• Catch issues early, fix them fast – Free trial


    [ad] With GFI Cloud you can easily manage and secure your remote workforce – wherever they are, from wherever you are! The simple IT management platform includes patch management, antivirus, web protection, monitoring and remote control. Get the benefit of endpoint protection with the ease of central management. Start a free trial now.


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


  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 9:59 - 471 Comments

    Coalition will complete NBN objective, says Turnbull


    news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has given what he described as a “solemn undertaking” to the Australian people that a Coalition Government would “complete the job of NBN Co”, instead of ripping up the network or abandoning Labor’s NBN policy altogether.

    When Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull was appointed to the role in September 2010, the ABC reported that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had ordered the Member for Wentworth to “demolish” the NBN. At the time, Abbott said he believed the NBN would “turn out to be a white elephant on a massive scale … school halls on steroids”.

    Despite denials from Turnbull several weeks later that he would seek to “wreck” the project, the comments were seized upon by various figures in the Labor Party. Prime Minister Julia Gillard, has repeatedly claimed that a Coalition government would “rip up the fibre out of the ground” if it won power. In general, many Australians believe that the Coalition remains stalwartly against the NBN on philosophical grounds and would cancel the project if it won government — at a cost, according to the recent Federal Budget, of at least $1.8 billion.

    However, in a radio interview on 2UE last week, Turnbull appeared to forecast a much more continuous approach to the NBN policy as a whole.

    “What we will be able to do and I will give this solemn undertaking to the Australian people: We will be able to complete the job of the NBN Co,” he said. “We are not going to rip it up or tear it up or abandon it. But we will complete the objective, but we will do so in a much more cost-effective way.”

    And, speaking about a Government plan to promote the NBN to school students: “The Government attributes to the NBN all of the benefits of internet access. And what it fails to do is recognise and disclose to school students the central issue in this debate, which is not whether broadband is good or whether internet access is good. But whether this reckless Labor Government is going about it in a responsible way or not. And our argument is, we say yes to high speed broadband, yes to every Australian having access to it, and yes to doing it in a cheaper, faster and more affordable way. And so the real issue is about how you do it, not the objective. And of course, they glossed over all of that because they don’t want anyone to look at their wastefulness.”

    The comments appear to validate a growing industry belief that the Coalition is not planning to abandon the NBN policy or even shut down NBN Co as a going concern, but will instead seek to put its own stamp on the project, conducting a cost/benefit analysis to determine the most cost-effective way to provide high-speed broadband around Australia, and likely settling on a wider mix of technologies than currently included in Labor’s NBN policy — including, for example, a fibre to the node-style rollout in some areas and the upgrade of the HFC cable networks owned by Telstra and Optus.

    Telecommunications industry analyst Paul Budde also believes the Coalition will continue the NBN rollout in some form.

    In separate posts over the past few months, Budde used a speech given by Turnbull to the CommsDay conference in April 2012 as well as other communications made by the Liberal MP to make his argument that the Opposition would retain key features of the NBN.

    “The Coalition’s policy is, as you know focussed on achieving a comparable outcome (ubiquitious very fast broadband) but achieving it sooner in terms of rollout, cheaper in terms of cost to taxpayers, and more affordably in terms of consumers,” said Turnbull in the speech. “All of that follows from taking a pragmatic and technological neutral approach. But above all, at the front of our priorities is reducing risks for taxpayers and risks for consumers.”

    “Very important and very positive was his statement that the Coalition’s aim is to achieve a comparable outcome for the NBN, sooner and cheaper,” said Budde in a post several weeks ago. “This confirms BuddeComm’s earlier claim that some form of a National Broadband Network is here to stay.” And then in April: “There is a lot of chest-beating going on, but in reality the Coalition’s views have been moving closer to the NBN as it is currently being rolled out,” wrote Budde.

    Much of the Coalition’s current focus on the NBN rests on the speed of rollout of the infrastructure.

    “They will have undoubtedly wasted a lot of money but most of the — very little of the NBN will be constructed by the time of the next election,” said Turnbull on 2UE this week. “I mean, let’s face it: At this point they’ve only got 3700 people at most connected to the fibre. You know, this is after four years of talking about it. So there’s only 11 million households to go over the life of the project. It is really — this is proceeding at the pace of an arthritic snail.”

    In addition, Senator Eric Abetz, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, published a statement this week echoing Turnbull’s sentiments on the NBN, following a number of Senate Estimates hearings into the NBN over the past several weeks. Again, the Liberal Senator focused more on the speed and efficiency of the NBN rollout, rather than the fundamental policy underpinnings of the project.

    “Labor’s $50 billion national broadband network continues to miss its own deadlines and not reach the financial targets set out in its business case,” wrote Abetz. “To date the NBN has passed approximately 19,900 premises and claims to have 11,000 “active” connections of which 7,300 are on satellite and approximately 3,700 are on fibre. Worryingly, this means that the connection rate for fibre connections (i.e. those actually paying to use the NBN) is only 18.6 per cent. The connection rate for 100mbps fibre connections is approximately 9 per cent. Average revenue per user was $29.55 compared with $37 in the NBN‟s 2010 corporate plan.”

    “In Tasmania, touted by the Government to the rest of the nation as an example of the NBN’s benefits, only ten customers a month were signed up in the first three months of this year. Estimates also revealed that 55 NBN staff travelled overseas this financial year despite the fact that NBN has no international operations. Someone should teach them how to use Skype. And amazingly, on average each NBN employee has spent more than $800 on taxi and train fares so far this financial year.”

    opinion/analysis
    It is fascinating to see how the Coalition’s approach to the NBN has changed radically over the past several years as Malcolm Turnbull’s understanding and maturity in the portfolio has continually grown. I think it is a tribute to the quality of the NBN debate in Australia that we appear to now have come to a point where most sides of politics agree on the fundamental policy underpinnings of much of the policy, with appropriate differences higher up the stack. It would be fascinating to see precisely how the Coalition would (will?) approach the issue in practice if it took Government. I suspect much of NBN Co as an entity and the NBN as a policy would now survive — which is not something I would have said even a year ago.

    Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

    submit to reddit

    471 Comments

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

    1. Murdoch
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:32 am | Permalink |

      What exactly does Turnbull mean by “objective”? Even though it’s encouraging to see him psuedo supporting the current NBN, he’s very ambiguous with his language.

      “Objective” could mean anything from keeping current infrastructure in place, while they figure out exactly what to do with the rest, however, this is something they’ve already said.

      I don’t know how that sort of strategy is meant to help the Australian public. While those on the NBN enjoy ubiquitous connectivity, the rest of Australia are stuck on the same ole same ole. And Turnbull’s got the hide to complain about it being rolled out at the “pace of an arthritic snail”, when his idea is to hold “an” NBN up even more while performing CBA’s and Telstra renegotiations. I don’t get it.

      • Avid Gamer
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink |

        While those on the NBN enjoy ubiquitous connectivity, the rest of Australia are stuck on the same ole same ole.

        That’s how i read it and nothing has changed. The Libs are still going to give the vast majority of Australians a BIT of FTTN here, wireless for rural/regional areas, HFC will remain as is.

        My area is scheduled for FTTP in March 2014 and if Turnbull is true to his word I will be getting the “good oil” Even my local Federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsay has told me personally over the phone (about a month ago) that NBN build contracts will be honoured.

        But the rest of Australia (not in the first 3 year build plan) is what concerns me and with a bit here, a bit there, a bit over yonder and a bit up there approach is not going to give Australians everywhere very fast ubiquitous broadband. And up to 12mbit is NOT very fast which is what the vast majority of regional/rural people will be getting under a Liberal broadband policy.

        It is REALLY such a god dammed shame that when the Liberals under John Howard sold Telstra without separating it’s retail/wholesale infrastructure divisions, it’s now going to make an even BIGGER mistake (all because of political ideology, nothing more nothing less) and STUFF UP big time AGAIN with their broadband approach if they get in (most probably will),in late 2013.

        Ar well, I guess I’ll only be using my NBN FTTP 100mbit connection for downloading Pr0n/TV shows etc (thanks Turnbull/Abbott) because if only a good minority of Australians are on Labor’s NBN but the vast majority of others are on Liberal’s NBN (whatever, luck of the draw, where you live) connection it will be no good for anything else.

        I hate politics, meanwhile back at the ranch other countries around the world are all going FTTP and skipping the FTTN stage. Even NZ has woken up and realized their FTTN mistake and is now going FTTP. Australia is going to fall further behind in many parts of the world especially in the Asia/Pacific region. Mark my words Turnbull, this will all fall on your head/heads (Abbott included) in the years to come. What a golden opportunity lost, it’s that simple.

        PS Renai

        I think it is a tribute to the quality of the NBN debate

        Nothing much has changed in my view, it has to be Labor’s NBN for it to work period. The Liberal’s “NBN” (as in not really a National Broadband Network upgrade) whatever that will be (probably won’t know the details till a few weeks before the next election date) won’t improve Australia’s situation/competitiveness in the Asia/Pacific region.

        A leopard or Zebra never changes it’s spots, it just camouflages/disguises them to make you think you are getting the good oil but in reality only get cheap Woolies/Coles branded oil

        As SOL once said “Oils ain’t Oils Sol”

    2. Glenn
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink |

      They argued for 10 years over the privatization of Telstra, now they seem to agree that the NBN (the new telstra) should be completed.

      How many years till they start arguing about how to privatize it.

      Maybe we get a few years of peace…

      • socrates
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink |

        Sadly, Glenn, they haven’t agreed to complete NBN at all.

        All that Malcolm Turnbull has said is some feel-good waffle about ‘completing the objective’, which sounds exactly one of those political phrases that can be said to mean whatever you want it to mean.

        At the moment there is only one NBN. Unless they are fully specified, any references to such things as ‘very highspeed broadband’ must be regarded as referring to some other (so far unspecified) proposal.

        • Tom
          Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink |

          “one of those political phrases that can be said to mean whatever you want it to mean” … You mean like “ending the blame game”, “moving forward”, “there will be no carbon tax”?

          • Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink |

            @Tom

            You mean like “Carbon Tax- A great big tax on everything”……oh wait, where did I hear that before…..

            …..*cough*KimBeazley*cough*….GST*cough*…

            Yeah, look how that turned out….

            • Tom
              Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:19 pm | Permalink |

              “Yeah, look how that turned out” ? … err, … you’ve got me, Tiger? … how did it turn out?
              BTW: GST was aka Option C.

              • Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink |

                “? … err, … you’ve got me, Tiger? … how did it turn out?
                BTW: GST was aka Option C.”

                Tiger?….I’ll tell you, bucko, it turns out, the Coalition fling around “A great big tax on everything” about the carbon tax now, as did Labor during the GST…..and go out and ask ANY business if they’d rather swap back to the old way of lodging taxes now…..

                So what does that say about the likelihood of the carbon tax being another GST, if the same slogan is being used…..

                Please, stop with party rhetoric and think for yourself for a change

                • Tom
                  Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:54 pm | Permalink |

                  1. The coalition went to an election promising that if elected they would introduce a GST. (facts not party rhetoric)
                  2. Labor went to an election promising “there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”. (facts not party rhetoric)
                  3. GST was a replacement tax for a myriad of other state taxes (facts not party rhetoric).

                  A. Please, stop with Labor party rhetoric and think for yourself for a change.
                  B. Try to keep up with the NBN issues, if that is not asking too much.

                  • Posted 29/06/2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink |

                    “2. Labor went to an election promising “there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”. (facts not party rhetoric)”

                    As far as I recall, a certain member of the Opposition, namely its’ leader, seemed to say he didn’t believe climate change OR that Australia needed to do something about it…..see “Direct Action”

                    “A. Please, stop with Labor party rhetoric and think for yourself for a change.
                    B. Try to keep up with the NBN issues, if that is not asking too much.”

                    I don’t vote Labor as a matter of course. 3 elections, 1 vote Coalition, 1 vote Greens, this election Labor. Last 2 because of the NBN and Carbon Tax. NOT because I like them. JG is an idiot AND should never have BS’d Kevin, but at least she is a decent leader, not a head kicker.

                    And I was only following your line of “You mean like “ending the blame game”, “moving forward”, “there will be no carbon tax”?”- You were the one who got off topic.

                    • Tom
                      Posted 29/06/2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink |

                      “You were the one who got off topic.” Too true.

                      In a comment below, I dealt with the limitations on Turnbull in being specific about NBN. In reality, Turnbull could not possibly know what he is going to inherit.

                      Most sources agree that just 110 ‘new developments’ were activated with high speed broadband by close of 2011. Yet NBN got its genesis from Rudd’s promise in 2007. Five years of Kevin’s brave new world for 110 activations (and you reckon Telstra did nothing?). To be fair, there are a lot of premises and brownfields that could convert to active sites by then.

                      It would be stupid for Turnbull to lock in to throwing out the good parts of NBN particularly given the pain they have already caused to the taxpayer. Trust me, Turnbull has his faults, but he is not stupid.

                      I do note that, on this site, there are far more people towing Labor party line. It is something for you to consider before you make statements about LNP party line. IMO, this whole site is riddled with Labor groupthink. I hope that in future you would welcome diversity of opinion rather than see it as a threat.

                      • Posted 29/06/2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink |

                        ” I hope that in future you would welcome diversity of opinion rather than see it as a threat.”

                        I have no issue whatsoever to diversity of opinions. People are free to disagree with the NBN. I will try and convince them otherwise, but they are still free to regardless. What I object to is the absolutely DISGUSTING false reporting on the NBN from, particularly, The Australia, The Daily Telegraph and now, sadly it appears, the AFR. The Press Coucil has PUBLICLY lambasted both The Australian AND the Daily Telegraph and BOTH have had to issue numerous retractions, all in the goal to FUD the NBN.

                        I ALSO object to misleading statements about the NBN by MANY Coalition members, such as Abbott, Turnbull, Hockey and Fletcher. They have made many MANY of these over the last 2 years. And they have changed course, overall on the NBN multiple times.

