2010 pricing??…..

    25. Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink |

      Hey everyone, just a warning for this thread, it’s getting a little person. Keep it clean and on topic. I want to play Dark Souls later on, so I don’t want to have to babysit y’all ;)

      • Alex
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink |

        Yes you have to watch those naughty “little persons” Renai ;-)

      • Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink |

        Agreed Renai. If we can’t talk nice, well…..we’re not much better than the people we’re complaining about are we?! :P

      • Noddy
        Posted 14/05/2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink |

        OK, I take a deep breath. That post Mathew plasters over every thread on here and whirlpool and then totally ignores any reply… I start to feel like it’s ground hog day.

        • Noddy
          Posted 14/05/2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink |

          Ahh, why did I do a Google search just out of curiousity.

          He posts that same post all over:
          Whirlpool
          Delimiter
          Malcolm Turnbull’s site
          ZDNet
          Business Spectator

          and has been since October last year.

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 14/05/2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink |

            You missed ABC.net.au

            http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/02/17/3141215.htm
            http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3206438.html

            • Noddy
              Posted 14/05/2012 at 11:07 pm | Permalink |

              Sorry, I got so many hits I undoubtedly missed many more.

              I was doing some quick maths on a power user, someone who currently downloads 1TB a month. Current CVC (now sure how much below a dollar and average user is, say 90c) So, say about $30 CVC. With the current data increase rate, if this guy follows the trend and already is sucking down enough movies that he can’t possibly watch them all, he downloads 18TB a month by 2025. All out CVC cost, pretty steep, $220-230 a month. BUT, that initial just under $1 per average user was actual use, not the plan size. I am pretty sure I have seen Simon Hackett, mention the average 200GB plan user uses 30GB. So high users are cross subsidised by those that don’t use all their quota all the time. That’s about 6 times lower average use compared to plan size. Lets be generous, if halve that, make it most people user 6TB of 20TB plan, that’s a CVC cost of about $70. By 2025 if all up you can get 20TB for less than $200 (following the markup percentage of other plans it would be about that) I’d be pretty happy.

    26. Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:52 am | Permalink |

      I gotta say, I’ve heard some interesting questions raised over sections of the NBN:

      1- Satellite capacity and redundancy- Did they REALLY need to spend nearly $2 Billion on 2 new satellites and infrastructure? Maybe; debate.

      2- Battery backups- Did NBN REALLY need to provide battery backups as, although completely negatively pointing out, The Australian says, most people have cordless phones and have mobiles anyway. Level of service I understand, but it could be argued they’re a bit of a waste really; debate

      3- Monopoly- Should the NBN be sold off after it’s built? Should it be regulated more heavily to ensure it continues to provide reasonable service or should it be left to its own devices to encourage growth?; debate

      But most things that Renai covers in these articles- Cost, timeframe, importance of infrastructure, funding, rollout schedule, relevance technologically, I can’t see any argument taking serious root against what NBN has planned/is already doing. I’ve seen alot more people show up on the telecommunications side of things (such as how Telstra compares, whether its current contractors should be uncluded and the state of the Telstra CAN) who have genuinely interesting and inciteful, backup up points of view contrary to my own.

      It seems to me, commentors such as Matthew, 1% and JT are never going to gain traction, particularly, unfortunately for them, in a venue such as this site while they cannot backup or give reasonable defence to their arguments. And no, defence for our arguments can’t be just rhetoric from Labor either. But there are numerous papers, both from NBNCo and independent sources that backup NBN’s claims. I’ve not seen a paper yet that seriously undermines any large part of NBNCo’s plan (PS I am MORE than happy to be proven wrong- please give me a link!) I’d say, pointedly, because their claims are reasonable, valid and backed up by experienced people not only from our own telecommunications industry, but from those around the world.

      I like debate. I WANT debate on the NBN, hell, ANY debate on the NBN is better than random mud slinging which is what we have now! So I challenge the anti-NBN crowd- show us your arguments; provide papers, research, reviews, that have been done that seriously undermine an aspect of the NBN.

      Oh, independent by preference people- a anti-NBN site which spouts numbers and doesn’t provide sources to back them up, doesn’t count, same as for us :)

      • Alex
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:26 am | Permalink |

        Therein lies the differnece seven_tech, the critics don’t have a level headed, rational and factually weighted response (which I believe you already know and therefore shows the brilliance of your challenge ;-)

        How do i know?

        I too have asked umpteen times for factual rational correspodence, which can’t be easily torn to shreds and also asked if there are any NBN critics who aren’t Coalition members or supporters…

        So far nothing, just as you have already witnessed all they have nothing but contradictory baseless BS… and that’s not mud slinging imo, thats the way it is.

      • Noddy
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:10 am | Permalink |

        Seem fait enough topics:

        1. It seemed the capacity was appropriate to supply what was needed with spare capacity for future growth. As to 2 satilites, I didn’t think 2 was just for redundancy, but rather than have one satellite handle everything that 2 of lesser capacity were used to allow that redundancy. Maybe one was enough and if the worst came to the worst comercial satellites could be used, that would take a lot of time to switch over to them with no guarentee of capacity or of capatibility with the ground stations, do we even have other satellites operating on those frequencies? I didn’t think so.

        2. I don’t think the batteries should be included unless specially requested. I can see it could be important for some people with life threatening illnesses or some other reason I don’t know of, but definitely an opt in with a damn good reason job. I think the whole battery thing is politics. It was something to complain about. I remember early arguments that if the power went out you couldn’t make a call therefore the NBN was bad. Once the batteries were in they were a huge expense, had to be replaced and maintained and were an ecological danger. If whatever you do people use it as a negative just do the sensible thing and on’t have them.

        3. That’s a hard one. If sold of it would have to have regulation set in stone so the buyer couldn’t dodge and weave like Telstra. My preference would be the government keep it and use the income. That said they would need to trim the fat now and then and not build layers of management. Telstra got very fat at times in it’s government ownership history. One difference, it will be a government wholesaler under constant pressure from retailers, a very different position to the vertical monopoly of Telstra. So either way could be good. No Telco that does retail should be allowed to own it however.

        4. Arguments. I prefer them to be backed up with numbers, science, documents. That’s what I object to the current anti NBN arguments, I have seen some good ones around the place and those very arguments have changed how the NBN works. FOr example, initial CVC being important until customers are on in volume. Unfortunately most of the big anti NBN commentators keep dragging their tired old arguments up over and over, mostly based on contrived assumptions. Most of 1% arguments are based on the NBN not breaking even or making the 7% ROI. Yes it could happen, but to contrive situations, some of them just plain fantasy to defend everything Turnbull or Abbott say is dumb. Mathew just seems to love making the same post over and over with big numbers showing a 720% rise in CVC and never shows the bottom line effect one plan prices and ignores any post that does point that out. Next NBN story on a large number of sites, there is his post again. He isn’t interested in debating he is interested in plastering FUD all over the place. How about extending your post Mathew to show that the end result in a CVC rise for the average user of $6.20 by 2025? Your post isn’t as scary then? I’m sorry are you interested in debating and showing truth or spreading fear?
        “(PS I am MORE than happy to be proven wrong- please give me a link!) I’d say, pointedly, because their claims are reasonable, valid and backed up by experienced people not only from our own telecommunications industry, but from those around the world.”
        Prepare to links to Turnbull’s blog, but don’t expect more than insults when you point out the huge “if this happened” basis for all his arguments. None of them are based on “if things proceeded as expected”.

    27. alain
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 9:48 am | Permalink |

      Oh dear the pro-NBN comment becomes more shrill, irrational and desperate as each month ticks by towards to a overwhelming Labor defeat at the next election, assuming they can cling onto their ever shaky knife edge majority until 2013.

      The NBN in its present form is gone, get over it.

      • Noddy
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink |

        You are a very sick man alain.

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink |

          Don’t mind him Noddy, he’s just projecting again.

          • Alex
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink |

            Yes when the critics are (as they inevitably are) mythbusted, you can be assured they will head straight for their comfort zone/fall back position…

            I.e. Tongue out, spit flying everywhere, blurting out “Well come 2013 Labor will be smashed” (and of course they aren’t politically motivated).

            *rolls eyes*

            However, what he says does seem very likely indeed (perhaps a first?), however, food for thought…

            Like Rudd’s Labor party and Mal’s/Tony’s Coalition just a few years back, Rudd was so far ahead and Mal/Tony so far behind in the polls there really was only one way for each of them to go.

            Just ask Rudd.

            • Noddy
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink |

              Hey, if they win they win. Hopefully they won’t wreck something just for political ideals and oppositions sake. It would be a shame if this opportunity was wasted. FTTH will happen, it just might happen latter with a lot of waste in between. If they hand everything over to Telstra though… that’s grounds for a lynching. That is an opertunity that once missed could lock us into the stone age and inflated pricing for decades to come and enormously impact this country.

    28. Jason
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink |

      130 comments, and only one or two picked up on the actual position of the liberals on the NBN.

      Renai, it’s not hard, and I am really disappointed that you went all anti-abbott while mis-representing their (obvious) position. You understand how a business works, and how to read basic financial documents.

      Currently people are paying, say $40 average for their telecoms services. When the NBN comes around, the basic prices for 12, and perhaps 25 Mbit will be similar/the same as what people pay now.

      However, the network is being built, not for 12 or 25 Mbit speeds, but for future capacity needs. That is to say, the NBN supporters believe data consumption will continue to rise, and people will require faster speeds to receive that data in a timely manner.

      Should you want a faster service, based on the projected costs in the business plan, then it will cost you more. The NBN Figures themselves point out projected ARPU into the future. Faster speeds, I think you will find generate 3 times the ARPU of the baseline speed.

      So yes, the service will be available to all Australians, no worse than what they currently have – but those services (12/25mbit) are pretty much price-locked into the future, and should you need faster speeds then it will cost more – but, it will actually be available when/if you choose to use it.

      —–

      Myself, the biggest problem I face with the NBN is that:

      1) Its a massive investment that distorts the telecommunications market for the next 10 years+ and has already had a large impact on Jobs in the industry.

      2) Historically, people have always spent the same % of their income on Telecoms, every year, the only difference being the value their receive (cheaper calls, more services like dsl+phone+3g). This is incompatible with the NBNco vision of increasing ARPU through increased service offerings.

      3) Based on 2, people move to new services when the price is the same, and there is a reason to shift – ie: reliability/speeds/content. If the private market was running NBNco, then you’d find that, in 10 years time, 100M services cost same as 12mbit services today – simply because there needs to be a compelling offer to attract new business.

      4) The ACCC focus has not been on the consumer, nor the other ISPs in the marketplace – rather it has been focused on what it needs to do to break-up NBNco, when it needs to de-regulate. Have a detailed read of the ACCC documents, and you will find a very large focus on the need for NBNco to unbundle, provide hand-off at each FAN site, and the potential to pass wavelengths from the GPON to an Access Seeker at the FAN. You’ll also notice that NBNco are installing multiple fibres to each premises – to facilitate FTTP unbundling.

      5) Therefore I believe that it is only 3 or 4 players that will survive in 10 years time, and this is not a good thing. NBNco will be compelled to break-up, and offer “ULL style” access to Telstra, Optus, and perhaps iiNet/TPG – and only these companies will be able to afford the massive investment to each FAN site. The government will, in a sense have built a FTTP network to then allow 3 companies to own the market. We’ll be having the same arguments about whether NBNco should be allowing direct fibre access, and how that breaks their business plan, etc.

      • Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:56 am | Permalink |

        Exetel has a 300GB, 100Mbps plan for $70 a month, plus a bundled phone line.

        http://www.exetel.com.au/residential-fibre-pricing-mainland.php

        I’m sorry … did I just invalidate your complicated waffle comment?

        As for this: “Currently people are paying, say $40 average for their telecoms services.” … I also call hogwash on it. $40 represents the cheapest plans on the market. The mainstream has for a very long time been up around the $60 price point for broadband, and not too far off that as well on mobile. Usually people also have a fixed-line landline phone as well, bringing total telecommunications spend often between $100 and $150 a month even for a small household.

        • Jason
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink |

          Renai, you call it complicated waffle, but you didn’t respond to the points I made. Your article is about Abbotts reply speech to the budget, and his claim that people will pay 3 times more.

          He stated they would be three times more for speeds they may not need.

          I explained what he meant by his statement – but you seemed to ignore it. Do you dispute the claim of ARPU figures for faster speed services, based on the NBNco Business plan?

          My $40 was simply an example for conversation. ARPU for fixed and DSL bundle is closer to $70 for a Full Service provider – where a customer makes use of the phone. Standalone DSL ARPU is approx $40-$45 depending on the ISP.

          I’m glad you used Exetel in your example – because currently you can pay $30 for basic access, including a home phone – whereas their 100Mbit service is 2.5x more expensive. We are only talking about ARPU here – not the quality or speed.

          Take ClubTelco, another Budget ISP – $60 for DSL+Phone or $85 for 100Mbit.

          Internode – $60 for DSL+Phone or $75 for 100M with the same data ($95 for more data, like I did with the other ISPs).

          Faster speeds always cost more money, I don’t think you are arguing that, Renai, its just that prices for those faster speeds, that we need in the future, are being decided today, and not tomorrow.

          We would usually see, in 10 years time those 100M services being offered as direct replacements for their DSL/12/25Mbit services, but if they have to maintain higher ARPU, then it wont happen. People only have a certain amount of cash.

          I should point out, I used to develop pricing for the whole product mix over the past 5-8 years, and can tell you, no matter how compelling, the market doesn’t want to spend more.

          • Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink |

            Mate, you didn’t respond to the points I made in my article either — and these are points which have been debated on Delimiter for about six months now. So we’ll call it even ;)

          • Mathew
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink |

            > Faster speeds always cost more money, I don’t think you are arguing that, Renai, its just that prices for those faster speeds, that we need in the future, are being decided today, and not tomorrow.

            Actually it is the same bit of fibre and same NTU that is capable of delivering 1Gbps. It is the cost of transferring data for the connection that is variable between a 12Mbps and 1/Gbps connection, which should be covered by the CVC charge.

            • Alex
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink |

              So we wait until we need the speeds and then build a network which will take 10 years to build?

              Riiiiiggght!

              • Mathew
                Posted 16/05/2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink |

                > So we wait until we need the speeds and then build a network which will take 10 years to build?

                No we just don’t put artificial caps on the speeds now, so we can all benefit from the NBN, rather than a privileged few.

                • Hubert Cumberdale
                  Posted 16/05/2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink |

                  87% is hardly a privileged few, what you are implying is that the majority of Australia are living in poverty and are filthy poors which is not the case. I think if they were as poor as you imply they wouldn’t have an internet connection at all, they’d be in that 30% (or whatever) that don’t sign up for an NBN plan. I think you find that in the fibre footprint most will chose 25/5mbps and higher plans (the graph on page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap confirms this) as they simply have no reason not to, the 12/1mbps plan only really exists because of the wireless and satellite plans.

                  • Mathew
                    Posted 16/05/2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink |

                    > I think you find that in the fibre footprint most will chose 25/5mbps and higher plans (the graph on page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap confirms this) as they simply have no reason not to, the 12/1mbps plan only really exists because of the wireless and satellite plans.

                    All it shows is the preference of early adopters. Page 7 doesn’t provide the context of how many connections and take-up rates. Wait until the copper is disconnected in early 2013 and then we will have some realistic figures.

                    • Alex
                      Posted 16/05/2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink |

                      Oh, so you will stick with projections, rather than actuals?

                      Regardless, in your opinion, which plan, the current NBN or the Oppositions alternative is the better in toto?

                • Noddy
                  Posted 16/05/2012 at 4:03 pm | Permalink |

                  Actually, part of the answer to that comes from how data is prioritised. With ADLS2 each stream is a seperate entity vying for bandwidth. Say it is peak time on ADSL2, you is drops due to congestion to 500KBs for a local download. Now fire up two more downloads, if your ADSL is at least 15Mb you will get about 3x500KBs.
                  Now, does contention on the different speed tiers behave that way or is it proportional to your plan speed? Does a 100Mb user get 8 times the throughput during congestion or only 1? He can make that up also with download managers and multi download threads and take up more of the CVC share that way too.

        • Noddy
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink |

          I love these long winded waffles:
          “ACCC…. blah, blah, blah, CVC, ARPU increase, waffle waffle, therefore 100Mb plans will retail for $200+”

          “No, they are $70, they are available”

          “But waffle waffle, FTTH, FTTN capex, pink batts… that isn’t possible they well be over $200+”

          “But they already exist and they are $70″

          “waffle waffle, you just can’t understand economics… wait til the next election…”

          • Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink |

            I know, and what is the point? Is the aim of these long-winded waffles to argue that the NBN shouldn’t be built and it’s bad policy? It seems obvious that these kinds of pricing issues are being addressed through the NBN SAU and wholesale agreements with the ACCC and the retail telcos, within the bounds of the overall NBN policy.

            To me it’s just pointless bitching. NBN pricing is never going to be bad for consumers. The political situation alone will make damn sure of that.

            • Jason
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink |

              “Is the aim of these long-winded waffles to argue that the NBN shouldn’t be built and it’s bad policy? ”

              As someone who runs a Pro-NBN website (me) for consumers, no I don’t believe that. I simply made comment about the process that has taken us here.

              The point of my post, is to refute the major point of this article – which is to attack Tony Abbott on claims he made about the NBN – of which I believe are true.

              That is not to say that I do not think it will be addressed – in 10 years time, if the cost of telecoms is too high, no doubt some government will come in and ‘fix’ it again?

          • Jason
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink |

            Typical. As soon as someone decides to make a comment about something they have experience in, someone from the cheap seats, who has doesn’t have any actually commercial experience tries to divert the discussion back to something they can argue – that is things people didn’t say.

            I never mentioned pink batts, and I never said 100M services will cost $200 per month.

            I have spent months of my time over the past 3 years working on the NBN, how the products work, how much it will cost to sell, and all the practical issues. I’m not going to get diverted into an argument where you present no facts, or even make any statements, when we are talking about common sense.

            FASTER SERVICES COST MORE MONEY – NBNCO ARE CHARGING RSPS HIGHER FOR FASTER SPEEDS.

            Today, it costs TPG <$15 for a DSL/Phone Port in the exchange, plus $16 for ULL – $31 odd.
            A 100Mbit Bitstream fibre service from NBNco costs more than that – before you include any CVC.

            Until anyone can refute those points (which also apply to Optus, and differently to iiNet/Internode and AAPT), anyone claiming that 100Mbit will NOT cost more has no credibility on the matter. Costs are costs.

            • Alex
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink |

              The last three months studying the NBN in what capacity? For the NBN, or as one who feels the NBN is a threat?

              Rhetorical…

              Anyway, gotta love the newest FUD.

              NBN will force consumers to pay more because it’s better and faster, so people will choose better and faster, which will cost then/us more than they/we currently pay…LOL.

              It’s a bit like saying people have over the last ten years been forced to pay more because they chose to download more and as a consequence needed to pay more for larger quota’s. Or ditto for their mobiles, etc.

              Yes “obviously” in some instances people will pay more to receive better than or what they currently CANNOT receive, that’s fucking commonsense. Otherwise they WILL NOT pay more, if they chose a similar plan.

              Do people actually believe this stupidity? Because really, it isn’t that hard to comprehend.

              • Alex
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink |

                Three years – sorry.

            • Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink |

              Jason,

              the reason we are so dismissive of your arguments is that they have been made a billion times before on Delimiter, and they have been refuted a billion times. You are going over extremely old ground here. And without fresh evidence, your comments are harming our discussion.

              There is very little real-world evidence that prices will rise under the NBN (in point of fact, there is a lot of evidence that we will be paying similar prices for exponentially better services), and there is very little real-world evidence that Australians would have a problem paying higher prices for better services, even if prices did rise. There is, however, a great deal of evidence suggesting Australians are spending more and more on telco-related services over time and demanding better telco services, and increasingly, all of this will be facilitated by high-speed access to something like an NBN.

              All of the evidence which you have mentioned is based on speculation of the future economics and pricing of the NBN; not the real-world prices which are being charged today and which are, as I have pointed out in this article, essentially locked below inflation at the wholesale layer. So essentially there is no real way to address your argument. Economists are notoriously wrong much of the time, and we prefer to have a debate based on the evidence we have today and not the speculation of tomorrow.

              Furthermore, as I said, all of these pricing issues can be addressed over time, within the bounds of the NBN policy, by adjusting the wholesale price on an as needs basis, to adjust commercial reality at the time. In the worst case, this could make the NBN ROI come in at a small loss. Big deal! We still get massively enhanced service delivery, become a world leader in telecommunications and restructure the telco sector away from a vertically integrated monopoly. Even in this case, the NBN is still a compelling policy.

              While most readers are not, I am aware of who you are, your background and your current activities. With all of this in mind, I am going to refer you to Delimiter’s Comments Policy:

              http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/

              I request that you either start progressing the conversation following my comments and going into new areas, with new evidence and new arguments, or stop commenting entirely.

              Cheers,

              Renai
              Editor/Publisher, Delimiter

              • Mathew
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink |

                > Furthermore, as I said, all of these pricing issues can be addressed over time, within the bounds of the NBN policy, by adjusting the wholesale price on an as needs basis, to adjust commercial reality at the time. In the worst case, this could make the NBN ROI come in at a small loss. Big deal! We still get massively enhanced service delivery, become a world leader in telecommunications and restructure the telco sector away from a vertically integrated monopoly. Even in this case, the NBN is still a compelling policy.

                I think it will be very difficult to significantly restructure the wholesale prices of the NBN in the future, because it will make it difficult to avoid winners and losers.

                Comparing what other countries are implementing now, I hardly see a nation where only 70% of premises passed by fibre are actually connected (page 116 of NBNCo Corporate Plan) and of those 50% connect at 12/1Mbps (page 118) as being world leading. Now if you said the minimum fibre speed was 100Mbps then that would bring us at least up to standard.

                • Noddy
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink |

                  “I think it will be very difficult to significantly restructure the wholesale prices of the NBN in the future, because it will make it difficult to avoid winners and losers.”

                  What is that meant to mean?

                  “Comparing what other countries are implementing now, I hardly see a nation where only 70% of premises passed by fibre are actually connected (page 116 of NBNCo Corporate Plan) and of those 50% connect at 12/1Mbps (page 118) as being world leading. Now if you said the minimum fibre speed was 100Mbps then that would bring us at least up to standard.”