                        If you have some evidence that we should, prudently, not continue building the NBN, I’d like to hear it. I am willing to listen, if not insulted, to any points of view. But do not expect me to simply accept assumptions or numbers without evidence. I have any entire blog based on factual evidence of why we should have the NBN if you are interested. It deals with the NBN, NOT Labor. I don’t care WHO builds the NBN. I couldn’t care LESS if it were done by the Coalition, but they will NOT build a FTTP NBN to 93% (which I believe should be even higher). And THAT and their misleading statements is my problem with the Coalition on the NBN. The Carbon Tax is a separate deal and that’s more about my fundamentals.

                        The Greenfields issue is complex and it is NOT a result of the 2007 election. It is NOT NBNCo.’s fault. And it IS ridiculous that it has taken this long to finally work out.

                        “It would be stupid for Turnbull to lock in to throwing out the good parts of NBN particularly given the pain they have already caused to the taxpayer. Trust me, Turnbull has his faults, but he is not stupid.”

                        You’re certainly correct, he is FAR from stupid. He is, in fact, probably one of the most knowledgable and eloquent politicians on the issue of Broadband in general….but Tony is holding him back. He should NEVER have been rolled as leader. THAT much I won’t be convinced otherwise. Tony is a good backbencher and head basher….but he knows NOTHING about leading and more importantly, NOTHING whatsoever about broadband….yet he STILL insists on hoeing into the debate….

                        I WANT Turnbull to come back and SHOW us a better way to do the NBN. The problem is, with it nearly a a fifth done by the time we get to the elections…..wehre else can he go? It’s got no obvious start and stop point, because it is being designed to be rolled out to everyone. He needs to explain the transition, if there will be one, to the Coalition building the NBN. And what to do about the problem of 1 town having fibre and the next one over getting MAYBE FTTN or even wireless, when it would’ve gotten fibre under Labor.

                        There are many, MANY questions about the Coalition plan and I’m sorry, but I’m not going to believe a word they’re saying until we HAVE some details. Buzzwords do not a policy make.

                      • Abel Adamski
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink |

                        It is not a matter of groupthink, rather obsessive ideology. The pro NBN are actually politically neutral as a whole. All we care about is what is best for the Nation which will result in a massive economic boost.
                        The term ubiquitous is now being debased to a minimal standard with many different interfaces and wildy variable capabilities. A nightmare for the isp’s.

                        Take Note of what has been most recently stated.

                        http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/we-will-not-cancel-the-nbn-turnbull-20120629-217f3.html

                        “No, the Coalition will not cancel or roll back the NBN. The NBN will continue to roll out but we will do so in a cost-effective manner in particular in built-up areas.”

                        Now read carefully

                        “The Coalition’s aim is not to cancel contracts but rather, renegotiate existing contracts where possible to accommodate different architectures and lower the capital cost of the network and hence, the end cost to consumers,” Mr Turnbull said.”

                        So if FTTH has not been installed, it will be changed to FTTN.

                        “Mr Turnbull had told the communications industry in April the Coalition’s policy was to achieve “a comparable outcome – a ubiquitous very fast broadband network, but sooner in terms of rollout, cheaper and more affordably to consumers. But had not yet committed to keeping whatever infrastructure and contracted installations it could potentially inherit.”

                        “Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde says the Coalition now accepts the NBN is necessary but differs in its funding model. Mr Turnbull believes the private sector, not the Government, should finance the project.”

                        Translated as cheap and nasty as possible by the private sector losing many of the essential benefits of the NBN, but now with higher funding cost that the Private sector will need to recoup over 5 years max and achieve a 20% profit. Add in the stated objective of infrastructure competition and mandated wholesaling, only achievable with massive taxpayer subsidies and removal of regulation

                        “He told IT Pro “a range of architectures” would include fibre-to-the-premises for homes and businesses in greenfield areas; fibre-to-the-node where possible and HFC. HFC, or hybrid fibre coaxial, is used for networks that employ both fibre optic and copper cables, usually to deliver cable television. Fibre optics are used for the backbone up to nodes, then copper cables from the nodes to the premises.”

                        Note, used for cable TV, that is what all this fuss is over. The Libs obeying their master Rupert and ensuring expansion of his cable TV network (Foxtel and Sky) at the taxpayers expense. Note The Telstra Bris south and Velocity networks are just reselling the Telstra product, so no real competition and competitors to the Murdich TV and Vidoe or Telstra TV offering are not permitted. The HFC Nodes will need to be tripled which means more fibre feeders, so basically replaced.

                        More and moer people are wising up to the disatrous long term reality of the coalition model

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 10:58 pm | Permalink |

                        Thanks Abel.

                        1. If Ruper was planning an assault through the internet (he probably is) wouldn’t he prefer the wall to wall FTTH solution? It would probably suit his Foxtel thing. I would have thought he was pretty keen on a new pipeline.
                        2. Is TV the only benefit?
                        3. I hear all these “think of the children” slogans but in my limited imagination, I just cannot see how a 10 times faster broadband will alter peoples’ quality of life in the next 10 years at least?
                        Thinking:
                        A. Schools have a hard enough time getting results when things are face to face and interactive.
                        B. Banking, Ebay blah, blah certainly don’t need faster speeds.
                        C. The technology is there for doctors to do on-line consultation. It is software and regulatory regimes that lag. A good example is sleep therapy where data can easily be collected and transmitted, but today’s bandwidths are adequate.
                        D. Games, sorry, ICB. That has nothing to do with a national infrastructure.
                        E. Porn (as with games).
                        F. Industry? Not sure. Remote spray painting?

                        Technical superiority of solutions appear to present only one facet of the equation. The analogy is that not everyone needs a Lear Jet. The greater population get by on a Holden Barina. The commitment of the public’s funds is another and the actual benefit to Australians is still up there. So far all I have heard is the Kevin Costner Field of Dreams cliche “Build it and they will come”. Leaps of faith are fine but …

                        Turnbull’s catch line is “we are gambling with public funds”. I still have a problem with the people painting Turnbull as an “luddite” or an antichrist. I know that you state that you want the best for Australians, but maybe Turnbull thinks that is what he wants and it is not all political?

                        My doubts / ideas are heretical in an organisation dedicated to the best technical solution. However, I remember the VHS vs Betamax battle where the technically superior solution lost out. That battle now seems silly with DVD, High Def, Bluray out today. Who is to say that our scientific communications universe is settled with our existing knowledge?

                        Apologies for the ramble.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink |

                        Seems to be more a VHS vs Bluray battle. FTTN is yesterdays technology and to roll it out in 2014 is a little late. Those that have rolled out FTTN have done so starting years ago and are now rolling out FTTH and upgrading FTTN to FTTH. Should we go VHS because we have some old tapes laying about?

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink |

                        Noddy, today’s argument of FTTN vs FTTH will probably be viewed as quaint in the future. as is yesterday’s VHS vs Beta argument.

                        Tomorrow’s paradigm might see today’s technical cutting edge as obsolete and technical comparisons irrelevant. Hope this explains the point I am making.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink |

                        Tomorrow’s technology is not available unfortunately. What is available is FTTN and FTTH. FTTN has a limited future, it is not now, nor is it ever likely to offer gigabit plus speeds. FTTH can, it can eventually offer terabit speeds. It has massive bandwidth capabilities that nearly all wireless technologies can be applied to that would give it even more bandwidth. They haven’t really bothered with that yet as natively it has more capacity than we could practicly use today. In IT, and I am not just talking the famous blunders such as 640K being more than enough, etc, the one thing that happens over and over is underestimation of future requirements. I don’t think there has ever been a case of someone saying that something is overkill for any possible scenario and being right.

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:49 pm | Permalink |

                        I don’t think Abel will mind me answering. He and I agree on very much the sane things, so firstly:

                        ‘ 1. If Ruper was planning an assault through the internet (he probably is) wouldn’t he prefer the wall to wall FTTH solution? It would probably suit his Foxtel thing. I would have thought he was pretty keen on a new pipeline.’

                        2 things on this:

                        1- Ruperts business thrives on HIM or his lackeys being able to control information and its sources. Newspapers of his often reflect his or his political view. There is nothing really to prevent people reading that newspaper and assuming it is correct. But, moving newspapers online, brings a WHOLE new dynamic because as soon as someone reads a story, the can instantly verify if it is correct or not by simply doing a Google search….spell broken. The internet removes his lovely control over all the readers information.

                        2- While, in theory, the NBN provides a better conduit for more PayTV, it also more importantly provides an EQUALLY cheaper way for Video On Demand and IPTV to compete. They can’t currently compete with PayTV due to bandwidth restrictions on copper networks. PayTV, once again, controls information. The NBN allows ANYONE an easy conduit to provide similar TV services for MUCH lower prices, thereby also collapsing PayTV profits.

                        ‘ A. Schools have a hard enough time getting results when things are face to face and interactive.’

                        What about remote schools? What about children who are sick or bed ridden with illness but still want to join in. What about connecting the school to ANY place on earth (or even above it) in HD for a FULLY immersive discussion/lesson from world class experts without leaving the school? What about being able to provide every child with fast access to the internet for new and developing online tools that can help teachers, particularly with disabled or handicapped learning?

                        It’s not as narrow as you say.

                        ‘ B. Banking, Ebay blah, blah certainly don’t need faster speeds.’

                        What about the hundreds of thousands who DON’T have current access to the net and may not under FTTN (see various blogs including my own for the explanation). That is lost revenue for business with online retail growing 40% last year. And lost opportunity for those people to save money. No, current banking, shopping, browsing DOESNT need massive boosts in speed….but would you use dial-up today? It would be AGONISING with today’s media rich web and its only going to get more so, which requires more bandwidth….
                        It will also breed entire New ecosystems that are fully interactive, so people in shops can have access instantly, in store, to what the were looking at at home.

                        Again, not as narrow as you say

                        ‘ C. The technology is there for doctors to do on-line consultation. It is software and regulatory regimes that lag. A good example is sleep therapy where data can easily be collected and transmitted, but today’s bandwidths are adequate.’

                        Yes, it is there. But without the NBN at BOTH ends, it becomes an exercise in futility trying to online consulte with you doctor. See 4 corners from April last year about chronically ill woman who couldn’t see her xrays when her doctor showed online cause her connection clapped out. And FORGET elderly consultations. Without the NBN the bandwidth restrictions means using all sorts of 3rd party programs to ensure ANY form of video connection in regional areas, meaning connecting is HIDEOUSLY complicated. With the NBN, software is being developed where all they do is hit one button and the remote connection to the doctor takes care of the rest. HD video is needed for fully immersive consults and ONLY fast connections, WITH HIGH UPLOADS at both ends allows this. FTTN does NOT allow high uploads.

                        Again, not as narrow as you say.

                        ‘ D. Games, sorry, ICB. That has nothing to do with a national infrastructure.’

                        Gaming in Australia is a multi BILLION dollar industry. It is VITAL for tens of thousands of gaming shop employees, IT professionals, game developers, website builders and so on. Games are HUGE business. They are NOT just some flippant play thing. AND, if people are prepared to pay for the higher connection for gaming (thus increasing revenue to NBNCo. and paying debt back faster) I’m sorry, but who are you to say that’s not important to them? Just because it isn’t important to you, doesn’t mean to millions of gamers in Australia it isn’t.

                        Again, not as narrow as you say.

                        ‘ F. Industry? Not sure. Remote spray painting?’

                        Hmm, let’s see:

                        Mining, retail, tourism, online sales, ticket sales, music, tv, movies….would you like some more. ALL these ‘industries’ will see benefits from ubiquitous broadband. And THAT’S the key, ubiquitous. Fast broadband is great. But many people have it. It’s the ubiquity of it that REALLY adds to productivity, because it FOCUSSES markets on online services. Government are likely to see HUGE cost savings moving a lot of their interaction with the public online. But that can ONLY be done if EVERYONE has decent access. Hell, ABS have already stated they’re gonna save $100 million out of $500 million next census by doing it predominantly online.

                        Open your eyes Tom. These things are not pipe dreams. They’re tangible benefits that ONLY a ubiquitous network can bring.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink |

                        Seven, “ubiquitous” use is not a justification for over-engineering.

                        Banking, you use dial up as an example? Why dial up? We already have copper ADSL, wireless, even satellites as a tool to make it ubiquitous.

                        I believe my imagination is on par with most. However, feel free to supplement my perceived shortfall with a host of solutions that would only work with blinding broadband speeds. You must have lots.

                      • Abel Adamski
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 1:01 am | Permalink |

                        Tom
                        You question my reference to Murdochs and Telstra’s media interests. Content is King.
                        Check out Telstra’s HFC and FTTP and FTTN offerings. What services are available whether via Telstra or a reseller. HFC is designed FOR TV, part of it’s bandwidth is dedicated to Foxtel and Sky. B/B gets the rest. NBN FTTH places ALL media content providers on a level playing field unlike HFC.which removes choice for the customer
                        .
                        Gaming
                        Do some research, the revenues dwarf Hollywood and in fact are greater than the movie industry. Opportunities for Local developers and providers in an extremely lucrative industry

                      • Posted 01/07/2012 at 2:53 am | Permalink |

                        @Tom

                        “Banking, you use dial up as an example? Why dial up? We already have copper ADSL, wireless, even satellites as a tool to make it ubiquitous.”

                        Yes, I do, because THAT is the sort of shift we are talking here. Dial-up to ADSL, or, in this case, ADSL to the NBN. Ubiquitous- Present, appearing, found everywhere….NOT a word that applies to ANY of those technologies. No, NOT even dial-up. And we have NO guarantees that will change under the Coalition plan yet.

                        More importantly, no SINGLE service is ubiquitous and THAT was my point. NOT ubiquitous ACCESS to the internet. 99% of people would have that via their phone or someone else’s unless they are a hermit. But ubiquitous access to a DECENT LEVEL of GUARANTEED and reliable internet service. THAT is what the NBN promises. The Coalition plan, especially using FTTN, doesn’t, because it relies on the copper. And the copper is ALREADY unreliable. How do you think it’ll go when we try to turbo charge it?

                        “Seven, “ubiquitous” use is not a justification for over-engineering.”

                        You have conceded FTTP is the better option technically. You have stated technology is not static and will drastically change. And yet, you call building for what we need in the future OVER-engineering?? Tell me, when you build a computer, do you put in the exact amount of RAM you need now? Or do you double it, even though it costs twice as much, so that you can get maybe 4 years out of it instead of 2? Would you call that over-engineering? Would you call a safety factor of 6, what they used on the Brooklyn Birdge, over-engineering seeing as some 150 000 cars cross it daily?? And seeing as when they built it, the steam car was only JUST being invented??