                  Why do you ignore that the actual speeds taken up are much greater than predicted? Want to quote Bill Gates that 640K is enough for anyone? Why not look at REAL world figures rather than dredging up theoretical scenarios, or at least base those scenarios on what IS REAL AND HAPPENING not relying on some theoretical, conservatives estimate from a few years ago?
                  Why does the speed have to be 100Mb for everyone to be world leading? Why not 1G, 10G, they are all possible. In fact some have decided not to offer 12Mb and few are taking it. It doesn’t change the underlying architect that is capable of meeting the needs of Australia for many years to come. That is world leading. Slapping some cabinets in to shorten the copper length is stop gap and at this stage of time with short useful life and waste of money.

              • Dean
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink |

                +1!

            • djos
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:55 pm | Permalink |

              “FASTER SERVICES COST MORE MONEY – NBNCO ARE CHARGING RSPS HIGHER FOR FASTER SPEEDS.”

              So F’N What? and this is bad because?

              Seriously, get an argument that works!

              • djos
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink |

                Sorry, this was directed at the NBN denialists, Jason’s quote was just handy. :-)

              • Jason
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink |

                “FASTER SERVICES COST MORE MONEY – NBNCO ARE CHARGING RSPS HIGHER FOR FASTER SPEEDS.”

                So F’N What? and this is bad because?
                —-

                Because, history has proven that people are not willing to spend more on telecoms than they currently do today. We have 30-50 years worth of information across the world on telecommunications – and in real terms, people spend slightly less than they did before(about 1% fall in 20 years).

                The NBNco business model, as it stands, is predicated on the population spending more money on Telecoms with NBNco RSPs, when there is no real evidence to support this will be the case. People spend less on their landline calls, and spend more on broadband. The NBN does both.

                I think NBNco would have been better generating revenue from other services that use the fibre, rather than building it all into the end-user costs. If they approched the power companies, and charged the power company $5 per month to use the fibre service for smart-meetering, it would generate something like $500million revenue per year – reducing end-user internet costs, and likely providing the power company with a method to reduce their own costs (reducing peak load by just $500million per year would be pretty easy with the NBN – a small investment for the power companies).

                As I said, I think the ACCC focused too much on its need to deal with NBNco in 10+ years’ time as its deregulated, and unbundled, rather than allowing NBNco the ability to use its natural monopoly to directly value-add in other industries.

                • Alex
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink |

                  @ Jason,

                  If you want us to believe your information, you need to tell us where the information is coming… I.e which organisation do you represent?

                  Otherwise these are simply unsubstantiated claims from yet another typical NBN critic.

                  • Jason
                    Posted 15/05/2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink |

                    I have worked from the tech support desk in a call centre, to running a National ISP, to running Strategy and Product Development, to running the corporate division of another National ISP. I have been involved in DSLAM rollouts, Metro Ethernet and developed business cases for the deployment of infrastructure. I assure you I have relevant and recent experience in this environment.

                    I started looking into the NBN, along with everyone else. I needed to know everything about it, from the political issues as well as the technical and commercial. From how the provisioning works, to how we integrate voice services, to building network maps of the POIs to see who is available, and understanding the strategic opportunity for those markets. There was continual change in NBN policy because of the political issues, so it became important to understand them in order to better prepare options for the future – pre-empt likely changes.

                    I’m not anti-NBN – I’d just prefer a few more facts were out there about the real-world opportunities, and implications. Essentially we’re all up for a bit of change, but instead of embracing this, the Government has sought to play down aspects of it. There is no doubt that using investment from cross-sector industries, by creating different products and use for them provides the best outcome. You’d have your private investment, which would deliver productivity gains in those other industries. It would bolster the business case for the NBN, by essentially underwriting its use by Industry. It would allow proper economic use of the fibre, delivering lower internet prices AND more services for consumers.

                    Instead we have this government selling this as ‘breaking the Telstra monopoly’ which means not much to most people. We have the Government making promises and focusing on the price, and what we have now, instead of doing deals with cross-sector industry to use the fibre to both pay for part of it, and sell these as actual upcoming benefits for end-users. Internet users have long piggy-backed on the back of long-haul power transmission, and rail networks, utilizing the long-haul fibre to connect remote communities. More thinking like this and you do increase productivity for the nation.

                    • Alex
                      Posted 15/05/2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink |

                      Ok Jason… benefit of the doubt (I could say I’m this or that too), but with no reason to doubt you let’s cut to the chase.

                      In your opinion, which plan, the current NBN or the Oppositions alternative is the better in toto?

                • Noddy
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink |

                  “I think NBNco would have been better generating revenue from other services that use the fibre, rather than building it all into the end-user costs. If they approched the power companies, and charged the power company $5 per month to use the fibre service for smart-meetering, it would generate something like $500million revenue per year – reducing end-user internet costs, and likely providing the power company with a method to reduce their own costs (reducing peak load by just $500million per year would be pretty easy with the NBN – a small investment for the power companies).”

                  So why wouldn’t they pass the costs on to the customer? They did with the smart meters.
                  Exactly how does a fibre link to your smart meter allow the power company to reduce peak load? Will it tell them you have left the heater on and gone out and allow them to drop the temperature? Or do we all have to our houses rewired to smart homes and let the power company tweak our homes? I assume they can be trusted not to tweak up the power overnight for a bit of extra income.

            • Noddy
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink |

              Prices have and will go up, and value will increase also.

              I am paying more than my $25 dialup unlimited account.
              I started on ADSL around $50 + $18 for phone. $68 ADSL1
              Now I am on ADSL2+ $80 including phone.
              Option for 100M $70 + $10 for phone, increased quota. Pretty good. The price is the same.
              If I want more quota or speed I will pay for it when it is provided at an attractive price. No one is FORCED up speed or quota tiers. If people aren’t going up tiers because they are too expensive I doubt applications would appear that require that extra speed. People wouldn’t increase web page sizes as they did for ADSL for a 1% target ordience.
              It’s the same on all tech, there is a curve, being an early adopter costs, there is always a practical and affordable cost point. What was todays expensive cutting edge CPU is tomorrows bargain.

      • Brendan.
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink |

        “However, the network is being built, not for 12 or 25 Mbit speeds, but for future capacity needs. That is to say, the NBN supporters believe data consumption will continue to rise, and people will require faster speeds to receive that data in a timely manner.”

        Yes. Please take a moment to look at average ADSL based prices over the last three years.

        Take a note of the average cost versus capacity and quota (quantity). Note how although prices haven’t changed that much, the options, value adds and capacity has massively changed.

        For the purpose of clarity – allow me to illustrate my point.

        Invoice one from Internode was for a 512Kbit plan, 3GB of data, via Telstra. $99.95

        Invoice ninety-five from Internode, ADSL2+ 300GB of data, via Agile. $69.95

        The same $100 spend now offers a mammoth 600GB of data. Versus 3GB.

        Over the last seven, nearly eight years, the plan prices have changed little, yet has seen remarkable improvements over time.

        Even accounting for Telstra’s anti-competitive behaviour, plan value has only improved, over time. Yes, it’s not always been a steady rate, but that’d be unrealistic.

        So please, don’t even begin to think the pattern will change under the NBN. Value will improve, over time. It always will, even with the odd bump. Demand and changes in technology will ensure it.

        • Jason
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink |

          Your included value figures do not illustrate that prices will fall – only that the offering becomes better the more users are connected.

          The NBN is not new – its just upgraded speeds of our existing broadband services. People already have the ability to consume data now, they are connected.

          Your first invoice from internode would have worked on a cost+ basis. Your plan comes with 3GB, and they would have expected you to use most of it.

          Nowadays, the difference between the quota offered and the data consumed is great. A baseline product may actually include 100G, but the average usage might be 10GB.

          This is only possible because the mass-market is using broadband now. You cannot do it again.
          There is over-capacity in the marketplace for consumer data at the moment, and the only way to sell value is to bundle in even more, or drop the price. The next improvements for end-users is going to be price, as customers will already have lots of quota (current average quotas are good enough for end-users for the next 10 years!).

          • Brendan.
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink |

            Actually, if you look closely, I show the price fall.

            $99.00 for 3GB versus $69 for 300GB. Cheaper. Faster. More.

            What part of the above, no offence, is difficult to understand?

            • Jason
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink |

              Brendan,

              I’m not saying that prices did not fall – they did. Thats because we went from a market of 0 Broadband connections to over 5 million. The Fixed-line market is now at saturation – that is where the value came from.

              Reselling Telstra with high AGVC costs, but also high fixed costs for the ports…
              to
              1 Fibre backhaul with 500 customers in a two racks in a Telstra Exchange supplying DSL
              to
              1 Fibre backhaul with 1000 customers in a single rack in a Telstra exchange

              This came about because of the growth of the marketplace for broadband, and the drive to reduce costs through scale.

              This cannot happen on the NBN, because the next 10 years have been mapped out, payback periods defined, and there is an expectation that ARPU will increase.

              You said it yourself – you have had massive increase in quota, increase in speed, and lowering of price.

              NBNco have positioned pricing, that pays for the network that involves you spending more to achive the same increases you have previously experienced.

              What I am saying is, without the NBN, assuming the market continued as is, in 10 years time your chosen ISP would be offering you 100Mbit with even more quota, for the same price, if not lower than you are paying now. The NBN cannot do this.

              • Noddy
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink |

                So, you are saying the NBN is fixed and the prices are set in stone. So if people start wanting more capacity but can’t afford it, and time has passed and increasing backhaul to double the speed is a cheap upgrade they will stubornly stick to their prices and not offer cheaper capacity to entice people to use what would otherwise sit there idle?
                I know what the docs say. Even then the massive increases in price that the likes of Mathew predicts (720%) are BS, they are 720% of a $1 part of the price.
                There is nothing in the costing that show a 300% in broadband prices with the documents expected growth. Sure if you go outside the expected growth, want bleeding edge speed, massive quota above the norm, it costs. Maybe the likes of TPG WILL offer unlimited plans. You just have to fight over the backhaul they provide, as many do on their ADSL2+ plans. They will pay for whatever CVC gives them the profit they need, let everyone loose on 100Mb unlimited plans and (see TPG forums for examples) blame all sorts of rediculous things as the possible reason people are experiencing massive slow down in peak times.

                • Mathew
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink |

                  > I know what the docs say. Even then the massive increases in price that the likes of Mathew predicts (720%) are BS, they are 720% of a $1 part of the price.

                  You clearly have not comprehended what I said:

                  Plans for CVC pricing are outlined on page 103:
                  * Starts at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and falls to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
                  * Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.

                  NBNCo revenue is very different prices. For people who download the same amount in 20 years as today the prices will potentially fall (if RSPs pass on the price cuts). However for those people who desire to increase their downloading they will find that the falls in CVC pricing do not keep pace with the data being downloaded across the network. This means that rightly so the high data users will pay a premium for downloading and putting strain on the network.

                  • Noddy
                    Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink |

                    You clearly have not comprehended what I said:

                    You will not answer the issue. The document you keep quoting states that the CVC cost for the avergae user is less than $1. You say the CVC will rise 720% I agree, I never said I didn’t.

                    NOW THE PART YOU AVOID ANSWERING!!!!

                    A 720% increase in CVC for average user is a $6.20 increase.

                    That is not for those who reduce their downloads, that is for those that increase their average downloads.

                    Yes, higher data users will pay more if they increase their data usage from an already high amount to 18 times the amount. I agree, prices will go up. But leaving it at 720% and using it for a reason that prices will triple is misleading. The CVC in 2025 would still result in sub $200 plans for people who want quotas like 10TB. That is using the current plan guestimates. If data usage increases faster than expected and the capacity can be increase economicly we may see CVC prices drop quicker. It’s hard to see what will be the exact outcome in 2025. But suring that time I am sure prices and plans will be revised many times over.

                    • Mathew
                      Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink |

                      > A 720% increase in CVC for average user is a $6.20 increase.
                      >
                      > That is not for those who reduce their downloads, that is for those that increase their average downloads.

                      This is what is says on page 103 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan:
                      “The CVC is priced initially at $20 per Mbps, adding approximately less than $1 per average end user for a 12/1 megabit per second service with current average data usage.”

                      So apparently by failing to make this distinction, you accept the chart on page 118 that the average user will connect at 12/1Mbps. Page 118 contains this statement:
                      “However, the consequence of more End-Users moving to higher speed tiers is reflected in the significant rise in the contribution of the CVC to overall ARPU, as increased speed drives increased usage.”

                      Based on this, my expectation is that the majority users on a 12/1Mbps plans will not deliver an increase in ARPU. The increase will come from people purchasing higher speed tiers (pure profit for NBNCo) and/or increasing quotas (requires NBNCo to upgrade hardware, but still profitable).

                      Now if you take a hypothetical scenario of a high data user (currently 1TB/month) and assume that CVC contributes $30/month. If that person remains in the same tier, then at a rise of 720%, the CVC contribution increases to $216/month. The good news is their quota will most likely be around 20TB/month. Do I consider this realistic? No it is much to simplistic and fails to take into account how usage habits will change, however it does provide perspective of how ARPU growth might occur.

                      The final point to remember is as stated on page 132, if NBNCo doesn’t achieve it’s ARPU targets, then the timeframes for the charts on page 101, 103 will simply be extended. This is the true genius of the NBNCo Corporate Plan – if you spend more, then NBNCo will increase the value by a fraction of that spend, but if you don’t spend more then NBNCo will simply delay price cuts and wait for natural demand to increase ARPU. If costs increase beyond what is expected, then NBNCo will delay the price cuts. The only real danger to NBNCo is that take-up in fibre areas doesn’t reach the 70% target (page 116).

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 16/05/2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink |

                        “Now if you take a hypothetical scenario of a high data user (currently 1TB/month) and assume that CVC contributes $30/month. If that person remains in the same tier, then at a rise of 720%, the CVC contribution increases to $216/month. The good news is their quota will most likely be around 20TB/month. Do I consider this realistic? No it is much to simplistic and fails to take into account how usage habits will change, however it does provide perspective of how ARPU growth might occur.”

                        I am not sure if a current 1TB/month user would necessarilly increase to 20TB, they may like to, but in my experience those sort of user just use as much as possible for BT, even that is being reduced somewhat as they hire Chinese servers for seedboxes. Another element is that the CVC for a 20TB plan would likely be much lower than 20TB per user. Currently a lot of plans rely on the average user using much less than their quota (for example iiNet and Internode 200G plan, avergae usage 30G). So even taking a worse case, say 6-7TB avergae usage, the CVC one that sort of plan drops significantly.

                        “but if you don’t spend more then NBNCo will simply delay price cuts and wait for natural demand to increase ARPU. If costs increase beyond what is expected, then NBNCo will delay the price cuts. The only real danger to NBNCo is that take-up in fibre areas doesn’t reach the 70% target (page 116).”

                        Yes, the NBN isn’t an all you can eat for free system, the increased cost of quota may restrain some peoples internet usage habits. But knowing quite a number of people with those usage levels, they just download as much as possible, movies, tv shows, games, because they can. They fill up disk after disk with the stuff and barely use any of it. I think it would be very few people who would have a legitimate need for 1TB now, and those that do would probably be more a comercial enterprise.
                        I have TRIED to use lots of quota. Got 100G and thought, wow, lets see if I can use it. It aint easy, I got to 60G in a month. 3-4 hrs of high quality video a day, downloading anything that took my fancy. I looked for big things to get, and 60G.

              • djos
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink |

                Jason, prices will continue to fall in real terms under the NBN because of the following:

                *international traffic costs keep coming down as new links come online and higher bandwidth comms gear is installed on existing links

                *backhaul prices keep coming down as fibre links are upgraded from 1gbe to 10gbe via upgraded SFP’s, switches etc (very competitive space already)

                *ISP’s only need install a $5k switch in each POI and are no-longer paying off expensive DSLAM installs ($100,000 just for the 1st 800 ports + ongoing power and space costs to Telstra).

                All of these items will ensure that real world costs will continue to come down on the NBN – just like with ADSL where mainstream plans are about $50p/m + line rental (or $60 for naked DSL) and the isp’s keep adding more data, the same will happen on the NBN.

            • Gav
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink |

              I think I’m an example of what Jason is trying to say.

              5 years ago, I connected to TPG. $50 plan, ADSL2, I think it was a 12 gig limit. Around that figure at any rate. In that 5 years, I havent changed my plan. I still pay $50, I still have ADSL2 (though with 1 corner between me and the exchange I should be getting more than a 6Mps connection), but my limit has increased.

              Over time its gone through 25 gig, 100 gig, 200 gig, and recently was upped automatically to 500 Gig per month. All I did was increase my quota as their plans improved. Everything else stayed the same.

              Point being, I was happy to pay $50, and didnt plan on moving from that price point. I still dont, but it gets more complicated under the NBN. Instead, I will be happy paying $70.

              Why? Because that extra $20 represents the home phone. If I dont need a home phone for NBN, then I can connect to a $70 plan, and still be paying the same. So still paying the same per month for telecommunications.

              I might be paying more for my internet, but overall I’m paying the same.

              What others are saying Jason is essentially the same thing. If there ARE relatively small increases in price, there is often a mitigating reason behind it – an extra $10 for home phone, or something like that, whihc may not exist outside the NBN. Plenty do bundle, but not everyone does.

              And for me, at the end of the day, I still dont plan on paying any more than I do now. I will get a 100 Mps plan, and just get the best limit I can with the price range I want to pay. Overall, I expect to pay no more than $100, as I do now to cover internet, home phone, and mobile.

              If you want to talk telecommunication costs, look at THAT total instead – you’ll find that bundles can more than match that overall cost, plus provide a better speed than ADSL2, and still give home and mobile options that match current needs.

              The combination of all those under the NBN is certainly not 3 times what we pay now, as per Abbott’s claim. There are so many examples supporting that, that Abbott’s line HAS to be delibrately sensationalised to get the maximum response.

              If somebody DOES end up paying 3 times more, then they should be seeing the ACCC, or were delibrately misled by a salesman. Is it possible? Definitely. Is it going to be standard? Certainly not. I should think that’s been well establised by now.

              • Mathew
                Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink |

                > If somebody DOES end up paying 3 times more, then they should be seeing the ACCC, or were delibrately misled by a salesman. Is it possible? Definitely. Is it going to be standard? Certainly not. I should think that’s been well establised by now.

                Have you looked at the charts on page 101 and 103 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan? NBNCo simply cannot meet their financial targets if on average customers don’t pay more.

                Prices for actual services will (almost certainly) decline, but at a rate significantly less than the uptake of faster services / downloading more.

                Plans for AVC pricing are outlined on page 101:
                * 1000/400Mbps falls from $150 to $90, while the average speed grows from 30Mbps to 230Mbps.
                * Price falls by 40% while average speed grows by 760%

                Plans for CVC pricing are outlined on page 103:
                * Starts at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and falls to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
                * Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.

                • Noddy
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

                  This is the second time you have posted this in the thread and ignored the response. Why don’t you tell him how much the average CVC will rise rather than trying to be scary with 720%? It will rise $6.20 by 2025.

                  If you are going to post this all over the net for the last 8 months at least recognise and try to address criticism of your posts.

                • Noddy
                  Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink |

                  You’ve just posted it again on ZDNet. When are you going to answer? Why do you not put in the figures? You have used it to show that the plans will be much more expensive in the future because of CVC. 720% But ignore any posts showing that the 720% in an increase in an insignificant portion of the cost for most users other than those who wish to have absolutely massive quotas.

                • Gav
                  Posted 16/05/2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink |

                  As it turns out, yes I have looked at the document Matthew, and I disagree with your point. Totally. Read what I wrote. My plan has not changed in 5 years. I have had near enough to the best plan I can get, increasing my data cap more and more as time has gone on, and not paid a cent more.

                  $50 a month. Very simple number. Yet my limit, for that same amount, through the same provider, has gone from 12 gig a month to 500 gig a month. At the right exchange, it would be unlimited. Cant beat that.

                  But for me, its increased 4000%, give or take a little. And thats how it should be. SAME cost, the limit increasing as needs increase. And guess what? Thats how the NBN is set up. As peoples needs increase, their limits increase. If that co-incides with an increase in speed, they pay more. But I doubt it will personally.

                  If you know any of my posts (actually, there are 2 Gav’s that post here) then you should be aware that I dont come into this debate ignorant to the issues at hand,. I have a direct relative that lecture around the world on this subject, which I’m willing to bet puts her ahead of the majority of posters here, including you.

                  As for me, I’m an auditor and have a decade of experience as a high end analyst. Dont try to FUD me with numbers, you’ll lose.

                  • Posted 16/05/2012 at 2:13 am | Permalink |

                    While I genuinely see your point here Gav, this isn’t specifically what he’s talking about. It’s great for everyone that we’ll get quotas for the same price, but Matthew is specifically talking about the same plan getting faster SPEEDS for the same price, which is what the CVC is based on. (specifically, ISP’s pay $20 per Mbps/month, dropping to $8.75 per Mbps/month by 2025)

                    What Matthew is arguing is that people may not WANT increased speeds, they may want the cheaper plan, in which case NBN will keep the prices the same, rather than drop them to encourage customer uptake and add value in the form of quota, which CVC is NOT based on.

                    However, this assumes that the vast majority of people will NOT want an increase in speed, as well as a corresponding increase in quota, which is not a good assumption to make. Currently, Australia is woefully behind in its’ speeds, primarily because of the hideous cost of hooking up to a fibre or HFC network, and that’s if you’re lucky enough to be one of the 3 million or so households that actually have access to one. However, once the NBN goes in, the status quo changes- the same speeds are available and the same prices no matter what your location on the fibre. It is reasonable to assume then, that with greatly increased speeds available EVERYWHERE for the same cost, the average speed of connections will rise sharply.

                    There is a caveat to this which is CVC pricing will likely make some very low density areas real-world speeds noticeably slower than city speeds (say 75 Mbps instead of 95Mbps). This is primarily due to the fact that pricing is based on bandwidth and ISP’s will have to buy more to ensure they have enough at their Access Point to allow full speeds. This and the ISP’s servers are the ONLY limiting factors on NBN speeds- the actual hardware is not a factor, as it is capable of much more. Essentially, the market, instead of competing so much on pricing, they will be competing on real-world speeds to end-users and bundled options and value, such as VOIP, IPTV services etc. There is an argument against this pricing strategy, which I believe is what Matthew is TRYING to get across, but suffice to say, simply quoting from the Corporate Plan is not the best way to do it.

                    By the way Matthew you comment about all NBN has to do is “flick a software switch” to give us 1Gbps? Not true; they must upgrade the NBN during building with faster switching hardware to allow 1Gbps (read the PR about them upgrading the network after Tasmania was switched on). ONCE that is done, they can flick the switch, but of course that extra hardware costs money, so of COURSE they will charge more for 1Gbps as they need to recoup this. Quite different from your argument that it essentially costs them nothing. There is no ongoing cost, other than if the new hardware costs more to maintain, which I doubt, but there would be significant up-front capital and therefore debt and interest that must be recouped when offering 1Gbps.