                        When Telstra runs new backhaul or any high bandwidth systems now for hospitals, schools etc., they DON’T use copper. Why? Because along in the 70′s, came this marvellous, hideously expensive at the time, thing called optic fibre, which has been PROVEN to be superior to copper in everyway, especially bandwidth wise. Soon enough, CONSUMERS will need this bandwidth. It is a matter of time, not opinion. WHY, when current Telco’s are beginning to realise FTTH SHOULD have been run in the first place (http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/) to save money and maximise returns, are you advocating a system that would see us turn to FTTN, when everyone INCLUDING our closest neighbour NZ are turning away from (http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/why-not-fttn/) because it is not ECONOMICALLY prudent?? And THIS is the plan the Coalition, the supposedly economic A students of the political parties, are choosing???

                        I’m sorry Tom but the point making about FTTN is FULL of contradictions depending on what the Coalition need to make appear more appetising to the voter- “It will cost less”….well yes, it will, because it’s LITERALLY doing less than half the job now (and in fact ADDING work to bypass nodes later). “Oh well, it’s faster to build”….well, yes, because see above point. Oh, and as Abel has already stated, it MAY take less time to build the NETWORK than the NBN….but NOT when the NBN is 1/3 of the way through and contracts are already signed. THIS is the grossly misleading part. Political spin at its’ best. “Oh, well, it will give Australians the speeds they need now”….well, yes, it will, to SOME of them (unknown)….but what about in 10 years time? Because FTTN CAN’T provide these speeds (ie. above 100Mbps more than 700m from the node). Not because of the ACTUAL FTTN part, that part is fine, it’s fibre, but because of the COPPER.

                        “I believe my imagination is on par with most. However, feel free to supplement my perceived shortfall with a host of solutions that would only work with blinding broadband speeds. You must have lots.”

                        I have GIVEN you applications for high speed broadband AND ubiquitous high-speed broadband. If you choose to ignore them or believe them falacy, I can’t actually do anything to stop that. I have more. Look at my blog, if you can manage to make yourself read positive things about the NBN without stopping when you don’t agree. Look at nbnmyths.wordress. Or nbnexplained.org. The applications exist.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink |

                        “You have *conceded* FTTP is the better option technically.” … There is a strawman in there.

                        I was not questioning technical superiority, I was discussing the balance between the patch work of community needs being fitted with the most cost effective solution.

                        Seven_tech, I sense exasperation at my last question. I am sure you have considered these applications (and their bandwidth and speed requirements). But are you saying you want me to hunt through dozens of lengthy blogs to find them?

                        I genuinely have not seen such an analysis anywhere.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink |

                        Seven_tech, … “Tell me, when you build a computer, do you put in the exact amount of RAM you need now? Or do you double it, even though it costs twice as much, so that you can get maybe 4 years out of it instead of 2?” Not sure that my choices can be superimposed on the country’s choice of broadband options.

                        I personally go for the 2-3 year thing. I also go for mature tech after its “novelty hotrod” status and price / performance ratio is back to planet earth. By that time RAM is so dirt cheap, I max it for the O/S.

                        I now use an i7 and an i5 laptop, but only because I can afford bigger toys nowadays.

                        The last time I actually *built* was an old AMD 4800. It was well off the pace but went OK for three years.

                        The next one was an intel E5400 which I overclocked to about 3.2 ghz. Following a mouse plague about 2 years later, a stench started emanating from it. I found the decomposing mouse and disposed of it, however the stench remained and a grateful relative took it off my hands. It is still doing fine.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink |

                        “I personally go for the 2-3 year thing. I also go for mature tech after its “novelty hotrod” status and price / performance ratio is back to planet earth. By that time RAM is so dirt cheap, I max it for the O/S.”

                        Yes, I personally do the same. But what I don’t do is buy a machine that cannot be upgraded. One that in a year or so when I need more RAM I have to buy a new one.

                        For example, my last new machine was a i7 920 (2.4Mhz) with 6GB of RAM. I bought the lowest end of the new architecture, not the highest of the previous Core 2 architecture. Now that the CPU and RAM prices have come way down I grabbed an i7 980 6 core, I needed more RAM, looking at the prices I got an extra 12GB. 18GB is overkill but the difference between it and buying 6G was negligible. I needed more and faster storage, SSD is still too expensive, I went hybrid, SSD caching.
                        It’s a good thing I didn’t buy a machine that was at it’s limits a few years ago. I could have saved a few bucks then, but lost money in the long term.

                        This is where I see FTTN, a technology at the end of it’s upgrade path. Where as fibre, they haven’t barely begun to exploit it’s capabilites. Why aren’t they using QAM to squeeze the most out of it? They can apply all the wireless technologies to it. Because, like the machine that good for what we need now they don’t need to. All those expensive bandwidth increasing technologies can always be applied down the track.

        • Tom
          Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink |

          Chances are that, when the LNP takes office after the next election, there could be so much money spent on NBN (both good and wasted) that there will be a certain amount of lock in. (a la GST)

          One has only to look at the second report on the roll out to know that the NBN roll out is already a long way behind. Turnbull would be stupid to predict how much roll out may (or may not) have occurred by the time LNP gets in. He is not going to tear up your precious optical fibre.

          BTW: Kevin 07 did not have a broadband plan going into 2007 election. A couple of snappy geeky slogans, but no plan. NBN did not exist in anyone’s mind at that point. Funny how you all want specifics from Turnbull yet Kevin 07 gets a free ride back then? But hey, boys, you’re not partisan are you?

          • Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink |

            “One has only to look at the second report on the roll out to know that the NBN roll out is already a long way behind. Turnbull would be stupid to predict how much roll out may (or may not) have occurred by the time LNP gets in.”

            The reasons for the delays are as follows, although if you read outside of Coalition FUD, you would know these:

            1- The Telstra agreement taking an extra 8 months. This SEVERELY restricted where NBNCo. could rollout until full contract for leasing exchanges and ducts had been finished- Fault- NOT NBNCo.

            2- USO agreement for Greenfields- The changes in government policy meant that NBNCo. HAS to now rollout greenfield FTTP for any estate larger than 100 premises. The change in legislation lead to a backlog that is now being dealt with. Fault- NOT NBNCo.

            3- Incorrect address information from a public and industry database…..1/3 of which is WRONG. Meaning NBNCo. contractors now have to walk the streets, literally, to confirm physical addresses- Fault- NOT NBNCo.

            4- Tender process was suspended because ALL tenders were too expensive, primarily because of incorrect guidelines. Fault- NBNCo.

            So 3/4 delay mechanisms have NOT been in NBNCo.’s control. The final one was a matter of either time or money. They could suspend the tender process and restart and waste a few months, or give out tenders for FAR too much outlay because of lazy tendering. They chose the financially prudent route.

            “He is not going to tear up your precious optical fibre.”

            Funny, while Abbott hasn’t said it in a while, he STILL hasn’t reneged on his promise to “destroy the NBN”…Turnbull is just too smart for him…

            “BTW: Kevin 07 did not have a broadband plan going into 2007 election. A couple of snappy geeky slogans, but no plan. NBN did not exist in anyone’s mind at that point. Funny how you all want specifics from Turnbull yet Kevin 07 gets a free ride back then? But hey, boys, you’re not partisan are you?”

            Please refer to….oh, I don’t know….ANY Delimiter story on the history of the NBN. Kevin DID have an NBN plan in 2007- It was the FTTN….which, when he was told that the government outlay of $5 Billion would have to be added to the $15-20 BILLION paid to Telstra to cut up their copper network on an FTTN (because THAT’s what you have to do for an FTTN to work, as it requires access to the CAN) he, quite rightly said to Telstra- “Go F%&k yourself Trujillo” and came up with NBN MkII of FTTP.

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-11/20b-feud-with-telstra-drove-nbns-birth/2621826

            YOU partisan much??

            What a load of rubbish.

            • Tom
              Posted 29/06/2012 at 10:53 pm | Permalink |

              What can I say? History shows that Sol was intransigent. And Conroy is not a blunt object with limitations that are obvious to all but himself?

              However it remains, Kevin 07 promised something to the electorate and did not deliver. Rudd picked Conroy knowing he was a bovver boy. Rudd knew the lie of the land. Rudd knew Sol was there. Rudd knew of the hostility FTTN comprised to Telstra.

              Sol had every responsibility to protect Mums and Dad shareholders. Sol was NOT the sole cause of FTTNs failures. They waded in with a hostile attitude (a la Microsoft) but without the necessary acumen to pull it off. The AGs gave a lengthy report that confirmed that Kevin’s FTTN had stuffed up.

              In the end Telstra got what they wanted.

              Sorry seven_tech, the buck stops with Kevin and Conroy. Stop making excuses for Labor. They did not deliver their 2007 promise.

              • Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink |

                I have no compulsion to defend Labor whatsoever. Except where they are being attacked on the NBN, because I DO defend the NBN.

                Sol was certainly not the only reason Telstra failed in its’ FTTN bid, but he was CEO at the time and as CEO he bears ultimate responsibility. They WERE going after the government at the time like an angry wolfhound and I’m sorry but that is not the way for ANY business, no matter HOW powerful, to deal with its’ sovereign government. Sol got the attitude wrong and IMO, as a Telstra shareholder, SHOULD have accepted responsibility and corrected it. Instead he chose to call us racist and backwards, because we WEREN’T all about just profit, like his Mexican Telco, actually wanting PROGRESS in the market, and then he left in a huff.

                You are right, Labor did not deliver on their broadband promise in 2007. I was not defending that, just giving back story as to WHY they didn’t continue. It was not a simple matter of ‘nah, can’t be bothered’ as is often the case with broken political promises. But, instead of giving up, they formulated a NEW and arguably much BETTER, if considerably more expensive plan that IS, RIGHT NOW delivering their promise. It’s taken longer than they’d hoped, is costing alot more, but, will DELIVER a lot more to many more people for MANY years to come. THAT is what helped them gain power in the 2010 election, when, after a balls up like backstabbing Rudd should’ve had them in the political doghouse, not ending up in a hung parliament where the NBN played a MAJOR part in convincing independents to side with Labor.

                At least Rudd was a leader. An arrogant, stubborn, erratic and sometimes very odd one, but he’s STILL better than Julia and Tony combined. Oh and no, I didn’t vote for him . I voted for Howard. But I can see now it was the end of Howard’s time and that Rudd had some excellent ideas. His bloody party just self-imploded, as usual at the worst possible time for him. Meanwhile the Coalition STILL haven’t learnt how important a policy broadband is and THAT is why I don’t see their ‘alternative’ as viable.

                I do not like and defend the NBN BECAUSE of Labor. Rather, if anything, in SPITE of Labor.

                To Turnbull I say, without being rude but getting to the point:

                More details or GTFO.

                • Tom
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink |

                  My info is that Telstra did not “fail” in its bid. They were considered the only viable option for FTTN although there were other smaller players in the market such as TransAct.

                  Without knowing the details, I believe the terms being offered finessed the existing industry players into a disadvantaged position. Also, as you noted, Telstra was pretty comfortable selling its copper and muddling along as a retailer.

                  I understand Telstra put in an insulting two pager which was code for “F.O. Conroy”.

                  I was actually referring to the argy bargy that followed from a hostile NBN towards Telstra.

                  My original comment was that Rudd should have known his playing field and players limitations before he made the promises. History judges Rudd harshly – all tip no ice-berg.

                  • Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:37 am | Permalink |

                    “Without knowing the details, I believe the terms being offered finessed the existing industry players into a disadvantaged position. Also, as you noted, Telstra was pretty comfortable selling its copper and muddling along as a retailer.:

                    May I suggest you go out and GET details. They’re publicly available. The rest of us have read them. Then perhaps you will know what you are saying, rather than vague “As far as I know” comment. Of COURSE Telstra wanted to sell their copper CAN- it costs them $1 BILLION to maintain every year. If the government was gonna buy it from them for the purpose of the FTTN, then they could use that money and build past the FTTN, in cherry-picked areas, with FTTP and make a MOTZA, all being paid for by the Australian taxpayer. TWICE. Bend over much??

                    They ADMITTED this is what they would do in that Four Corners program I linked to. You think it was RIGHT to hand Telstra money for a network WE funded initially, for them to say “Too bad, we’re gonna make a better service anyway and charge up the creek for it with YOUR money- Cheers!” without the Australia taxpayer getting SUBSTANTIAL gains from such a payout?? I think Rudd should’ve been SHOT if he’d done that. Thankfully he wasn’t that stupid. Telstra tried to play the governments bluff. They LOST. BOO HOO FOR TELSTRA. The Government looks after the people, NOT Telstra, who’ve been living off taxpayer handouts for the nearly 2 decades since they were sold off by Howard.

                    Telstra have had SO much power in this country’s telecommunications sector for SO long, no one can even THINK of doing anything without them kicking up a stink. You know what? Tough F#$%ING cookies. The Australian people are SICK of waiting for improvements YOU won’t bring because it doesn’t make you QUITE enough money. The Government stepped up and produced a network even TELSTRA would struggle to achieve by themselves, because of the outlay required.

                    The way governments of the past have treated Telstra is DESPICABLE. Telstra have PROVEN they don’t care about Australians. They care about profit. They should be treated as ANY other company- Split, forced to buy wholesale at NORMAL prices, just like everyone else under the same regulation….oh wait! That’s what the NBN will do! And you’re KIDDING yourself if you think Malcolm and Co. will let that happen- with their “the market is always a more prudent approach”….yes, it is…cause it doesn’t cost the government SQUAT. But the Taxpayer gets burdened anyway by HUGE price increases to pay for the PRIVATE upgrade of infrastructure….like power and water!

                    End rant.

                    • Tom
                      Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:22 pm | Permalink |

                      My early impressions of the Telstra bid were based on someone I know in TransAct. If I missed some parts that you know, congratulations, but it is not a gotcha competition.

                      It is probably beyond both of us to understand the full reasons why their bid “failed”. They were probably after an obscene windfall in the sale of their copper lines and monopoly.