                  • nonny-moose
                    Posted 16/05/2012 at 2:32 am | Permalink |

                    “Your included value figures do not illustrate that prices will fall – only that the offering becomes better the more users are connected.”

                    i dont think thats entirely correct. i take it from the view that if i KNOW i will only consume 30gb a month, and at the $50 (or whatever) i pay for that over time instead buys 100 gb, then with further time hits 200….

                    that is effectively a price cut to me as i know i will not use that kind of quota, and i can back down to the next plan ‘notch’. id rate that as a rather likely outcome in terms of the historical quota trajectory – those who dont have big data needs will be able to wind back their spend as quota inflation progresses.

                    others might be perfectly happy to stay at their personal-value price point, and inflate their quota usage instead. in that case you would be correct. my point is there are actually two options there as time progresses and while one increases value(quota) for the same spend the other tack is to take the same value at a lower spend. i expect there will be a healthy share of each – not everyone wants to download scores of gigs after all.

    29. Justin
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink |

      The irony i find in all this is the defense sometimes used is Abbott, is a rhodes scolar, he isn’t stupid. Of course most people who tout that line don’t realise that you can be a Rhodes scolar in a lot of things and Abbotts was a Master of Arts in Politics/Philosophy. So yes he probably knows exac6tly what he is doing and alot of the Australian public are sucked in with what he says.

      I personally don’t consider anyone smart just because they have a masters degree. I lot of people get them, bvecause they have some knowledge in the field, but can be generally naive and stupid people too.

      A lot of people considered smart have no qualifications.

    30. Brendan.
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink |

      Abbott isn’t consciously lying, so much as presenting what he believes.

      He is, however, frequently “fluid” with facts. He’s being feed information. Most of it is either propaganda or ‘sound bites’ that are actually difficult to specifically call on. We all know what happens when Abbott tries to free-style – everything from unfortunate sign placements to “uhum” and “ahh” when heading off the reservation and he has no advice on.

      At least Turnbull runs on his own cognisance and has enough technical savvy to know when he’s boxing himself into a corner. Abbott will say whatever he’s told to say. Even if it defies any sense of reality or logic.

      People might be a bit bent out of shape the Julia Gillard has had her strings pulled a few times, but it’s nothing on the marionette of Abbott. I have genuine concerns as to whether he has the leadership and gumption needed to run a government.

      You can’t keep saying “no” when you’re in the hot seat; you have to deliver.

    31. Mark stensone
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink |

      So some people are willing that the NBN will fail and we will be stuck with our current arthritic internet?.
      How nice of them stay in the stone age wow what a great idea lets still have crap internet for the whole of Australia.

      Anti NBN people are just chumps sadly.

    32. socrates
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink |

      One percenter: ‘l have read and digested Malcolm’s articles and every single one of his posts on your blog.’

      And written all of them?

    33. Richard
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink |

      We are told Peter Slipper et al are bringing Parliament into disrepute. Not so, it is institutionalised spin from the likes of Tony Abbott (the leader no less) and Malcolm Turnbull who are negative on progressive measures such as the NBN. This must be costing them when the dust settles on the failings of individuals.

      • Mathew
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink |

        The thing to remember is that NBNCo are predicting that only 70% of premises passed by fibre will actually connect (page 116 of NBNCo Corporate Plan) and even less in the areas covered by wireless or satellite. The reality is that outside of technical circles the average person doesn’t care that much.

        • Alex
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink |

          ONLY 70%…oh, so we aren’t all being forced onto the NBN after all, then ;-)

          But seriously Mathew, while I give you credit for perpetual persisitence, something which seems to be outside the bleedin obvious circle, is (and as it has been said to you many times with your daily corporate plan page number reminders) is the fact that such estimations are almost always conservativelly made, so as to avoid the old egg, meet face.

          But if you agree with NBNCo estimations there, do you also agree with the ROI, payback period and that the NBN will be a rip roaring success, estimations too?

          If so, what’s the proble, all will be good, NBNCo said.

          If not why not, why would you claim daily that only some of NBNCo’s info is accurate and the rest inaccurate?

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink |

            “If not why not, why would you claim daily that only some of NBNCo’s info is accurate and the rest inaccurate?”

            You cant figure out why?

            • Alex
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink |

              Yes, but it shut him and his pg 118 up, didn’t it…lol.

    34. Brendan.
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink |

      Loving the “I reject your reality and substitute my own..” inventiveness of the anti-NBN.

      The tubes, they will be more expensive!

      Fact is, at worst it’s slightly more; typically, the prices are comparative between ADSL offerings and Fibre.

      Is 1000, or 100Mbit more expensive, than (at best) 24Mbit? You betcha.

      But then we can’t currently buy a consumer grade 1000Mbit ADSL tail now, can we, so it’s hardly relevant to compare 100Mbit with 10Mbit. :)

      But that’s okay – it means people like Mr Abbott can use the lack of comparative pricing to bring damning indictments over the NBN, right?

      • Gav
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink |

        With my (at best) 24 Mbit connection, I’m happy to get a 6 Mbit connection. This is something that people dont comment on, but something the pro-NBN should be shoving down every throat they have to. Right now, all our plans are “up to” a speed, with the NBN it has to be “at least” what is advertised.

        To put that into numbers the dimwitted can understand, a 24 Mbit connection under the NBN will be 24 Mbit. A 24 Mbit connection under current plans will more like 6-8 Mbit. The BASE speed of NBN will be 3-4 times faster than current availability, which only suggests the TOP speed (ie 100 Mbit) will be something like 12-16 times as fast.

        For those connecting to that top speed, they wont be paying 12-16 times as much.

        Therein lies the biggest difference – current setup is “up to”, while the NBN is “at least”. And while I cant quote a source, I’m pretty sure there are repercussions for providers that fail to deliver advertised speeds, unlike today.

        • Noddy
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink |

          Note: FUDsters, please before posting your usual round of CVC/congestion post use delimiters search. You will likely find you have posted the same thing before and it has been discussed to death.

        • Mathew
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink |

          > Therein lies the biggest difference – current setup is “up to”, while the NBN is “at least”. And while I cant quote a source, I’m pretty sure there are repercussions for providers that fail to deliver advertised speeds, unlike today.

          Yet another NBN myth. The AVC is peak information rate (PIR). This is the definition of PIR in the glossary (page 157 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan):
          : [/The theoretical speed that an End-User could receive if there were no other End-Users using at the same time. PIR is limited by the speed of the physical port of connection./]

          Compare this with Committed Information Rate (CIR) (page 152 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan):
          > The guaranteed amount of bandwidth that NBN Co will provide to End-Users.

          Quoting the section on Pricing (page 100 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan):
          > All NBN Access Seekers will be required to select an AVC based on a Peak Information Rate (PIR) speed.

          As noted on page 101, you may opt to purchase a higher traffic classes. For Traffic class 1, AVC CIR 5/5Mbps will cost $334/month + AVC PIR charge (minimum of $27).

          While there is nothing to suggest that an AVC PIR plan won’t achieve the full speed, NBNCo are not guaranteeing that it will happen. Further you have to consider this statement from page 103:
          > The Connectivity Virtual Circuit (CVC) in the product construct is an aggregation point where the Access Seekers can choose to contend their traffic to create differentiation.

          Go and read the NBN signup pages for RSPs (especially the cheaper ones) and see the list of disclaimers about speed.

          • Noddy
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink |

            Not really a myth. If your sync rate is 6Mb on ADSL2+ then that is your limit. Doesn’t matter how good your ISP is. If you ask for a 50Mb NBN your connection is capable of 50Mb no mater where you are. Of course you are at the mercy of contention in the ISP and other networks. But unlike ADSL2+ not limited just because of where you live. Don’t like your ISPs contention, get peak time slowdown? Choice a different ISP.

          • Alex
            Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink |

            Mathew, why all trying to suggest full speed isn’t going to happen just to finally admit… “While there is nothing to suggest that an AVC PIR plan won’t achieve the full speed…”!

            After arguing, you just admitted the NBN will be better than what we have now, which simply, was the intent of Gav’s original comment :/

            As Apollo said here –

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/07/4g-faster-than-the-nbn-i-dont-think-so/#comment-406605

            Seriously dude, buy a kindle and read something else FFS, because you putting your own “strange colouring” to the Corporate Plan everyday, at every forum everywhere, is surely almost as tiresome for you as it is for everyone else on the receiving end.

          • Posted 15/05/2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink |

            Matthew, this is no different than today. A good friend of mine runs a server from home. He has a 10Mbps Down/2Mbps Up connection, guaranteed, from Telstra. (it’s not a big server, but necessary). It costs him approximately $450 a month. It guarantees him this service and no more than 24 hours of blackout time a year. It’s a low end enterprise solution.

            Telstra does not offer this service everywhere- they can’t. Only certain parts of the network can handle the speed for a start. Secondly, the service is basically about QOS control- this service gets a much higher QOS scalability for traffic, meaning his connection will maintain 10/2Mbps, while others in the same street might range during peak periods.

            The difference between this circumstance and the NBN? This service can be offered ANYWHERE the fibre is run. Regardless of location. It is expensive, yes; it is NOW. Guaranteed service is required by only a small fraction of Internet users.

            If you live more than 1.5km from an exchange, you can’t get 24Mbps peak speeds on ADSL2+ on copper- not because of traffic, because of the physical limitations of the LINE. 4km? You’re down to less than 8Mbps peak. 6Km? You’ll be lucky to get 1.5Mbps peak. On NBN? 2km? Peak speeds of (currently) up to 100Mbps. 4km? Same. 6km? Same. 20km? Same. 50km? Same.

            Now, aha! he says you say PEAK speeds. OF COURSE I say it! Look at Telstra’s NextG network (which is widely accepted as being better than 80% of the US networks, which are the largest in the world). It is wireless, yes and therefore has many limitations fibre doesn’t, which have already been discussed, but quite apart from that, its’ theoretical speeds are 42Mbps (HSPA+). Actual? Measured at 14Mbps (pick your source, independent, Telstra themselves, Gizmodo…..) 2 limiting factors- 1) Its’ cells share bandwidth more people, more sharing. (wireless only limitation). 2)Traffic- the higher the traffic, the slower the speed. Why? Backhaul, POI, Servers, take your pick. ISP’s don’t plan for 100% network capacity 365 days/year 7 days a week- that’s ludicrously uneconomical. They bank on certain loads and when they’re over those loads, everything slows.

            Back to the NBN- It will only be as good as its POI’s, its backhaul, international connections and the servers connected to them. Who’s job is that? Well, the POI’s, backhaul and international connections are NBN’s, and they will all be upgraded to achieve predicted required throughput, but the servers? ISP’s. The hardware can take 100Mbps (more obviously) 24/7, 365. The servers? That’s a different story. But this misses the point- currently, the limiting factor of broadband speed for the majority of Australians? Their copper line to the exchange, which will be REPLACED BY THE NBN.

            You are arguing that speeds won’t be as high as the quoted peaks- of course they won’t! But they’ll be SUBSTANTIALLY higher than today and, with the right hardware and assuming the ISP’s come to town on their servers, it’ll get pretty damn close!

            Matthew, your arguments don’t have any pattern to them. You seem to have read the Corporate Plan, accepted parts of it as law and parts of it as fallacy? And also that the Corporate Plan is the be-all and end-all of the NBN discussions? I don’t see you’re ultimate aim? Do you wish to cancel the NBN? If not, do you wish it to be privately built? Or do you want a re-engineering of the NBN? What is your goal?

            I wish the NBN to be built in its’ current form, hopefully improving on the 93% fibre as it is rolled out. But I also wish there to be robust NON-POLITICAL debate on the goals, outcomes and plans of NBNCo. Only then can NBNCo. achieve the most efficient, cheap and well built network for Australia. Random FUD doesn’t even show up on my radar.

            • Mathew
              Posted 16/05/2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink |

              > Matthew, this is no different than today.

              I’m not suggesting that it is.

              > Guaranteed service is required by only a small fraction of Internet users.

              Totally agree, but people need to understand what the reality of what NBNCo are providing, rather than what they hope for. Too many people post about “guaranteed speeds on the NBN when this is simply not the case for anyone who doesn’t pay for CIR.

              > Matthew, your arguments don’t have any pattern to them. You seem to have read the Corporate Plan, accepted parts of it as law and parts of it as fallacy? And also that the Corporate Plan is the be-all and end-all of the NBN discussions? I don’t see you’re ultimate aim? Do you wish to cancel the NBN? If not, do you wish it to be privately built? Or do you want a re-engineering of the NBN? What is your goal?
              Which parts do you think I see as fallacy? Currently the NBNCo Corporate Plan is the best source of information the general public have on what is actually going to be delivered by

              NBNCo and many of the strongest advocates routinely ignore what is written in the document and instead accuse others of FUD. It is very clear that if NBNCo have stated that ARPU will rise then on average people will pay more. More data and faster speeds, but on average people will need to pay more. Jason rightly questions based on historical evidence if people will actually pay more. My telecommunications spend over the past 10 years has decreased, yet the service provided has increased in speed and quota.

              Having experienced the disadvantage caused by Telstra’s ADSL speed tiers and the fact that Telstra still cap upload speeds, I don’t like the fact that we are returning to a situation where access to the internet will be limited by financial resources. Secondly if you cannot experience the benefits of a 100Mbps connection why would you upgrade. The fact that few of the the 50% predicted to connect at 12/1Mbps migrate to higher speeds (page 118) bears testament to this fact.

              • seven_tech
                Posted 16/05/2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink |

                Ok, so at least we’re both arguing AGAINST FUD….and it does explain why you’ve chosen this particular article to do it on.

                But Matthew, do you think it is correct for Abbott to be pedalling the idea that the majority of Australians will pay 3 times more for their internet than they do now? Because this is what he’s saying. I don’t care how much technicality you drag out, 9 out of 10 people who haven’t read the Corporate Plan (and that’s alot of people) are going to believe he is saying that. And that is just plain false.

                Ok so obviously he can’t start spouting concerns about CVC and ARPU growth, but he could simply say ‘There is reason for Australians to be concerned about NBNCo’s pricing structure which may see them paying more in the future for their telecommunications needs’. This is factual, true and exactly what needs to be discussed….and yet he wont, because his FUD tactual about ’3 times more’ is a much better sound bite and I’m sorry but sound bites are about all Tony is good for. He’s a lousy leader and painful, negative and derogatory opposition leader.

                • Noddy
                  Posted 16/05/2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink |

                  I do not believe he agaist FUD. He will routinely post (like clockwork, all over the place) that prices will rise because given the expected increase in data vs the drop in CVC cost by 2025 the effective CVC price increases by 720% This is correct based on the current projection. He does not however show that these efective increases in CVC could in no way increase plan prices by 3 times or anything remotely close. In fact from the calculations I have made based on the same figures and figures he has failed to put in his posts (those that show CVC is a small portion of cost) the plan price rise for even top end users is below CPI. Those for average user maybe $6-10, for quotas 18 times higher than today.

                  • Mathew
                    Posted 16/05/2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink |

                    > I have made based on the same figures and figures he has failed to put in his posts (those that show CVC is a small portion of cost) the plan price rise for even top end users is below CPI. Those for average user maybe $6-10, for quotas 18 times higher than today.

                    To argue this point, I will take it that you accept NBNCo’s position that 50% of premises will connect at 12/1Mbps.

                    You need to perform some calculations where CVC makes up a larger chunk of the cost. Add 720% to a $30 of CVC.

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 16/05/2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink |

                      I had alread done it in other posts you didn’t answer. I worked it at about 220 for a big 20TB user, whether that is going to be what they would use or they use that now because they can is another question. Plus the question of cross sibsidy of CVC by not all users on a 20TB plan using 20TB. ISP currently make great use of this to offer large quotas for lower prices than they would really be if all the users used their quota.

                    • Alex
                      Posted 16/05/2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink |

                      Mathew, as I asked Jason and never got an answer…

                      In your opinion, which plan, the current NBN or the Oppositions alternative is the better in toto?

                  • djos
                    Posted 16/05/2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink |

                    Mathews posting habits across here, WP clearly show he is a Liberal Party Astro-turfer or at the very least liberal party apologist!

                    Frankly it’s a shame he wont think for himself. :-(

    35. seven_tech
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink |

      This is gonna be a long one guys- I apologise if I get names or purposes mixed up….there’s a LOT of discussion here!

      Firstly- This was a great read on my hour train trip today! I read everything twice to try and make sure I got it all and it took most of my trip. Well done!

      Second- Let’s try keep the emotional outbursts to a minimum. People who comment “so and so is a moron and can never see x while he’s in bed with y”…..really? I’m fairly sure most of us are past pubescent spats. Let’s keep it factual and levelheaded. After all, getting emotional about a subject leads to joining political parties and we all know that the dirty P word is bad for your health :D

      Ok, on we go. Matthew and Jason- I’m glad you appear to be pro-NBN. Can I suggest that starting with “I agree with the NBN in principle, but….” might be a good way to not have a bite taken out of you? You are completely entitled to your opinion, but you’re rolling square stones up a hill in this arena of pro-NBN, so it’s probably better to declare intentions first :)

      Having said that- I see what you’re saying about the CVC. NBN has already changed it once, after backlash from ISP’s. It may change again. However, having said that, you appear to be under the assumption we are always able to predict growth and changes to within a few degrees…..that’s false, particularly in terms of technology and the Internet.

      In 2000, the average data use was 174Mb per month for home users (ABS statistics in case you were wondering). 2008 saw that jump to almost 10Gb. That’s 57 times as much. Yes, Google, YouTube, Facebook, the iPhone, Wi-Fi and many other day-to-day internet usage entities were invented during that time in which saw this explosion……but what makes you think we’ve stopped? NBN has assumptions and predications based in what most experts believe are conservative numbers. What makes you think another Facebook or YouTube type internet revelation won’t drastically increase our use? Hell, look at Instagram, once it’s integrated into Facebook, can you imagine how much data putting all those sepia toned pictures of weet-bix on your newsfeed will take?? And that’s just AMALGAMATION, not invention of a new idea!

      Netflix has allowed unlimited streaming of Movies and TV Shows since January 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix) and now it accounts for A QUARTER of ALL internet traffic in the mainland US. Historically (and often unfortunately sometimes) Australia has followed trends from the US…..why would this be any different? We watch increasing amounts of TV. IPTV is only JUST beginning to make it to mainstream Australians, partly because of the woeful access to content and licensing and partly because of the woeful broadband we have. Once this takes off? I can tell you right now, I’d MUCH rather hire a 1080p HD movie for an extra $1 and stream it direct than have to get in my car in winter where I live and go hire a blu-ray. And that’s just movies. Once TV Shows become available on mainstream IPTV (which is inevitable)…..I wouldn’t be surprised to see the number jumping from 10GB to 1000GB by 2020 or even 2025.

      So what? You may say. I didn’t actually address your main argument of CVC pricing. I agree, there are kinks to be worked out- this is a HUGE undertaking for a single network and there will be ongoing changes. But to say that the current CVC pricing is deciding tomorrows consumer pricing today doesn’t really hold up when you think about it. Yes, NBNCo is working on a model of an overall increase in ARPU and yes, CVC pricing, once you go beyond 12/1 Mbps is higher than on currently available plans. Firstly, to be fair, only a minority (not necessarily small, but definitely a minority) of Australians can actually CURRENTLY access speeds of higher than 12 Mbps, even on ADSL2+. Those that do, are using the same technology as those who access and are happy with, 1.5Mbps. They use the same copper, the same hardware, except for the end-user and the DSLAM port. It is NOT reasonable to assume that when new, better, faster, more reliable hardware is put in, the pricing will maintain the old schedule- it’s new hardware, it has to be paid for and maintained, both of which are more expensive than maintaining the old hardware, which isn’t even up to the task. Those that have access to FTTN or HFC already are paying a premium. Why? Because the company supplying it has higher overhead costs. Same as NBN. The difference is when NBN is the ONLY supplier, there should be fixed costs (once installation is complete) that aren’t necessarily reflected in the CVC pricing. THAT is a discussion to have. But to simply state that the CVC pricing will make it much more expensive for Australians to get broadband- that’s false. If you want your same speed, same data allowance now, for the same price on the NBN, you can have it. How is that more expensive? And going forward, pricing will ALWAYS come down- to what level? That’s NOT only dependant on NBN. Economic factors, new technologies for data handling and all sorts of other factors contribute to consumer prices in broadband dropping. Yes, we may not see price drops like we have over the last 10 years, thanks to most of us being online now. But that’s not NBN’s fault, it would’ve happened in private industry too. We will see price drops, they just may not be as sharp or as steady.

      Oh and by the way Jason, I’d appreciate it being noted I came up with the context Abbott had here about the tiers on the NBN being “up to” 3 times more expensive than current plans- this being factual information. I am pro-NBN and I could see how he could mean this. But the point is the politicking behind this Jason- Abbott stated, in a National reply to the Budget, which many average Australians watch, that he questioned why the need to “spend $50 billion on a National Broadband Network so customers can subsequently spend almost three times their current monthly fee for speeds they might not need?” (by the way IT’S NOT $50 BILLION ABBOTT, IT’S $38 BILLION!!!!!- sorry, but this comment REALLY annoys me)

      READ THIS STATEMENT. When you put it in context to what Abbott has been continually saying for the past 2 years, it is VERY easy to draw the conclusion he is stating the NBN WILL be 3 times more expensive REGARDLESS of your choice about broadband plan( speed or quota)- in other words, to the layman “Hey guys, look, if we build this, you’ll pay 3x as much as you do now!!?”. I’m sorry, but any way you look at this, it is simply false. But he was able to get away with it by being extremely clever in the way he stated it. It is still FUD, just FUD disguised as a lovely chocolate cake.

      Noddy- Briefly:

      1- Satellites- Yes, I can see need for redundancy and quality of service. And yes, even companies such as the one 1% mentioned (can’t think of its’ name right now, but I had a look at their capacity) have spare capacity- but not enough by themselves. This way, we get redundancy in hardware AND capacity. Is it more expensive? yes. Is it necessary….debatable, but I always say, do it right and most expensively first time and you won’t curse later on. We’re in decent economic shape, we can afford the extra couple of mil to do it right.

      2- Batteries- Definitely should’ve be opt-in. But guess why they changed it in the first place? Bad PR and, yep, the dirty P word……*gasp!* politics!