                      After Costello’s sale, Telstra still had a community obligation phrase in their tenure and as a result had to cover the non-commercial parts of Australia.

                      They rented out their network at a pretty cheap price (they did not gouge) to other ISPs (exetel, westnet etc) who flourished.

                      “Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband and Communications, has stated to Telstra that the company can either “break itself up or (the government) will do it for them”. … Telstra did take on Conroy and despite a rough passage, got what they wanted. Their fixed line monopoly was sold for $11billion and their shares rocketed. Hardly a loss.

                      • Abel Adamski
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 1:07 am | Permalink |

                        Tom
                        “They rented out their network at a pretty cheap price (they did not gouge) to other ISPs (exetel, westnet etc) who flourished.”
                        The ACC had much to do with that. In fact the growth of ADSL and the competing ISP’s was almost entirely due to the appearance and growth of private wholesale only black fibre and backhaul providers. TPG bought out the major wholesaler, so without NBN future competitiveness was questionable.

                        OUR B/Band that we have is only partially due to Telstra. Left up to Telstra, the competitors would basically be resellers of their product and at top dollar

                      • Posted 01/07/2012 at 2:16 am | Permalink |

                        @Tom

                        “They were probably after an obscene windfall in the sale of their copper lines and monopoly.”

                        Actually, that was EXACTLY the reason. And the Labor government at the time, rightly told them to take a hike.

                        “After Costello’s sale, Telstra still had a community obligation phrase in their tenure and as a result had to cover the non-commercial parts of Australia.
                        They rented out their network at a pretty cheap price (they did not gouge) to other ISPs (exetel, westnet etc) who flourished.”

                        For a start….flourished??? You’d call TOTAL market share between iinet, TPG, and Exetel of around 20% FLOURISHING after 20 YEARS?? As Abel has already stated the ONLY reason they had any “obligation” was STRICT regulation by the ACCC. Otherwise, we would NEVER have ended up with the Unbundled Local Loop (WHICH by the way is INCOMPATIBLE with FTTN), which is what gives ISP’s the ability to offer broadband services across Telstra hardware and infrastructure. It was only INSISTENCE from the ACCC and the other industry players that Telstra be FORCED to allow access to their DSLAM’s put in for broadband, to enable ISP’s like iinet and Internode to bring us some modicum of success in the market.

                        But Telstra STILL dominates market share, size, clout AND profits, even nearly 20 years after they were privatised. They have done EVERYTHING possible, including acting illegally many times, to maintain their dominance. And THIS is the company the Coalition will turn to to build the “whizbang” FTTN solution that’s going to save us from oppressive prices, massive government costs and wasted time?? I’ve got news- Telstra wouldn’t accept less than $15 Billion in 2006 for their copper network, what makes you think they will accept less now?? (have a look at the 3rd rollout report- Telstra WON’T comment on their copper sale price. Because they KNOW it would be damaging to the Coalition who would eventually pay it) Which means RIGHT off the bat, an FTTN would cost a GOOD portion of $15 Billion, unless you suggest only rolling it out to a small portion of the population….oh wait, that’s EXACTLY what the Coalition are planning. And EXACTLY the reason they won’t give us numbers on the rollout. Because the numbers will show how many people will get short changed and how much the taxpayer will bend over and cough up to Telstra for it.

                        I’m sorry if that seems unecessarily hot headed, but I UTTERLY fail to comprehend the Coalition’s love affair with Telstra AND their insistence that we follow Telstra’s lead in everything. The say “oh yes, well, they’re the incumbent, they know what they’re talking about” and the rest of the world DOESN’T???? Telstra are out for profit. WHY should we give more to them via FTTN, when we can pay them off NOW and not have to deal with them for infrastructure again??

                        “Their fixed line monopoly was sold for $11billion and their shares rocketed. Hardly a loss.”

                        Sorry Tom, you need to do some homework. NBNCo. did NOT and WOULD not buy the copper network. It’s USELESS to them. They’re bypassing it by building their OWN network, which, if you look at the numbers is CHEAPER than the $15 Billion Telstra wants (in 2006) for the Copper network (the fibre costs are around $12 Billion if I’m not mistaken). The $11 Billion is mainly for a 35 year lease on the INFRASTRUCTURE that holds the network- namely ducts, exchanges and conduits. These already exist, why would NBNCo. re dig them?? They are not touching the copper network, they are simply paying Telstra about $4 Billion to migrate customers from it, which is a win for Telstra, because they’re NBN prices are EYEWATERING and maximise profits and they no longer have to look after the maintenance of the copper OR the new fibre network, saving them close to $1 Billion for most of the network a year.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink |

                        Sorry, Seven_tech, I never mentioned “copper”, the government bought the “monopoly”. Now stop creating straw men and using them to patronise me.

                        “I UTTERLY fail to comprehend the Coalition’s love affair with Telstra”. Easy:

                        1. Telstra failed to fall in line with the Kevin 07′s brave new world. They had Kevin 07 over a barrel and knew it.
                        2. Telstra sniffed a super profit by embarrassing Conroy with an impasse that would hold up delivery the election promise. Basically (with Conroy’s own pig-headed assistance) they achieved that.
                        3. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”, so the libs love them.

                        Don’t forget Sol, also fought with Howard. He just hated government. But why pick Conroy? It cost us all dearly. The figure WAS $11b.

                      • Posted 01/07/2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink |

                        @Tom

                        I’m patronising you? You’ve asked me in a following post to list applications required by the NBN, because ‘I can’t expect you to trawl through the forums looking for them’

                        No, this isn’t patronising at all. A lot of us spend our time and effort trying to give people information on our blogs, so they can decide for themselves, but you REQUIRE us to convince you, when all the Coalition has said about our arguments is ‘they’re wrong’ and given nothing to back that up. Patronising is being called geek, tech head, only after the best ‘technical solution’….and then being FORCED to REPEATEDLY explain to people who, once again, simply see the Coalition saying ‘wireless is better’ with no backup and then EXPECT us to convince the otherwise. And you wonder why we get frustrated and feel patronised??

                        Also I note you covered ONE of my above points. I apologise for the length of that comment, but I am getting very tired of repeating the same things, so you’ll excuse the rant. Telstra is the incumbent. They should not be given preferential treatment because of that. But the Coalition do.

                        You say ‘Conroy’ cost us $11 Billion by the agreement with Telstra. This is GROSSLY inaccurate and VERY simplistic. For a start, Conroy had nothing to do with it. It was negotiated by NBNCo. and Telstra. Conroy had little to do with it except to say ‘approved- tick’. Also it is actually saving money. If NBNCo were both required to dig their own trenches AND compete with HFC and people who don’t know they’re on copper and there’s something better, it wouldve cost TWICE as much. Hence why the ACCC passed the deal. Do you REALLY think the ACCC would’ve gone ‘oh yeah, that’s fine, you can spend however much money you like’??

                        Be reasonable in your arguments Tom and I won’t feel patronised nor ‘patronise’ you.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 5:20 pm | Permalink |

                        Seven_tech,

                        * My Statement: “Their fixed line monopoly was sold for $11billion and their shares rocketed.”
                        * Your strawman. “You say ‘Conroy’ cost us $11 Billion by the agreement with Telstra.”
                        * Next, your patronising statement: “This is GROSSLY inaccurate and VERY simplistic.”

                        Yes it is inaccurate and simplistic but *** THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID.

                        Is your comprehension weak or are you just desperate to put the boot into anyone who questions NBN or Conroy? If it is the second reason, just save your breath.

                      • Posted 01/07/2012 at 7:52 pm | Permalink |

                        @Tom

                        Tom- “Yes it is inaccurate and simplistic but *** THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID.”

                        Tom, again- “But why pick Conroy? It cost us all dearly. The figure WAS $11b.””

                        This was your statement above, not: “My Statement: “Their fixed line monopoly was sold for $11billion and their shares rocketed.”

                        THAT is why it is misleading. Their fixed line monopoly was NOT sold for $11 Billion. They STILL own the copper. And they could STILL make money off it, ESPECIALLY under an FTTN. And their shares didn’t skyrocket because of the deal. The deal was completed in June LAST year. They’ve jumped from $3.20 to $3.70 in April THIS year! It’s got alot more to do with their international dealings in Hong Kong and Malaysia, takeovers in NZ and their mobile business.

                        If you don’t want to admit to saying certain things, that’s fine. But you said them. I was NOT being patronising, I was being utterly serious. You stated Conroy is the reason we are paying Telstra $11 Billion. THAT statement is incorrect and misleading.

                        “Is your comprehension weak or are you just desperate to put the boot into anyone who questions NBN or Conroy?”

                        My comprehension is fine. I’m uncertain however if you didn’t mean to say what you did, forgot that you did, or if you said it in a context you meant and I missed. I defend the NBN. If Conroy does the same, I defend what he says IF it is factual. I am not interested in playing “who’s your favourite politician” . I don’t have one. Conroy has learnt ALOT over the past 2 years. He still isn’t a Turnbull, but he IS trying. But I WILL defend the NBN because I BELIEVE in it as a policy AND, more importantly as nationally important infrastructure. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink |

                        “You stated Conroy is the reason we are paying Telstra $11 Billion. ” You are incorrect.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink |

                        Seven_tech

                        You have been consistently obtuse on your answers to the needs of the Australian people. This is in contrast to your ability and readiness to quote documents when it you think there is a chance to ridicule the questioner.

                        Time and time again, I have asked for some sort of lead on where there has been a serious discussion on what those needs are, what they could be in the foreseeable future and implications for bandwith and speed.

                        An open transparent dialog of the foreseeable uses and needs of the Australian consumers and the implications for speed and bandwidth should have been the starting point before FTTN or NBN ever got off the ground.

                        You cannot even indicate where serious consideration was given to these factors which leads me to believe that it is “secret business”.

                        At best your answers have embodied an arrogant “We know best, don’t you worry about that.” FTTH has become an end in itself. No-one disputes the technical constraints and advantages. However, in the end it should be all about the genuinely foreseeable needs of the consumer and the impact of a solution on our national funds.

                        Given all your responses such as “read more, it is good for the soul” etc, etc, etc. I take this opportunity to suggest some self improvement you may wish to consider.

                        1. You are first and foremost a servant of the people of Australia.
                        2. You are there to service their needs. They are not there to serve yours.
                        3. If that means that you and your highly skilled associates don’t get your beloved FTTH, don’t be petulant about it.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink |

                        @Tom, due to comments policy repercussion (which you have somehow managed to avoid) I have resisted entering your “little world”. But under the circumstances I’m sure Renai won’t mind me putting my 2c in, in kind and then leaving you to continue the charade (oops Freudian slip) crusade, unabated…

                        * Over-engineered… So Aussies don’t deserve the good stuff?

                        * NBN take-up rates over 5 years… Wasn’t the current NBN announced only just over 3 years ago?

                        * Defending one former PMs political lies whilst deriding another’s… Ah so by taking lies to an election and winning absolves the liar of those lies (3 hail Mary’s, 1 our Father and voila)? Just make sure you’re popular first… Nice.

                        * Telling us that Tony Abbott is a Rhodes scholar, etc, etc, etc…

                        Gee, where have we heard this spiel before?

                        Seriously “Tom”, for anyone to come to a discussion about the NBN and say things like –

                        “I am glad you like Malcolm. Not sure I do. I just hate Rudd, Conroy and Gillard a lot more. BTW: Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar. That makes him a lot smarter than most.”…

                        …Imo clearly demonstrates that one’s aim isn’t that of conciliatory and rational NBN discussion but one driven purely by political conservatism (MT’s just a bit too “Liberal” for the conservatives, eh) leading to trolling argumentativeness?

                        So bit rich lecturing others because they can (read: are allowed to) see the NBN as being beneficial to all Aussies and not just a political football. But to then also give “others” a serve about being wrong or arrogant, simply because they refuse to fall in line with one’s own yes-man, political subserviency, is absolute hypocrisy, imo.

                        Newsflash: They are politicians, all from the same mould, just different flavours.

                        Sorry, but no truly intelligent person can actually believe one side is without flaw and the other hopeless in all facets. No, “you” didn’t actually say that… but you don’t have to, do you tiger?

                        Frankly imo, this undermines your entire credibility and any pertinent points you may indeed have hiding in amongst the electioneering bullshit. Because when someone openly admits to such hatred of one side and admiration of the other, how can any of their opinions/comments be taken as measured and fair?

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink |

                        Time and time again, I have asked for some sort of lead on where there has been a serious discussion on what those needs are, what they could be in the foreseeable future and implications for bandwith and speed.

                        An open transparent dialog of the foreseeable uses and needs of the Australian consumers and the implications for speed and bandwidth should have been the starting point before FTTN or NBN ever got off the ground.

                        “hiding in amongst the electioneering bullshit.”?

                        imo …, no never mind.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink |

                        Tom,

                        Without wishing to prolong this tooth extraction (as it hurts trying to explain to those who pretty much admit their partial political ideology reigns above everything else)… but “simply because you asked”, imo, what you seek is already there…

                        We have positive NBN reports/opinions on needs and outcomes from the UN, OECD, McKinsey, Cisco, Google, Vint Cerf etc, etc and of course NBNCo.

                        Then we have the mathematical laws (Moore’s, Nielsen’s etc) that have been pretty close to the mark in mapping out trends over many years.

                        So do you think because the Coalition says, “all of these” these organizations/experts are therefore wrong?

                        Do you also believe such laws will just stop and she’ll be right maaaate?

                        As such if you were serious, you really wouldn’t need us average Joe’s repeating what the experts have already quoted. Imo this is a tactic (used incessantly by those who oppose the NBN) to try to pick holes in the words used by posters here (to catch them out so to speak) rather than recognizing the actuals. Nice…

                        Seriously, it’s pointless continually asking for evidence… when what you seek is supplied but either bluntly ignored, pedantically argued over a word here or there and inevitably conveniently considered “paid for outcomes”, “pure fantasy”, “vested interest” and don’t forget “socialist ideology (because we admit we hate those who are building the NBN, so the NBN ‘can’t be any good anyway, can it?’)”…

                        The info is already there Tom, if you actually want to see it and simply consider the possibilities. You don’t even have to jump right in, just put a toe in one at a time, I promise it won’t hurt. But is this info all set in stone…of course not, it’s future projections – but it is working from a basis of scientific/expert (apolitical in most instances) analysis which imo, is more than the naysayers have (i.e. because the opposition says).

                        So here are a few articles via multiple sources, from tech to financial sites, for you to further ignore ;-)

                        http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20101203-nbn-will-boost-gdp-growth-help-transform-business-access-economics-report.html

                        http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/rtucker/publications/files/tja10043.pdf

                        http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-Co-Stephen-Conroy-Julia-Gillard-broadband-pd20101123-BG3GK?opendocument ***you may need to Google this to avoid the pay wall…

                        http://www.itnews.com.au/News/278901,aarnet-eyes-e-health-nbn-projects.aspx

                        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576493831749969702.html

                        http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/overseas-policies-put-communities-first-20120422-1xeya.html

                        Remember, denial is a river in Egypt ;-)

                        Au revoir

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

                        Thanks Alex. I appreciate you trouble.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink |

                        My pleasure Tom

                        :)

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink |

                        Alex, great articles. Maybe we are closer than you believe (Moore’s law etc. I use all the time)

                        “If US Democratic strategist James Carville worked for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, he’d probably have “It’s the apps, stupid!” posted on the office wall.

                        In all the debate about whether to build an NBN, which platform technologies and architecture to choose, how to fund it, whether to attempt a cost-benefit analysis and who gets first bite at the high-speed cherry, there has been a shortage of detailed discussion about the applications that can make the whole exercise worthwhile.”

                        “… a shortage of detailed discussion about the applications that can make the whole exercise worthwhile.” A selective quote, (I know I just lambasted selective quotes), but it says it so much better than I have been saying it.

                        Yes, the apps may have been discussed here and there.

                        However, why can’t there be an open formal process where government collates them, analyses their foreseeable speed and bandwidth requirements? That would be a stepping stone to open legitimate justification of the NBN’s brief.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink |

                        Cheers again Tom and yes, the possibilities, apps wise is still a bit unclear… so I guess the question is, do we over or under provision?

                        With this in mind, here is one more URL I found interesting in this regard, especially this one liner (hidden in amongst the other text) from Phil Ruthven, founder and chairman of research company IBISWworld –

                        …”adding that his own business cannot launch new products for lack of NBN-grade connectivity.”

                        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/14/ibisworld_ibm_future_report/

                        So perhaps these apps are closer than we may think (either that or Phil has a vested interest…LOL).

                        :)

                      • Posted 02/07/2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink |

                        @Tom

                        “You have been consistently obtuse on your answers to the needs of the Australian people. This is in contrast to your ability and readiness to quote documents when it you think there is a chance to ridicule the questioner.”

                        I have not. You have chosen to ignore it. And I am quite insulted at your spiel about I have only the technically best solution in mind and not the Australian people. For a start, this is my WHOLE PREMISE surrounding the NBN. I’m not likely to see the NBN for at LEAST 5 years. I COULD get FTTN in less. WHY would I be arguing for the best technical solution that DIDN’T get me any upgrade faster than the LESS technical solution if I WASN’T interested in what other people get. But thankyou for attacking my ideals.

                        You want information, I note Alex has already given you some. I simply do not understand why you think WE have to provide it to you on a silver spoon. The rest of us have found it. It’s not hard. But seeing as you seem to not want to, here:

                        http://nbnexplained.org/wordpress/what-will-it-deliver/uses-and-benefits/

                        http://apcmag.com/life-in-the-nbns-world.htm

                        http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1511046

                        http://www.nq.qld.acs.org.au/nbn/Australian-NBN-uses-in-the-home.html

                        These are 4 I LITERALLY got from a google search of “uses for the NBN”

                        http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/market/53205-french-study-fails-to-find-uses-for-nbn-in-the-short-term

                        Here’s one that shows a French firm, when looking at uses for their OWN upgrades to an “NBN”, has found their are few short term benefits. Wow, we might say, evidence against an NBN. Yes and no. There are two parts to this:

                        1- It identifies few SHORT-Term benefits. But says there are MANY medium to long-term benefits. We are just unsure of the timeframe: “Where it did see a UFB has having application was in driving users’ insatiable demand for data volumes, driven by the uptake of online video services.” and “The report did identify future applications similar to those identified in Australia but – at least in the English summary issued by ARCEP – gave no indication of when demand for these might emerge.”

                        2- See a direct quote: “In a statement, ARCEP said: “The good quality of France’s legacy copper network, combined with very affordable broadband products, have resulted in the development of one of the world’s most competitive markets.”

                        …..good quality copper….very affordable (to everyone) broadband products…..most competitive markets…..I’m fairly certain NONE of them apply to Australia. Although perhaps you would disagree? If so, can you show me evidence that our network is comparable to France’s?

                        The information is there Tom. You have a bias against the NBN- if you don’t, I apologise, but everything you’ve said and indicated points to this. So you choose not to do the work and look, instead insisting we, who are CONSTANTLY looking for NEW information, rather than going over the same tired arguments, give you the information direct. Hence why I have setup my Fibre4Oz group, in the hopes of focussing the information from all these sites, for people such as yourself who can’t be bothered going and looking for it.

                        “3. If that means that you and your highly skilled associates don’t get your beloved FTTH, don’t be petulant about it.”

                        To this I would quite simply say- If we DO get our “beloved” FTTH, don’t let the door hit you on the way out of the whinging room. If you are going to insult, be prepared to take as good as you get. I do not WISH to, but I do not lie down and take it lightly.

                      • Posted 02/07/2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink |

                        “However, why can’t there be an open formal process where government collates them, analyses their foreseeable speed and bandwidth requirements? That would be a stepping stone to open legitimate justification of the NBN’s brief.”

                        Tom, why do you insist that the applications for it must exist at this moment in time? The NBN will not be complete for 10 years. It could HAPPILY and quite easily be argued that a number of these “apps” will be available AND generating profit BEFORE those 10 years are out. THIS is our frustration against the “conservative” arguments.- It’s TOO conservative.

                        It is why a CBA would’ve been, ultimately, NOT showing the BENEFITS of the NBN before it was started. It looks at CURRENT productivity. CURRENT uses for broadband. CURRENT economic stimulus. NOT future benefits. It CAN’T quantify these futures benefits.

                        The Coalition USED to go on and on about a Labor CBA not being done, as you’ve stated, but they don’t emphasise it now? Why? Because the NBN is now in full swing, where it wasn’t in 2010. ANY CBA would take this into account, whereas even the current Coalition broadband policy doesn’t- they don’t state ANYWHERE what they’d do with the areas already partially FTTP when/if they got into power. And a CBA that took into account a 10-20% rollout of FTTP already, combined with the open-access network and business case behind NBNCo. would almost certainly find that, if not to 93%, a MAJORITY FTTP network is more prudent and beneficial overall. Hence, the Coalition wouldn’t accept it. They’d call it biased, proof it should’ve been done in the first place, but it’s useless now. In short, they’d just change their tune again.

                        The Coalition will not accept ANYTHING Labor says on the NBN. That is why the PUBLIC must tell them the same thing. Supposedly, they’re supposed to listen to the public. And, at the moment, the public is saying they want it. I don’t know how else to make that clearer, but as I’ve said before, I’m starting a group that will make it more OBVIOUS to them. Whether they’ll listen or not is really up to them.

                        We’ve argued before the public may or may not have wanted a Carbon Tax (before Gillard they did, after, not so much, but it was very close both sides). They only JUST wanted a GST…maybe. They only JUST wanted a Carbon Tax….maybe. They DO want the NBN. Why is this so hard for the Coalition to understand? It is not like they were all against it from the start. There has been a CONSTANT Coalition campaign AGAINST it….and yet support for it has RISEN from 38% in 2010, to 56% now…..you can’t tell me that’s because people are PURPOSELY ignoring the Coalition negativity on it?? The Labor ro-NBN PR has been ABYSMAL, yet they STILL want it. They have read, listened and decided. And they want it.

                      • Posted 02/07/2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink |

                        Clarification- when I said “10-20% FTTP rollout already” I was referring to it in July 2014, the earliest time the legislation can be changed to stop the rollout- NOT today. I’m well aware it ISN’T anywhere near this now.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink |

                        Seven, I don’t believe I said “existing” apps. I did put the word “foreseeable” re the apps identification.
                        This would make the process less precise but more accurate if you see what I mean.

                        It would need to also identify estimations / projections of future apps, future extensions of apps, future expansion of apps, future functionality of apps as they grow or mature, needs for beefed up bandwidths, need for beefed up speeds.Such a process, if open and inclusive, would also help sequence the roll-outs. I would desist from critiquing who is currently getting the roll-outs first. However, the exercise would keep the either side honest from rolling it out first to their mate’s electorates.

                        PS: I looked at the 2020 Conference of Rudd’s and think what a wasted opportunity. Expensive, vapid, glitz and glamour, yet nothing of any substance re communications infrastructure. What a wasted opportunity. I suppose, yes it is politics but you would think a government could have achieved so much at that point.

                        Perhaps a “2020″ infrastructure conference?

                      • Posted 02/07/2012 at 7:11 pm | Permalink |

                        @Tom

                        Problem is, we could talk about “foreseeable” apps all day….but Facebook wasn’t foreseen.

                        I think ultimately this is my point- I don’t disagree with ANY transparent, logical, unbiased attempt to understand what the NBN may or may not provide…..but we couldn’t get that in this political context. It would be put down to this conversation:

                        “What are the foreseeable apps?
                        Well, here’s a list. But it’s also about the UNforseeable apps.
                        Ah, but these don’t need the NBN, they can work now.
                        Yes, but they don’t work AT SCALE without the NBN connectivity.
                        Well, no, but that doesn’t mean other networks couldn’t provide them.
                        Actually, no other network COULD provide the scale of the NBN.
                        Well, that’s just backwards thinking- technology always progresses with things we don’t think possible.
                        And yet unforeseeable apps AREN’T forward thinking??
                        You can’t prove them.”
                        …..sighs, shakes head and walks away.

                        Politics is the reason this debate ISN’T and WASN’T had. Because politics, in Australia right now, is poisonous and insidious. We can’t have a logical and transparent debate when politics in this country precludes both.

                        There’s no question KRudd’s “2020″ summit was unfortunately lacking. But, also unfortunately, ANY government thinktank (Labor or Liberal) in this country is likely to be disappointing. Innovation is bred by thinking outside the box. Labor does it, but takes it to far, the Liberals don’t, but usually save us money. There’s balance to be had, but apparently we can’t have our cake OR eat it.

                        I think, to make a final point, the idea around “foreseeable apps” is contained in the simplest and often most dismissed one- VOD.

                        Currently, VOD in Australia is…..flacid. Why? 70% of people don’t have the speeds to reliably access decent quality VOD WHILE doing something else (family or just multitasking household). If it WERE available (NBN)….well, Netflix went from having a tiny percentage of total internet data in 2008….to 25% of TOTAL US traffic in 2012 and expecting over 50% in 2016….

                        This might seem a frivolous waste of money (the NBN) for entertainment purposes. But entertainment is what keeps a nation moving. It’s what keeps us motivated and spending money. It keeps the economy moving. Why is that frivolous spending then? Not to mention the increases in jobs and corresponding revenue from an increased VOD scene.

                        VOD, games and porn are widely believed to be frivolous, wasteful and (in the case of porn) insidious and immoral…..and yet studies have shown something in the vicinity of 70% of all people have accessed porn, And over 50% of people game. And how many people would pay a small fee every month to watch WHAT they want WHEN they want, rather than put up with ordinary TV?…..and who reaps this revenue ultimately? The NBN, hence why it will be paid back. And who loses revenue from this? TV stations and media companies….and we wonder why they’re against the NBN….

                        The apps ARE here, we just can’t take FULL advantage of them WITHOUT the speed of the NBN, so it’s difficult to prove them.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 7:46 pm | Permalink |

                        seven_tech, thanks for your response. I agree there is unforeseen. Facebook is a wonderful example and probably could not have existed back on the technology five years before. Yes, killer apps keep on coming.

                        However, the same technology that accommodated the unforeseen actually moved to meet the foreseen and emerging demands. Google earth, skype, cloud (your list would probably better than mine) and, in doing so, catered for the unforeseen. Today companies employ visionaries to do that sort of thing as a *rigorous exercise* using trends etc.

                        Moore’s law has always been a leapfrogging exercise (eg. faster cpus, faster motherboards, faster ram, faster VDUs, faster games, faster gpus usb, usb 2, usb3 etc.).

                        The unforeseen is (floridly) termed by Turnbull as “gambling”. Again, I personally don’t have a problem with gambling (again Turnbull’s word, not mine) or (my words) adding an uncertainty provision for the unforeseen. The trade-off has to be the costs being put on the table for each increment of that provision.

                        My point is that (imo) formal planning for the foreseen in a systematic way would be of immense value towards accommodating the foreseen and the unforeseen. (Plus it would restrict pollies ability to pay off their mates in rolling out the new technology).

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 8:04 pm | Permalink |

                        seven_tech, you raised one other factor that there are apps already sitting there, that we dare not mention in PC or polite circles, that nonetheless are potential goldmines for NBN (or its owners). I am not sure how to address that or for that matter how any pollie would.

                        Nice point though.

                        Perhaps tuck it away in the provision for the unforeseen?

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink |

                        Isn’t that what the Moore’s law style capacity planning is about? Predicting future needs based on trends, that up until now have been very reliable, without knowing exactly what the data/processing power/RAM will be used for?

                        With cloud services there is huge potential for an explosion of data requirements. Rather than your PC being a stand alone device it could be mark of a colaborative machine with distributed processing and a lot of data having to be shuffled back and forth between machines. Some of this can be seen in the distributed processing of data searching for cancers cures, drug testing, even SETI data processing (personally I give my processing time to medical research). This has been going on for many years now. Maybe rather than building bigger and faster supercomputers to try and predict weather they could harness the power of huge numbers of idle cycles and actually do it. They could crack the holy grail and predict Melbournes weather more then 1 hour into the future with some chance of accuracy.