      3- Privitisation- After the Telstra debacle, my personal feeling is, keep it a wholly owned government company. It’s less likely to have major pricing problems, maintenance issues and complaints on the whole. Not perfect, but perfect in comparison to Telstra….

      4- I try to backup arguments wherever possible. Google is my friend. And sites like this for cross-links :) It’s not hard to find backed up evidence and if anyone has an issue with any of mine, please let me know and I’ll look into it. My days at uni taught me that references are a mans best defence in an unwinnable argument.

      Jason- “in 10 years time your chosen ISP would be offering you 100Mbit with even more quota, for the same price, if not lower than you are paying now. The NBN cannot do this.”

      How? Which ISP? Telstra? No. Usually their plans have a premium over other ISP’s. And they could only do it on their HFC or fibre Optus? Only if you’re on their fibre/HFC. Iinet? Internode? Exetel? Westnet? How? Unless Iinet decided to build its own infrastructure, they’ll have to hire ports, as they do now, and do you REALLY think Telstra or Optus AREN’T gonna put a premium on them for their fibre ports as compared to copper ports? No. They’re in business to make money…shock of all shocks :O Any way you look at it, in 10 years there will be a price to be paid for better Internet. NBN or no NBN, it will happen. Initial prices come down, but that doesn’t mean they come down to the same levels as the old system. Sure, I can get Broadband for the same price as I used to get dial-up for……uses the same system being desperately wrung out for its’ last drops of performance.

      Look guys, what I think we keep losing sight of here is the NBN is INFRASTRUCTURE. It is NOT a government subsidy, which is what the Coalitions plan is and subsidies leave the network in the hands of the private companies. Space is a great realm for private companies- let them waste shareholders money and find good ways to go into space….then the governments can do it cheaper for us! :D. An essential service like telecommunications network infrastructure? Not so great. Look a Telstra. Yes, it’s a tired argument, but still valid! All 6 of the houses I’ve been in in the past 10 years have had issues getting broadband. ALL of them. That is not acceptable in the 21st century.

      This infrastructure is preparing this country for a radical shift in the way we do business and live our lives. 20 years ago no one owned a mobile. Now, some people have 3!! (god forbid the day they offer to implant them…) NO ONE predicted that! How can we possibly know what the Internet will allow in 20 years?? THINK! Autonomous, virtual reality robots you can control, real time, to fight your friends in a deathmatch (creepy but cool). Live streaming, in HD, from multiple points of your house to your phone, with autonomous functions from putting dinner on, to changing the cat litter, controlled via thought. Power meters that save us 30% on our electricity controlled via any thing you’ve got on you at the time. The ability to literally store your entire digital life and download it anywhere, anytime, instantaneously to any permitted devices. Photos, movies, notes, your actual windows setup (won’t be a desktop by then) including being able to play games, watch tv or videos and listen to music as if it were your computer.

      These are CONSERVATIVE ideas. This stuff will drastically change our use of the Internet. We will become so encapsulated in computers, there will be areas of life we don’t even register we’re USING a computer. The NBN is preparing Australia for this eventuality- towards the singularity as it were. It sounds like science fiction, it sounds ludicrous- so did 4GB of Ram. Remember Bill Gates “I can’t see ANYONE EVER needing more than 640kb of RAM……KILOBYTES PEOPLE KILOBYTES!!

      Sorry, broke my own rule there, got a bit emotional. The NBN is NOT a way for Australians to get better broadband. It is a way for Australians to lead the world into the beginning of the digital age.

      • Noddy
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink |

        LOL, well done. I hope you don’t suffer too much holding in the emotion over the next year as the same old arguments and drag up over and over. Reading these comments is like aging to become a grumpy old man but all in the course of less than a year.
        Best of luck, sometimes humour helps ;)

      • Simon Reidy
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 9:36 pm | Permalink |

        Epic post! Agree wholeheartedly.

        I’m guessing you’ve read some Ray Kurzweil? (I noticed you made reference to “the singularity” :) )

      • Posted 16/05/2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink |

        Delimiter was hit with Wall of Text.

        Wall of Text does 9999999999 damage.

        • seven_tech
          Posted 16/05/2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink |

          Delimiter is confused…?.. ?…?…..Delimiter shuts down under weight of intellectual discussion……You’ve defeated Delimiter!

          • Posted 16/05/2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink |

            Well, it’s one way to stop me moderating comments. Just post a long enough comment that I can’t be bothered reading it ;)

            • Posted 16/05/2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink |

              Haha you’re a top notch bloke Renai.

      • Early Grayce
        Posted 13/06/2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink |

        I think it is cute that you believe it will take until 2020 for monthly data usage to reach 1TB.
        I already use 300GB without streaming HD content.
        As a side note I can’t wait for the NBN to reach my house in the country so I can save around $50 a month and hopefully get better access to healthcare professionals for my chronic pain. Then hopefully I will no longer have to chose whether I live in the country with no access to healthcare professionals but I can afford to eat or try and live in the city where I can get half arsed specialist support within a few years of requesting it but can’t afford to eat until my appointment.

    36. Mathew
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink |

      > In his budget reply speech last week which was nationally broadcast from Federal Parliament, Abbott questioned the need to “spend $50 billion on a National Broadband Network so customers can subsequently spend almost three times their current monthly fee for speeds they might not need?”

      Does the $50 billion come from including NBNCo’s plans to raise $13.4 billion from external funding? Quoting page 142 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan:

      As a scenario, NBN Co has therefore retained the ability to raise up to $13.4 billion debt without explicit support from the Government.

      Critical to NBN Co’s ability to raise external funding without explicit support by Government will be the opinions of debt providers on the Company’s achievements, roll-out timeliness and connections uptake, which will form the key metrics of credit quality.

      • seven_tech
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink |

        Very neat. But misses the point entirely. Abbott has constantly maintained the NBN will cost the government and “the Australian Taxpayer” $50 Billion, partly because before the NBN was an entity, K. Rudd declared $50 Billion max, probably $42 Billion. But….it won’t. At MOST it will in fact cost $27.8 Billion, total government projected funding (same source you got yours from, look it up). The fact that NBNCo. has the ability to stir up more private funding if it needs to is irrelevant, but actually quite sensible- Tony Abbott is leader of the Opposition, not CEO of NBNCo.

        Yes, it may cost more than the total budget of $37.2 Billion dollars, but the GOVERNMENT won’t pay any more than $27.8 Billion. But that doesn’t matter to Tony. It’s not as headline grabbing or as FUD stirring.

        • Mathew
          Posted 15/05/2012 at 7:44 pm | Permalink |

          > Yes, it may cost more than the total budget of $37.2 Billion dollars, but the GOVERNMENT won’t pay any more than $27.8 Billion. But that doesn’t matter to Tony. It’s not as headline grabbing or as FUD stirring.

          The NBNCo Corporate Plan is based on raising debt from external sources. If NBNCo cannot raise debt from external sources, then it will need to back to the government cap in hand for additional funding. I would question why the project is not entirely funded by the government as I would assume that NBNCo would attract a risk premium higher than the government making interest higher.

          Does the $27.8 billion include the $11+ billion in payment to Telstra and the additional spending on incentives programs?

          • Posted 15/05/2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink |

            Matthew- “As a scenario, NBN Co has therefore retained the ability to raise up to $13.4 billion debt without explicit support from the Government.” Page 142 of the Corporate plan you so often quote.

            This statement quite clearly explains that $13.4 Billion of extra funding, if required, can be obtained WITHOUT having to go “back to the government cap in hand for additional funding” as you put it. They explain that “Critical to NBN Co’s ability to raise external funding without explicit support by Government will be the opinions of debt providers on the Company’s achievements, roll-out timeliness and connections uptake, which will form the key metrics of credit quality.” as I believe you’ve quoted before.

            In other words if, by say the middle of roll-out, things are progressing well, but more funding is required and the markets are shown to be in favour of supporting a heavier debt load for NBNCo., they will seek private funding. Obviously, if private markets are unwilling, the only choice is either can it, or get more government funding. I don’t know about you, but I seriously doubt that, if NBNCo is functioning close to projected outcomes in a few years, that the market would have any problems raising the money for additional equity- it’s a nation building project it won’t (unless the Coalition get trigger happy) be simply allowed to fail. Look at the risk management section of the Corporate Plan, it’s all there and it has been accepted as being reasonable by the industry experts…?

            The whole project is VERY large and, without government support, would not have gotten off the ground. That is the point. It is infrastructure- no private market is willing to provide equity without a decent return, so while NBNCo. is building and therefore providing little return, the government is its’ main support. That is what the business plan is FOR. You are trying to twist the Corporate plan for your own gain. Many people much smarter than you or I have come up with this and many OTHER people as smart or smarter than them in their field have stated, BROADLY with some exceptions) that the Corporate Plan is sound.

            In terms of the $11 Billion Telstra gets; Come-on Matthew, have you read the Financial Heads of Agreement?? The deal is between NBNCo. and Telstra. NOT Telstra and the Government. Therefore, NBNCo. will have factored it into its’ financial requirements. Some of the government funding will be used for Telstra payments no doubt, but that doesn’t change the amount the government will fund NBNCo. with. Try again.

            • Alex
              Posted 15/05/2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink |

              Don’t bother seven_tech…

              Our friend likes to claim to be a fence sitting purveyor of facts, but with each comment is showing himself to be simply another political naysayer on a mission.

    37. Barry of Nambucca
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

      My view is that the opposition does not want the NBN to succeed. With the NBN, there will be much more high quality internet competition for Foxtel. The Murdoch press have been relentless in rubbishing the NBN. Could it be that the current cosy arrangements for pay TV will be overtaken by this new technology? Surely the existing broadcasters are not worried by competition from lower cost internet TV?

      • seven_tech
        Posted 15/05/2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink |

        There are of course many business relationships the Coalition has that could be affecting their policies around the NBN. IMHO however, the Opposition is opposing this….because it has to oppose. If they had thought of the NBN first (which they wouldn’t have, because they thought OPEL was 21st century broadband technology….DON’T get me started on that) they would be pushing it as hard as they could now. But because Labor did and they have no retort-

        “Australia! Look at the WASTED money of your government! *whispers quietly to advisor “it’s actually a really good idea, wish we’d thought of it”* We will strike them down!!!”

    38. observer
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink |

      One thing that seems to escape most is that, no matter what the take up rate is or will be in the near future , it is certain to increase in the long term. Most of the ageing (and generally computer illiterate) population will be gradually replaced by generations which grew up with computers and for whom the benefits of the NBN will be increasingly self-evident.

      This is why it is so important to have a long term, upgradable solution with regards to a national network.

      Political arguments are often exposed with time. This is hardly surprising. The primary task of politics is electioneering, not governing. This is why we get the type of politicians we have.

      • Gav
        Posted 16/05/2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink |

        This is something I’ve wondered about a few times. Namely, when copper is turned off, what are people going to do for a phone line? Not talking about the tech savvy, who’ll have VOIP, mobiles, etc, but the aging population that are computer illiterate, and hence not so fussed about this whole NBN thingy.

        Arent they still going to need a phone line?

        How are they going to get it? To my understanding, this is still going to mean a connection to the NBN, just not as an internet connection as we know it. Might not be a 100 Mbps connection (or it might), and it might not be a 1 Tb limit per month, but its still going to need to go through an exchange somewhere.

        Might not be a large percentage of the population needing such a limited service, but its still going to be a connection.

        With that in mind, I cant see how the take up rate can possibly be lower than the predicted 70%, or whatever the number is.

        • djos
          Posted 16/05/2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink |

          Optus, Telstra et al can all provide a basic phone service over the NBN if they want and im sure they will – you can prolly bet that a phone service will start from $25 and prolly with pretty good call rates similar to current ISP VoIP offerings that will make this service much cheaper for oldies etc than a current land line via Telstra’s PSTN.

          • Gav
            Posted 17/05/2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink |

            Yeah, I get that, but NBNCo charges a certain amount per connection, dont they? Thats the common factor across all NBN connections, so if its too steep then prices will head up for everyone on just a basic phoneline.

            The point was, all NBNCo cares about is the number of connections generating the cash to pay for the NBN. And the little 90 year old granny just wanting a phone line will be a connection.

            If you want to take the idea a step further, every business will also need to connect for the same reason. Even with just a basic phone line, they will be a connection generating turnover. Its just something a lot of people seem to ignore or forget. Connections to NBN will be for more than the internet.

            Matthew goes on about the accounting of the NBN, but I’m willing to bet he didnt think of those connections when preparing his doom and gloom position. 1 million business phone lines is going to be generating a healthy amount of money.

            • seven_tech
              Posted 17/05/2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink |

              I appreciate the sentiment behind the comment Gave, that everyone will have to connect to the NBN therefore it’s a good business plan. It is indeed correct the majority of Australians will be on the NBN by 2025. And each of them will be paying NBNCo via their ISP.

              But Matthew is correct in his statements about CVC. The NBN is not paid just by connection, its prices range depending on BANDWIDTH, that’s what the CVC pricing is based on. Current CVC is a low proportion of our plan cost as it is based on quota, not speed (depending on your provider of course). NBN plans pricing, at the low end of speeds, 12/1 and 25/5 will be contingent on numbers, true, as CVC proportion doesn’t really change at those speeds. But at higher speeds, 50 and 100 not to mention 500 and 1000 when they’re out, the CVC makes up a MUCH larger proportion of you plan cost as ISP’s have to buy bandwidth high enough to provide those speeds.

              There needs to be discussion about whether this is fair or equitable, both for Australians and the ISP’s but its unlikely to happen till after the election as NBN will almost certainly have to modify Ira’s business plan, possibly increasing the time for debt pay back- not what NBNCo needs in terms of politics right now….

    39. Keithy
      Posted 15/05/2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink |

      All silver spooners love the nbn: fact! KEVIN RUDDS LEGACY WILL LIVE FOREVER!!

      • Posted 16/05/2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink |

        Too bloody right it will. Old Ruddy had it right, kickin ass and takin names.

        Shame the other pollies dont like a hardliner, so its difficult to sell him as PM.
        He wasnt afraid to tell the other front benchers that they’ve stuffed it – which while was unpopular, is exactly what these current Generation X / Baby boomer politicians need. Someone to tell them to sit down and shut up.

    40. FlopFlip
      Posted 16/05/2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink |

      This mis-information is everywhere. Now while getting a haircut I have been told the NBN should be canned and the money spent on improving the health system.

      So few people actually understand how the accounting for this whole thing works.

      • Simon Reidy
        Posted 16/05/2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink |

        When it comes to planning Australia’s future broadband infrastructure, you can always rely on your hairdresser to provide the most logical, carefully considered, and up to date information. After all they work with tubes every day (tubes of Gel, but hey, they are nearly the same).

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 16/05/2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

          I prefer to get my news from taxi drivers :-)

          • Gav
            Posted 17/05/2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink |

            Taxi drivers are great for rumors. Feed them the right lie, and they spread the news faster than any other grapevine.

            A number of years ago I spread a rumor that a local footy coach was going to be replaced. Rumor had enough ‘evidence’ to support the conspiracy theory, so the drivers believed it. Next thing I knew it was on the talkback radio stations, and the club (St George Illawarra Dragons btw) were having to defend themselves and actively deny the rumor.

            I’ve rarely had so much fun. Might have helped that I was working right in the middle of their heartland :)

            • Alex
              Posted 09/07/2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink |

              And the icing on the FUD cake…?

              Expert opinion such as Cisco, Google etc are simply dismissed as “vested interest”..

    41. Graeme Lowry
      Posted 18/05/2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink |

      Not much has been made of the failing copper network Telstar owned always prone to ligthing strikes which I understand fiber optics is not as much.I could be wrong but I understand that a lot of other services would be able to come into play on this fiber system not the least phones.Nobody has done any upgrading to the copper network of any advantage for years we definately need this fiber system as in the future in will save mone

      • Djos
        Posted 18/05/2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink |

        Glass doesn’t conduct electricity so generally speaking won’t attract lighting either.

        • seven_tech
          Posted 18/05/2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink |

          Both true. But a large enough strike could physically damage the cable. And of course if it hit near an NTU or a local hub…..KABLOOEY!!

          Still better than copper though…

    42. midspace
      Posted 09/07/2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink |

      “That return is currently projected to be between $1.93 billion to $3.92 billion.”

      Where do these figures come from?
      What exactly does it mean? Net income, obviously, but over what period of time? For the life of the project? Every year whilst in operation? Some explanation please people.

      • Posted 09/07/2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink |

        Hi Midspace.

        These figures come from the NBNCo. Corporate Plan:

        http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/nbn-co-3-year-gbe-corporate-plan-final-17-dec-10.pdf

        Page 134 has a good table breaking it down. It is essentially, at 5.3% ROI, worst case scenario of LOW average ARPU (average revenue per user), thanks to low tier uptake (opposite from initial signs we are seeing now) will return $1.93 Billion to the government by 2035. And at 8.1%, best case scenario, with higher average ARPU thanks to higher tier uptake, will return $3.92 Billion. Note, however, a new Corporate Plan has been released to government, which will likely change this figure. It is likely to actually be revised upward overall, although not significantly. This Corporate Plan has not yet been made public, but should be in the next few months.

        This $1.93-$3.92 Billion is the return, overall, on the entire monies borrowed and funded to NBNCo. by the government (currently $27.5 Billion in total by 2021) over the lifetime of the business plan (35 years)- NOT the total revenue. In other words, if the government put in $27.5 Billion only, they will receive ALL $27.5 Billion back PLUS between $1.92 – $3.92 Billion on top- Hence Return On Investment (ROI). This money will begin to be repaid in around 2021 (when NBNCo. becomes revenue neutral) and should be completely paid off by 2035-2037 as a result of the user pays system behind the NBN (remember ALL Australians who want a fixed line broadband connection will be using the NBN).

        The NET income is much, MUCH higher. On the order of $50 Billion by 2035. That’s total revenue, NOT profit, over that time. The average per year changes as the NBN is built, but by 2023, when it is built and due to be operating at full capacity (all customers migrated to it) it will have a revenue of around $5 Billion a year (see corporate plan table I referenced). Again, this is revenue, not profit. Profit is expected to begin in 2021 (will be pushed back now, because of delays) as you can see in the table under EBT (Earnings before Tax) at $47 Million. It will grow quickly to $2 then $3 and $4 Billion over the next few years. This is the money that is used to pay back the government and any private debt investors.

        All these figures are provided in the Corporate Plan along with the business case derived to get them. None of it is significant;y different from standard practices. As I have said before, the timing will be pushed back slightly now, because of delays outside of NBNCo.’s control, but the money earned will actually probably increase slightly, due to several factors such as a better than expected Telstra deal and higher average speed tier uptake. These remain to be seen however.

        Let us know if you’d like more information.




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content


  • Six smart secrets for nurturing customer relationships
    [ad] Today, we are experiencing a world where behind every app, every device, and every connection, is a customer. Your customers will demand you to be where they and managing customer relationship is the key to your business’s growth. The question is where do you start? Click here to download six free whitepapers to help you connect with your customers in a whole new way.
  • Enterprise IT stories

    • NetSuite in whole of business TurboSmart deal turbosmart

      Business-focused software as a service giant NetSuite has unveiled yet another win with a mid-sized Australian company, revealing a deal with automotive performance products manufacturer Turbosmart that has seen the company deploy a comprehensive suite of NetSuite products across its business.

    • WA Health told: Hire a goddamn CIO already doctor

      A state parliamentary committee has told Western Australia’s Department of Health to end four years of acting appointments and hire a permanent CIO, in the wake of news that the lack of such an executive role in the department contributed directly to the fiasco at the state’s new Fiona Stanley Hospital, much of which has revolved around poorly delivered IT systems.

    • Former whole of Qld Govt CIO Grant resigns petergrant

      High-flying IT executive Peter Grant has left his senior position in the Queensland State Government, a year after the state demoted him from the whole of government chief information officer role he had held for the second time.

    • Hills dumped $18m ERP/CRM rollout for Salesforce.com hills

      According to a blog post published by Salesforce.com today, one of Ted Pretty’s first moves upon taking up managing director role at iconic Australian brand Hills in 2012 was to halt an expensive traditional business software project and call Salesforce.com instead.

    • Dropbox opens Sydney office koalabox

      Cloud computing storage player Dropbox has announced it is opening an office in Sydney, as competition in the local enterprise cloud storage market accelerates.

    • Heartbleed, internal outages: CBA’s horror 24 hours commbankatm

      The Commonwealth Bank’s IT division has suffered something of a nightmare 24 hours, with a catastrophic internal IT outage taking down multiple systems and resulting in physical branches being offline, and the bank separately suffering public opprobrium stemming from contradictory statements it made with respect to potential vulnerabilities stemming from the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug.

    • Android in the enterprise: Three Aussie examples from Samsung androidapple

      Forget iOS and Windows. Today we present three decently sized deployments of Android in the Australian market on Samsung’s hardware, which the Korean vendor has dug up from its archives over the past several years for us after a little prompting :)

    • Businesslink cancelled Office 365 rollout cancelled

      Microsoft has been on a bit of a tear recently in Australia with its cloud-based Office 365 platform, signing up major customers such as the Queensland Government, Qantas, V8 Supercars and rental chain Mr Rental. And it’s not hard to see why, with the platform’s hybrid cloud/traditional deployment model giving customers substantial options. However, as iTNews reported last week, it hasn’t been all plain sailing for Redmond in this arena.

    • Qld Govt inks $26.5m deal for Office 365 walker

      The Queensland State Government yesterday announced it had signed a $26.5 million deal with Microsoft which will gain the state access to Microsoft’s Office 365 software and services platform. However, with the deal not covering operating system licences and not being mandatory for departments and agencies, it remains unclear what its impact will be.

    • Hospital IT booking system ‘putting lives at risk’ doctor

      A new IT booking platform at the Austin Hospital and Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Melbourne is reportedly placing the welfare of patients with serious conditions at risk.

  • Enterprise IT, News - Apr 17, 2014 16:39 - 0 Comments

    NetSuite in whole of business TurboSmart deal

    More In Enterprise IT


    News, Telecommunications - Apr 17, 2014 11:01 - 127 Comments

    Turnbull lies on NBN to Triple J listeners

    More In Telecommunications


    Featured, Industry, News - Apr 17, 2014 9:28 - 1 Comment

    Campaign Monitor takes US$250m from US VC

    More In Industry


    Digital Rights, News - Apr 17, 2014 12:41 - 12 Comments

    Anti-piracy lobbyist enjoys cozy email chats with AGD Secretary

    More In Digital Rights