                      • Djos
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink |

                        You know Tom, tonight using my crappy 1mb uplink on my dsl I can’t even upload a 3.5 min video to Facebook for my friends and family! The apps to use the NBN are here now and the impact the uplink will have is severely underestimated!

                      • Tom
                        Posted 02/07/2012 at 10:29 pm | Permalink |

                        I totally agree Noddy. It is what Moore’s Law planning is all about.

                        I now see the race at AMD and Intel to go faster and cooler, the bus, the ram all being developed on a mathematical progression in that light as being a legitimate parallel for communications.

                        Using such a predictive model does not trouble me. I also sense you see apps as a driver.

                        Somewhere between it all, let’s hope the pollies can facilitate rather than bog it down.

                        Cheers

    3. PeterA
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink |

      “The Coalition’s policy [that we haven't specified yet] is, as you [don't] know [because we haven't released one yet] focussed on achieving a [sort of if you fudge the numbers]comparable outcome (ubiquitious very fast [in only one direction, if you live near your node] broadband) but achieving it sooner in terms of rollout [but not in reality, since we have to run our CBA and negotiate again], cheaper in terms of cost to taxpayers [but via subsidies to private enterprise, so it has to be on budget and we don't know how to fund it yet], and more affordably in terms of consumers [and if it isn't, it will be because private enterprise now has a monopoly - again - that we paid them to create duplicate infrastructure networks thus, it costs everyone twice as much in network upkeep to run 2 - or more - competing physical networks.],”

      FTFY.

    4. Mark
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink |

      WOW Renai, I’m disappointed that you’re so quick to jump back on the Turnbull tit, when he hasn’t changed his stance on the NBN, but only changed how hes saying it.

      All Turnbull said was “Yes we’ll FTTN it like we’ve been saying all the time” instead of the usual “No, Australia doesn’t need the NBN”.

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink |

        Yes, you’re right, I’m totally a Coalition shill for merely reporting what Turnbull has said. Totally.

        • Tim
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink |

          I personally respect your views Renai, however as you have previously mentioned while they do seem to agree that fast broadband is necessary this really is not new. Even with their wireless this was the aim. The major criticism I have of the Coalition policy is that it seem to lack vision. It does not accommodate any substantial growth is usage needs as FTTH can. Basically the Coalition is thinking a few years ahead when they should be thinking decades. I mean we can this project on the cheap, however, when is the time that we actually consider what is best thing for Australia in the long run. The moment you start severely limiting Australia’s potential growth is the moment you have let cost decreases compromise what is best for our nation.

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

            +1 Tim. I may not like Labor alot of the time, but in this they have it right. This is looking toward future growth. It is what we need to continue being competitive in the new digital world.

        • Tom
          Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink |

          Internet / broadband / computing developed technically over 30 years according to Moore’s Law without the need for government. It is blind arrogance in the extreme to step in and peddle an assumption that it would not have continued to develop that way without government.

          However we all know that government “knows best” and, if we re-write history somehow, then all that technical development did not happen in the first place. All that takes is effective political propaganda and haven’t we got a load of that in Australia? The political noise, cheer squads and vested interest supporting the NBN is deafening and very unedifying even when faced with the obvious truths contained in the Second Report on the Roll Out.

          Thank God for people like Turnbull and Kevin Morgan. At least there will be some real world brakes on the fantasy world of government white elephants that never get delivered.

          • Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink |

            @Tom

            This has NOTHING to do with government knows best. This is, in fact, INDUSTRY knows best. NBNCo. are building the NBN and they are from industry.

            The government commissioned a report, the McKinsey report, on whether or not the government’s idea of building a FTTP NBN to 90% of the nation was feasible. The report came back and said, by and large, that, not only was it feasible, but that the FTTP should be EXTENDED to 93%.

            We have had 10 years of absolutely NOTHING from Telstra, except some 10% of exchanges being upgraded to ADSL2+….when 4500 exchanges DON’T have it and many MILLIONS of people are without even access to basic landline broadband. Their HFC network has not gained any significant uptake in 10 years and has had no upgrades, other than software, for just as long. Please tell me, when is your wonderful industry going to step up and deliver what ALL Australians want- fast, cheap, reliable, effective broadband that doesn’t take 3 weeks to be connected every time you move, doesn’t get disconnected every time it rains and doesn’t slow to worse than basic 3G every evening after 5pm??

            • Tom
              Posted 29/06/2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink |

              “10 years of absolutely NOTHING from Telstra”? Who told you that? Comrade Conroy?

              The whole broadband scene changed dramatically over those 10 years both from a point of ISPs, Telstra’s relationship with ISPs and raw speeds of the internet coming into people’s houses.

              Sorry seven_tech you are starting to make a fool of yourself. I have never heard such an absurd assertion.

              • Posted 29/06/2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink |

                “The whole broadband scene changed dramatically over those 10 years both from a point of ISPs, Telstra’s relationship with ISPs and raw speeds of the internet coming into people’s houses.”

                Indeed. Dramatically did it? So we had the introduction of ADSL in 2001…..and the introduction of ADSL@ in, 2005 was it?…..and then what?…..the US has FTTN AND FTTH to nearly 20%. The UK ALREADY is halfway through their FTTN to 60%, changing it to FTTP by demand. And, without the NBN we had, what? HFC that hasn’t seen customer growth in 10 years, with 700 000 premises connected (or about 8%). Oh and TransACT, with a TOTAL customer bases of 55 000 premises on FTTN/FTTP…out of 12 MILLION premises Australia wide. Greenfields are about 50/50 Copper or FTTN/FTTP, depending on how much the developer wants to pay.

                DSLAM’s was a FORCED issue by ISP’s such as iinet and Internode, with MAJOR backing from the government and the ACCC kicking Telstra from behind. It is ONLY ACCC FORCING that has kept Telstra doing what is required to increase competition in our market. They STILL hold 80% of the infrastructure.

                “Sorry seven_tech you are starting to make a fool of yourself. I have never heard such an absurd assertion.”

                A fool of myself? I believe Tom, it is you who are making a fool of yourself, by blindly being lead by the nose about whatever Tony and Malcolm want you to believe. I LIKE Malcolm. But it doesn’t change the fact that he spins VERY well and, in the case of the NBN, he’s spinning himself a merry little complex web which there is no end to.

                If the Coalition DO get in, can you tell me EXACTLY, please, because I KNOW there are many here who would like to know, what will they do about broadband in Australia? We have no specifics, no plans, no costings, no promises. Just a bunch of vague statements about allowing contracts to finish, doing SOME FTTN, subsidising HFC rollout….oh and throwing a bone to regionals with wireless. NO info on who gets what. NO info on how much it will cost (because the $7 Billion they’ve said doesn’t WORK in a mid-construction NBN world- see Citigroup analysis) and NO info on how many Australians will get covered at what speeds.

                So please, tell me how much of a fool I’m making of myself, by following a plan that has been PAINFULLY put together over 5 YEARS, with many more years before making up the back story, is being executed by some of the best minds in the industry worldwide AND is costed and paid for by use.

                • Tom
                  Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink |

                  I am glad you like Malcolm. Not sure I do. I just hate Rudd, Conroy and Gillard a lot more.
                  BTW: Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar. That makes him a lot smarter than most.

                  Have you read the Rollout of the National Broadband Network – Second Report? Most of the facts I referred to are in there. Yes, I read the party lines, both sides.

                  I read that the average household will cost $4,000 not $2,000. Watch this space, I think it is going to get harder and harder for NBN to bluster away the questions on delivery and finance.

                  As for the percentage of satellite and wireless vs optical fibre, watch this space. I reckon cables will drag the chain and “temporary” solutions will abound. But, hey, all will be revealed.

                  • Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink |

                    I’m slightly disturbed you ‘hate’ the entire head if Labor. That shows to me you don’t vote on ideals and policy, you vote on your personal feelings towards politicians. Or perhaps on what the Coalition believe about those politicians. I don’t like Tony, but I don’t hate him. Same with Julia.

                    ‘BTW: Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar. That makes him a lot smarter than most.’

                    A…hahahaha….rofl. Sorry, but I have to laugh at that. That’s like saying I’m smarter because I went to.uni and did engineering. I’m no smarter than your average politician. Neither is Tony smarter than your average person…..Rhodes Scholar….yeah and he nixed too, dies that make him stronger than most people as well?….lol

                    $4000….?? Where on earth did you get that number from?? I can’t even find it in the second report. By the way, you’re one behind. The 3rd report was listed 4 days ago. As far as I’m aware, the AVERAGE cost per household, is around $1700. The rural and regional areas are closer to $4000 …..is that what you mean? That’s VERY misleading to say that all premises are costing that much. They’re not.

                    • Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:56 pm | Permalink |

                      Apologies for the autocorrect. That sentence should have read ‘Yes and he BOXED too, DOES that make him stronger…’

                    • Tom
                      Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink |

                      On “ideals and policy”, read Richo’s book, “Whatever it takes”. It will cure you. Yes, hate is a strong word. Can you cope with “despise”.

                      Just as a disclosure, I was one of those people putting in PC codes on a “28.8bps” modem before Windows. I have followed tech since then. I absolutely “hate” it when politicians use tech as a cheap gimmick to get elected.

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:40 am | Permalink |

                        “Just as a disclosure, I was one of those people putting in PC codes on a “28.8bps” modem before Windows. I have followed tech since then. I absolutely “hate” it when politicians use tech as a cheap gimmick to get elected.”

                        Good for you. I was brought up with 56K modems and Telstra telling us “no, you can’t have a phone extension IN YOUR OWN HOUSE for less than $500.”

                        If you “hate” it when politicians use tech as a cheap gimmick, did you “hate” Howard for OPEL? I doubt it.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink |

                        I am not a great lover of Howard.

                        I did notice that a bid was put up in Dec 2006. I assume a business case was put up at the time. I also assume that it was probably flawed (they all are) but Howard, the wily old fox saw a vote in it. Yes, the same but a $958 million project is not up there with the FTTN or NBN nor was it an election breaker.

                        PS: thanks for your other comment. I will endeavour to not flame so much.

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink |

                        “I am not a great lover of Howard.”

                        I liked Howard. But OPEL was a joke. Howard didn’t even know the internet existed.

                        “I did notice that a bid was put up in Dec 2006. I assume a business case was put up at the time. ”

                        Not really. It was a bunch of subsidies. There WAS no business case.

                        “Yes, the same but a $958 million project is not up there with the FTTN or NBN nor was it an election breaker.”

                        No it’s not. And no it wasn’t, because internet speeds were still below 2Mbps average back then and the vast majority of Australians didn’t want or need faster speeds, as a whole, than could be delivered by even ADSL1. We do now. That’s why the NBN was an election changer. And shows how much speeds and importance of the internet to the average voter has changed.

    5. Bern
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink |

      So I see I’m not the only one who thinks the Coalitions idea of the ultimate objective of the NBN is to create a privately-owned telco monopoly…

      If there’s one thing the conservative parties are good at, lately, it’s concentrating wealth & power into a few sets of private hands. And, really – control over Australia’s only fixed-line telco network is a lot of power & wealth-generating ability. It *should* be held in trust for the Australian people, but that doesn’t fit with the ideology of profit above all else.

    6. simon
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink |

      So Tasmania will have the best telecommunications infrastructure in the world (seeing the roll out will be done by 2015) and the rest of the country will be stuck with what?
      A end of life HFC network that both Optus and Telstra no longer want to run
      A already out of date FTTN

      Even remote parts of Aus will have better access with the wireless and sat roll out being completed by 2015
      and lets face it they won’t do anything for a few years once they win power

      can i get a 40mb upload on a HFC cable?

      • Canberran
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink |

        Lucky I’m moving to Tasmania next year, and the suburb I’m moving to is already connected! :)

    7. Jean W
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink |

      Renai, be careful. You (and even Budde!) are being caught in the Coalition’s trap.

      They want you to feel safe voting for them. They want you to feel like the project will survive in some form, so that you will vote for them. That’s what their real NBN policy is. Neutralise the NBN as a political issue, so they can attack Labor on the carbon tax or whatever.

      They have made no solid promises and not even attempted any costings. They may simply halt the NBN, blame Labor for the budget hit and move on. Perhaps a CBA might be done by the next election.

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:37 am | Permalink |

        Yes, you’re right, I’ve totally jumped into bed with Turnbull and are being caught in his trap, merely for reporting what he said. Oh, Malcolm!

        • AJ
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink |

          Actually Renai I think it was your comment that is giving people this opinion

          “I suspect much of NBN Co as an entity and the NBN as a policy would now survive — which is not something I would have said even a year ago.”

          Until there is a concrete plan in place or even some detail then how can you say something like that.

          Last year you were critisizing about MT lack of any plan or any details this statement contains NO Details NO plan NO commitment it contains NOTHING at all.

          • damien
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink |

            1++

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink |

          You made me think of this:

          Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory.

          “I can pull off the best Admiral Ackbar, want to see?”
          “Its a TRAP”.
          Walks off in the distance…
          “ITS A TRAP”

      • Troden
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink |

        +1

    8. Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink |

      I gotta agree with the sentiment in the comments here Renai. I was (briefly) sucked in reading his first sentence. Then it became VERY clear their intentions have not changed.

      They still plan on finishing the NBN with FTTN, otherwise how could they make it cheaper and faster? They still plan on doing a CBA, meaning push back in the time it’s ALREADY taken to sort things out. They still plan on “renegotiating” with Telstra, which could mean anything from changing the terms slightly, all the way to (unlikely, but possible) letting TELSTRA do the FTTN. I wouldn’t put it past them.

      This is nothing from Turnbull except eloquent political spin again. He’s very good at it, but usually it contains some substance. In this case, it’s just the same story, in a pretty shell with flowers by saying “we will keep the mandat of the NBN”. The NBN is about almost total ubiquity of fast (both Down AND up), cheap broadband for Australians now AND in the future. The Coalition FTTN rollout covers NONE of those. They plan on neutering the NBN as much as possible as a political policy in the hope it’ll go away, they’ll get into power and they can deal with it then.

      • Col
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:38 pm | Permalink |

        +50 Well stated.

    9. Belinda
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink |

      >> “Coalition will complete NBN objective”

      What rubbish !

      The NBN objective is 93% fibre to the home by 2021
      – the coalition clearly aren’t going to do that

      • Tom
        Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink |

        “Underpinning the NBN rollout is the government’s objective to achieve major structural reform of the Australian telecommunications industry, which will deliver stronger competition, greater choice, lower prices and more innovation.” NBN web-site.

        • Tom
          Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:15 pm | Permalink |

          If that is OK for NBN, it is OK for Turnbull.

      • Tom
        Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink |

        Unfortunately, you have confused targets and objectives Belinda.

        • Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:04 am | Permalink |

          Unfortunately Tom YOU have confused Turnbull’s spin as truth.

          Your quote from NBNCo. conveniently IGNORES their PHYSICAL objective, which is to provide 93% of homes with FTTH.

          That objective will NOT be followed by Turnbull. End of story.

          • Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:06 am | Permalink |

            Your quote ALSO illustrates the GOVERNMENT’S basic objective, NOT NBNCo.’s total objective, as the quote recognises.

            • Tom
              Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink |

              Show me where NBN says 93% is an objective rather than a target.

              • Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink |

                3rd Report on Rollout to Senate Committee on the NBN- Page 13- speaking of the committee’s purpose and what NBNCo. need to report on:

                “(a) The rollout of the NBN, including in relation to the Government’s objective for NBN Co Limited (NBN Co) to:
                (i) connect 93 per cent of Australian homes, schools and businesses with fibre‐to‐the premises technology providing broadband speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, with a minimum fibre coverage obligation of 90 per cent of Australian premises; and
                (ii) service all remaining premises by a combination of next‐generation fixed wireless and satellite technologies providing peak speeds of at least 12 megabits per second;”

                Read: “including in relation to the Government’s objective for NBN Co Limited (NBN Co) to: connect 93 per cent of Australian homes, schools and businesses with fibre‐to‐the premises technology….”

                Please know what you are talking about before asking questions you do not want the answers to.

                • Tom
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink |

                  Thanks for your reference. I had viewed 93% as a target. Usually objectives are not specific like that. They are more generalised and in terms of what is to be achieved by the program rather than what is to be delivered. There is a very good reason for that.

                  To illustrate, if Turnbull turned up tomorrow and changed it to 92%, would that be a material departure?
                  If the technology changed in a tectonic way, would Conroy not be able to change that figure to optimise the benefit to the population?

                  • Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink |

                    “To illustrate, if Turnbull turned up tomorrow and changed it to 92%, would that be a material departure?”

                    It would, of course be a material departure for the 1% that miss out, but not substantially overall. But THAT is not what they are proposing. They are proposing more like 30% FTTP (largely because after all contracts run out, that’s what will have already been covered) probably 20-40% FTTP (although that’s a guess, I’ve gone through the reasoning for that in my own blog if you’re interested with sources) which will be balanced against current HFC in cities (with unspecified upgrades to the HFC via subsidies) and wireless to some unspecified portion of the 50-30% left, or they’ll be stuck on copper. Whether that be ADSL1, ADSL2 or whatever they have now. There’s also likely to be subsidies for Telstra to upgrade more exchanges for ADSL2….but that doesn’t actually help- my line is not capable of giving me any faster speeds even ON ADSL2.

                    “If the technology changed in a tectonic way, would Conroy not be able to change that figure to optimise the benefit to the population?”

                    All technology changes, faster than most people predict. But the difference here is FTTN HAS limits, we know them and we KNOW we will be passing them within 10-15 years, primarily because the COPPER has limits, particularly in this country where some 15% of it needs replacing already. This is why overseas Telco’s are ALREADY beginning to morph to FTTH, while in the middle of FTTN.

                    FTTH doesn’t, we DON’T know its’ limits. In it’s current GPON architecture, we know it is likely to be able to give up to 40Gbps. With replacements of JUST the NTD and switches in the cabinets (no new fibre, no new nodes, no new distribution) we may be able to achieve, in the future, 1Tb. We don’t KNOW yet how far we can go. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say, even if it IS in 50 years, with technological progress we WILL need those speeds for business, education, health and even some consumers. NONE of that is possible on FTTN and it would HAVE to be upgraded to FTTH for that to occur. That’s simple fact, not rhetoric or opinion. It’s physics.

          • Tom
            Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink |

            The objective comes straight off the NBN’s web-site. Nothing to do with Turnbull.
            BTW: 93% is not being followed by NBN. The majority of activations thus far are satellite and wireless. How can you be so sure Conroy has any intention of achieving it? … because he told yo so? … because it is there on the web-site? LOL.

    10. Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink |

      I have to agree with everyone else here Renai. Turnbull is doing what politicians do best. He’s saying the same thing a different way to change the message.

      I can’t see that their policy has changed.

    11. Hubert Cumberdale
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:37 am | Permalink |

      Turnbull is a politician after all, when he says:

      “But we will complete the objective, but we will do so in a much more cost-effective way.”

      He actually means we’ll complete OUR outdated objective and we’ll half arse it.

    12. Karl
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink |

      “more cost-effective” than 7% return?
      So you want to put prices up, Malcolm?

      “what it fails to do is recognise and disclose to school students the central issue in this debate, which is not whether broadband is good or whether internet access is good. But whether this reckless Labor Government is going about it in a responsible way or not.”
      You want to put a political debate in school? Really? Have you NO SHAME?

      “Labor’s $50 billion national broadband network”
      They really should stop spreading this lie, it makes the party look like a joke to anybody who has a clue.

      • GongGav
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

        Problem is Karl, they arent stating $50b for those that have a clue, they are stating it for everybody else.

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink |

          GongGav/Karl

          To be fair, the total cost, including Telstra payments, is likely to go over $50 Billion. BUT, this is part of the structure of payments and is NOT taxpayers money, which they CONTINUALLY fail to mention.

          • GongGav
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink |

            Fair point 7T, and fully agree. The real issue isnt the amount, its the fact that the project itself will be repaying the money, plus 7%. Which doesnt get conveyed along the way.

            But the continual rehashing of the $50b amount, with or without an asterix, is for the general population, not the clued in on one side or the other. It makes a non-issue THE issue to people not understanding the real debate – “The $50b the NBN costs could be spent on things like hospitals, or roads, or schools”…

            Despite the fact those main areas are state issues, the people spouting them are doing so because they hear the Lib’s continually spouting a cost of $50b, and if they hear it often enough, it muse be true.

            • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink |

              Oh definitely GongGav. This is the main problem. The political slant makes the $50 Billion seem like this MASSIVE amount of money all out there on its’ own. When in fact it will all be paid back under the NBN and in its’ current form it COULDN’T be redirected to those things.

              But that doesn’t matter, its’ $50 BILLION PEOPLE!!? :D

            • Tom
              Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink |

              7%? Oh, puhleease. Who told you that? NBN? Conroy? Gillard? I thought you were against swallowing partisan garbage. I suppose you believe Elvis is coming back?

              • Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink |

                @Tom

                I’m sorry Tom but 7% ROI is what the corporate plan predicts. The Corporate Plan was NOT drawn up by Labor, it was drawn up by NBNCo. and has been checked and agreed reasonable, as long as conditions are met.

                You are perfectly at liberty to disagree….but unless you have some expert opinion the rest of the analysts have missed, it remains a disagreement with no basis in fact.

                • Tom
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink |

                  I repeat 7% is just a pie in the sky figure. It is Chemical Ali stuff. NBN have not provided any credible analysis to support it and are not entitled to any benefit of the doubt.

                  The burden of proof is on them to support it given that they are committing taxpayers’ money. They have not. Its that simple.

                  If you believe that NBN is independent of Labor and Conroy, there is no helping you.

                  • Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:46 am | Permalink |

                    “I repeat 7% is just a pie in the sky figure. It is Chemical Ali stuff. NBN have not provided any credible analysis to support it and are not entitled to any benefit of the doubt.
                    The burden of proof is on them to support it given that they are committing taxpayers’ money. They have not. Its that simple.
                    If you believe that NBN is independent of Labor and Conroy, there is no helping you.”

                    I don’t normally post this link, seeing as almost EVERYONE has read it, seeing as it’s 2 years old now:

                    http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/nbn-co-3-year-gbe-corporate-plan-final-17-dec-10.pdf

                    LOOK at the Corporate Plan. They justify EVERY SINGLE thing that is required to get them 7% ROI. Go through it. NAME something that doesn’t add up?? Trust me, we’ve debated this DOZENS of times and NOWHERE have people like Matthew, who LOVE to quote the Corporate Plan, right or wrong depending on his mood and argument, been able to find figures or facts that dispute what NBNCo. use. You’re “pie in the sky” comment means DIDDLY without anything to back it up.

                    Oh and they’re NOT using taxpayer money- the money is borrowed, paid for by balanced bond maturities from the government. I can’t be bothered explaining, look up non Delimiter about funding for the NBN. I’m sure you’ll come back with “It’s only off-budget cause Labor are using accounting trickery” in 5 mins flat, but I can always hope.

                    Finally, if you believe NBNCo. isn’t independent and will NOT make a ROI around 7%, but that the Coalition policy WILL deliver the same and make an ROI better…well, there is no helping YOU.

                    • Tom
                      Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink |

                      “.. if you believe NBNCo. isn’t independent”, … They aren’t.
                      1. How many independent company’s have the government’s objective (your words) at the masthead on their web-site?
                      2. Their board are all government appointments.

                      “.. will NOT make a ROI around 7%” … they won’t.

                      “The Coalition policy WILL deliver the same and make an ROI better”, … They won’t and why would they want to? The key is what is adequate for the public balanced against the cost to government of funding / underwriting of the initiative. BTW: “Policies” don’t deliver anything. Organisations do.

                      Finally, “…well, there is no helping YOU.” …. There isn’t, from your perspective, but then again I am not hysterically desperate for the one solution, unlike your lot.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink |

                        Congrats on not caring about Australian’s future broadband and communications services. No kids? Or just don’t care?

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink |

                        “Won’t somebody please think of the children!?!” why, thank you Helen Lovejoy. A truly magnificent contribution.

                        Now, why not pop off and google “thought-terminating cliché”?

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

                        Why don’t you get some facts to back up your assertions rather just grumbling like a old jaded canservative?
                        I have seen from your response to others any discussion with you is a waste of effort. You have your goal and nothing will get in the way of it. I just got sick of reading your continual insults and put downs of others.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink |

                        If you consider your comments to be “discussion”, I will laugh in your face (“discussion with you is a waste of effort” )

                        * “Congrats on not caring about Australian’s future broadband and communications services.” *
                        ” “No kids?”
                        * “Or just don’t care?”

                        Very, edifying Noddy.

                        If you dish it out, Noddy, don’t cry when it comes back.

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink |

                        “”.. if you believe NBNCo. isn’t independent”, … They aren’t.”

                        Show me the Legislation which says NBNCo. MUST do exactly what the government tells them everyday? That’s right, there isn’t any. The Communications Minister, under The Companies Act (surrounding the founding of NBNCo.) has licence to ask NBNCo. to change what services they are required to provide, but under Part 2 Division 2, those services MUST be wholesale, or else a change to the legislation is required. THAT IS ALL. NBNCo., for all intents and purposes are an ENTIRELY privately run company with public funding. Also known as a GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ENTERPRISE.

                        Or would you suggest the government can simply tell Aust. Post board to provide cheaper mail services, without passing any legislation?

                        “1. How many independent company’s have the government’s objective (your words) at the masthead on their web-site?
                        2. Their board are all government appointments.”

                        Australia Post for a start. JUST because they have government OBJECTIVES, does NOT mean they are RUN by the government. And yes, the board WERE government appointed, because before the board THERE WAS NO ONE TO APPOINT ANYONE.

                        I have commented before about your Coalition propaganda mistruths surrounding the board. They are some of the BEST people in the industry ANYWHERE. Are you suggesting the government should’ve ONLY put in Australian business men/women or even political lackeys? That’s what you are suggesting for a NATIONAL project that needs HUGE expertise to work…..political lackeys who have NO concept of how to build an NBN….yes, I think that’s MUCH more likely….

                        “”The Coalition policy WILL deliver the same and make an ROI better”, … They won’t and why would they want to? The key is what is adequate for the public balanced against the cost to government of funding / underwriting of the initiative. BTW: “Policies” don’t deliver anything. Organisations do.”

                        This is one of the wonderful contradictions surrounding the anti-NBN and particularly Coalition view of the NBN- It’s ROI of 7% is ridiculous, it has no basis in real-world scenarios……and yet our plan NEEDS no ROI because it can produce a MUCH better return to the people….even though it can’t be measured….or planned…..or even backed up. But that’s ok, because the NBN ROI is ridiculous…forget the fact that even IF it didn’t receive 7% it would STILL produce a network that would be FAR superior (technically AND physically, BOTH of which I would defy you to prove wrong) to a patchwork FTTN AND wouldn’t need upgrading for at LEAST 20 years. Thereby ALREADY proving its’ worth over an FTTN even WITHOUT a 7% ROI.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:19 pm | Permalink |

                        “If you consider your comments to be “discussion”, I will laugh in your face (“discussion with you is a waste of effort” )”

                        I don’t. I discuss with people who don’t spend their time being insulting. I can see plainly from your responses to others you pay no value to what anyones says, factual, opinion or otherwise.
                        So why bother trying to discuss anything with you?

                        “Very, edifying Noddy.

                        If you dish it out, Noddy, don’t cry when it comes back.”

                        I am dishing it out to you because you are being rude to everyone you are talking to in this discussion.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink |

                        Noddy, ICB.

                        Your statement “Congrats on not caring about Australian’s future broadband and communications services. No kids? Or just don’t care?” was gratuitous. It came hard on the heels of my previous comment which had nothing insulting in it to anyone.

                        Sorry Noddy, you dished it out to me out of the blue. You started a fight, so stop crying about it.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:48 pm | Permalink |

                        After reading many post by you, you were being insulting. Even the one I posted against was insulting.

                        “I am not hysterically desperate for the one solution, unlike your lot.”

                        So, people who have looked into the various solutions, studied the technologies, work in the firld, are just hysterically desperate? Yet, your postion, which you rarely give any data to support and often reply with a simple assertion it is the case because you say so, is deeply research and objective?

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink |

                        I get it. You took umbrage at my general observation that reactions were hysterical to questions on NBNs solution. So you called me uncaring and without kids? Can you see any irony there ?

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:31 am | Permalink |

                        Noddy, I also wrote, “The key is what is adequate for the public balanced against the cost to government of funding / underwriting of the initiative.” – The best technical solution does not have to win the day.

                        However, I understand that I have picked a highly skilled technical forum that would not be over the moon with happiness about such a view.

                      • Posted 01/07/2012 at 2:57 am | Permalink |

                        @Tom

                        “The best technical solution does not have to win the day.
                        However, I understand that I have picked a highly skilled technical forum that would not be over the moon with happiness about such a view.”

                        But see, this is the most frustrating thing about being Pro-NBN. We get branded geeks, tech heads who can ONLY see the technical merit and can’t see anything else. And yet, when we show SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and INDUSTRY benefits of the NBN, they’re ignored.

                        It is not a simple matter of “Not everyone needs a Quad-core processor, it’s a gold-plated solution”. It is a matter of “These quad-core processors are expensive, but they’ll last us 5 years. Otherwise we’d have to buy a new laptop twice in the next 5 years, costing us twice as much” That is LITERALLY a direct comparison. It is NOT just economics NOW that matters, but what happens in 5, 10, 15, 20 or 50 years time!

                        And WE’RE the ones branded narrow minded for thinking about the future??

    13. Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink |

      “what it fails to do is recognise and disclose to school students the central issue in this debate, which is not whether broadband is good or whether internet access is good. But whether this reckless Labor Government is going about it in a responsible way or not.”

      HOLY CRAP!!!

      I didn’t even SEE this….I’ve gotta stop skim reading.

      He’s trying to teach SCHOOLKIDS about “Labor’s waste”?????

      This is low and childish. Come on Turnbull, you’re better than that.

      • Mathew
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink |

        School kids don’t need to be taught about Labor waste. They simply see it in the difference between what the public and private schools were able to do with the Building Schools funding from the Federal Government.

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink |

          “School kids don’t need to be taught about Labor waste. They simply see it in the difference between what the public and private schools were able to do with the Building Schools funding from the Federal Government.”

          Yes, please, ask my 8 year old niece about the “big bad Labor government, coming to steal or your cookies”…..

          This is politics at its’ lowest. Trying to convince CHILDREN of their politics?? Come ON Matthew.

    14. observer
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink |

      Some people seem to think that Turnbull is smart! Crafty, devious, calculating perhaps but smart? Not so sure. As usual with politicians, the vagueness of the statement gives him plenty of scope for rationalisation after the event.

      Faster and cheaper NBN, he keeps saying.

      What will be faster the roll out or the connection speed and what will be cheaper the cost of the roll out or the cost to users?

      Your guess is as good as mine

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink |

        Faster = Faster rollout of outdated and slow solutions. The coalition like to use this word because they believe if they put it in sentences it’ll make their patchwork plan sound faster. The real fact of the matter is what they are planning with their gimped network could very well end up being completed in 2021 just like the proper NBN. In other words it is a colossal waste of time and money, they simply dont care.

        Cheaper = Cheaper to build, aka cheap and nasty, it wont be cheaper for consumers you’ll pay the same price you pay now and would pay with the NBN for something much more inferior, not great value for money but that is the end consequence of the coalition patchwork plan.

        • Tom
          Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:39 pm | Permalink |

          Costs vs delivery are looking pretty sick. That is straight out of Dopeshott’s report on the roll out.

          • Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink |

            @Tom

            Tom, you have admitted to hating Labor, you have provided no alternate evidence to back up you claims, while I have provided evidence as to why NBNCo. are currently behind, mostly though no fault of their own. Which, actually, you’ll note the committee AKNOWLEDGES in its’ report. Again, you’re also looking at the 2nd report. The 3rd report is out.

            Until you provide some valid, evidence based arguments (what Delimiter is based on) I’m afraid I’m frustrated enough not to bother. If that was your goal, congratulations. I will meanwhile continue to wait details about Coalition broadband policy before I can make ANY comparison to the current NBN.

            • Tom
              Posted 30/06/2012 at 12:35 am | Permalink |

              “mostly though no fault of their own”, whose fault is it then when an large organisation fails to deliver? What a childish cop out.

              Thanks, for your info. I will read the third report. Cheers.

              • Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:24 am | Permalink |

                “whose fault is it then when an large organisation fails to deliver? What a childish cop out.”

                I have explained, in 2 posts now, what the delays were:

                1- Telstra agreement delay- Fault: Telstra
                2- Incorrect address delay- Fault: Database (Government uses this database too, perhaps that’s why they don’t know where any of us live?…
                3- USO delay- Fault: Government
                4- Tender delay- Fault: NBNCo.

                3 of these 4 NBNCo. had ZERO control over. Only the tendering could they have sped up, at greater cost. Consistently saying the delays are NBNCo.’s fault and therefore show how incompetent they are, when the facts prove otherwise, won’t make your POV truth.

        • Tom
          Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink |

          What sort of car do you drive Hubert? Cheap and nasty?
          Who pays? You?
          That’s right, your paradigm changes when you pay. It’s called fiscal responsibility.

    15. Jzee
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:05 pm | Permalink |

      I’m sorry Renai but I’d have to agree with some of the other commenters here.

      Read between the lines and it is obvious that Turnbull and the coalition have not changed their stance at all.

      Instead of walking the streets with pitch forks calling for the halting of the NBN they are now playing ball claiming they all continue “the objective” of fast broadband. Carefully selected words to pretend they ARE supporting the NBN when if you read carefully it is obvious they are still hell bent on their “faster, cheaper FTTNN” and ZERO explanation of how they will overcome all the financial, technical etc details that all analysts say will make it very hard to do.

      They are desperately trying to get voters that like the NBN back on their side with nebulous promises that they will continue it.

      Unfortunately by publishing articles such as this printing word for word their propaganda some people may actually BELIEVE that the coalition has “seen the light” and have magically reversed their previous opinions on the NBN….

      They were hell bent on destroying it, it cost them an election and they are STILL too stupid and stubborn to accept that perhaps it IS a good policy they should support.

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink |

        ^ This.

        Policy on the run. They blame Labor for this? Are you kidding?
        This is who people want to run the country? This conservative crap? Gimme a break.

        MT hasnt changed his position, hes merely given it a new coat of paint and called a spade a shovel.

        • GongGav
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink |

          Not sure he’s gone so far as to calling it a shovel yet, I think he’s still calling it an earth moving device. Might have suggested its a similar size to the spade (without supplying spec’s supporting that), but just not sure he’s gone that little further.

      • Gwyntaglaw
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink |

        There are two seemingly contradictory statements that both apply: no, the Coalition haven’t changed their position; and yes, they have changed their statements.

        That’s because their position has been all along is to commit to very little and plan to have a policy when the wheels stop moving and they find themselves in government. The progression in statements merely reflects the changing state of the rollout. Quite clearly, Abbott expected to find himself in government within six months after the last election, waiting for the hung parliament to fail and force a re-election. So much for that!

        I can state with certainty what will happen if the Coalition come into government next year. They will form a committee or body of experts to produce a policy with the following characteristics:
        - it will use the existing NBN Co built infrastructure
        - it will incorporate the infrastructure which is to be built under contracts already let (including satellite and LTE fixed wireless)
        - it will also somehow include FTTN and upgraded HFC, in a way to maximise the use of existing infrastructure
        - it will overhaul the current greenfields FTTH policy to hand this work off to private providers
        - it will cost less than the NBN (sticker price, anyway – however defined)
        - it will include some bit of analysis to be labelled a “cost benefit analysis” (whether it merits such a title or not)
        - it will be called something different

        In broad terms, that is what they will do. The committee/Productivity Commission will go away, twiddle the dials, play with their spreadsheets, and come back after six months to deliver an “adjusted” policy, to be labelled “realistic” and “responsible”. This dog’s breakfast will be hailed as a triumph of forward-looking policy, and will generate all kids of Budget “savings” that can only be realised by fiddling the books a bit.

        It will probably be left up to the committee to revise things like the 93% overall fibre target; who gets FTTN, HFC, FTTH or fixed wireless; ownership of network assets in the short and long term; and regulatory regime, including to what extent privately owned assets (copper & HFC) will have open access provisions.

        • Tom
          Posted 29/06/2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink |

          Not a bad analysis. He will probably do most of that.

          Committees don’t always have to be comprised of ass-lickers hired to fit solutions to political agenda. They can sometimes also be useful for expert guidance on striking a balance between technical and budget considerations.

          After all the bluster and acrimony, I believe some aspects of NBN will remain. Clearly the cables and infrastructure have value.

          I have a feeling that both sides would be trying to backpeddle from the “rolled gold” geek solution for legitimate cost reasons.

          “Work has already begun on the NBN and, by the end of the 10 year rollout, NBN Co plans to connect all Australian premises to this new high-speed broadband network.
          93 per cent of Australian homes, schools and businesses will have access to the NBN through optic fibre to the premises, capable of providing broadband speeds of up to one gigabit per second.
          7 per cent of premises will have access to the NBN through next-generation fixed wireless and satellite technologies, providing peak speeds of 12 megabits per second.”

          10 year rollout, 93% and 7% are up for grabs, Labor or LNP. I also believe that there will be a lot of copper around by the end of the 10 years, Labor or LNP

          However, the NBN board were political appointments (mainly from Optus?) with a view to hunting out Telstra. They may be replaced / reorganised / hacked to pieces while Thodey and Mal sing hymns together at their local church.

          • Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:20 am | Permalink |

            “However, the NBN board were political appointments (mainly from Optus?) with a view to hunting out Telstra. They may be replaced / reorganised / hacked to pieces while Thodey and Mal sing hymns together at their local church.”

            I’m sorry Tom, but I CANNOT let this pass. This is GROSSLY, even DISGUSTINGLY untrue. DO NOT post such things, which indicate you CLEARLY have not read anything about the NBN board:

            http://nbnexplained.org/wordpress/who-is-building-it/

            Quigley has had nothing to do with Optus. Neither has Gary or Claire nor Jim, Jean-Pascal or Patrick. The ONLY person to have been with Optus before is Steve Christian, head of Network Operations. It makes sense to have somebody from Australia’s Telco’s overseeing the network in our country as they know the lay of the land AND indeed, what Telstra have or don’t have, being the primary supplier of CURRENT networks.

            To say the board was 1- Politically appointed and 2- Largely from Optus are BOTH patently untrue. The board are some of the WORLD’s best in Telecommunications and in fact 3 of them have not been in Australia largely for YEARS. The fact that you believe otherwise shows your UTTER contempt for unbiased facts, in believing anything other than what the Coalition or biased media tell you.

            I don’t normally get particularly upset over whether people believe the NBN is positive or not, but this comment truly makes me angry. You show you know NOTHING about NBNCo. as a company, choosing instead to believe whatever fits your view from whatever highly biased Coalition or conservative information you have. Disagree with the NBN for all you like but DO NOT post such overarching untruths when you have, clearly, absolutely NO idea what you are talking about.

            • Tom
              Posted 30/06/2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

              Don’t overplay the self righteous card. You might burst a pfoofle valve.
              NBN remains a political animal with political as well as operational agenda.

              • Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink |

                The NBN will ALWAYS be political, even though NO utility should be.

                But that doesn’t give you the right to slander an extremely experienced and competent board, because they were government appointed, which, because it’s a LABOR government you automatically assume means it is VASTLY left-wing.

                Quigely gave up his first years salary to charity. He’s also ruled out ANY executive bonus acceptance in NBNCo. Does that REALLY sound like a man who is politically motivated, or rather like a man who is COMMITTED to seeing this country have a world-class telecommunications network the envy of the planet?

                • Tom
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink |

                  The antipathy to Telstra was palpable in the early days. Most punters believed that it was Conroy being outraged at Sol for snubbing (not putting up a serious proposal to) FTTN.

                  The legislation being thrown around was draconian to the industry punters. Sorry seven, it was a nasty political game then. Appointments to NBN board were viewed in that context.

                  As for the board today, they are lovely people, especially the ballet dancer.

                  • Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink |

                    ” Sorry seven, it was a nasty political game then. Appointments to NBN board were viewed in that context.”

                    It was indeed. I do “HATE” politics in this country sometimes. There should be bi-partisan support for AN NBN, there SHOULD be bi-partisan support for an immigration policy that WORKS and there SHOULD be ACTUAL debate, rather than constant censuring and running political jokes in the House to try and publicly humiliate the other party (this is from BOTH sides here).

                    “As for the board today, they are lovely people, especially the ballet dancer.”

                    Appointments to the board may have been viewed that way at the time. It doesn’t make that view correct. The current board just want to get the job done. Mike Quigley has expressed his dismay at the politics surrounding the NBN. He’s not interested in politics. He’s been given a job to give 93% (or more hopefully through the extension program) of Australians, for all intents and purposes today, UNLIMITED bandwidth (in the context of what many get now) and 7% a CONSIDERABLE improvement on what they currently get. THAT is a worthy objective and he is committed to that, as are the rest of the board.

                    • Tom
                      Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink |

                      Happy to accept your word that Quigley is not a chainsaw.
                      Let’s hope Quigley is the balm to NBN in the same way Thodey appears to have been a balm to Telstra (following Sol’s ignominious departure).

    16. Soth
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink |

      Thank you Renai for posting this, love how anything Liberal you quote (yes quoted, he’s reporting news) you get ripped into. For heaven sack people he’s reporting news on the NBN.
      It’s good to read both sides of the story for once.

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink |

        It’s hilarious how people automatically assume I am the spokesperson for whatever I am reporting on on any given day ;) In fact, the only interest group I represent is the Australian public, especially those that work in ICT.

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink |

          Ture Renai. You were only reporting Malcolm. I apologise if my post added to the “ripping in to” :D

          It just seemed like in your analysis, you’ve started to lean towards to Coalition’s rhetoric about “completing the NBN”.

          We do need to hear both sides. It’s often difficult to see the forrest for all the trees, mind you when we get this sort of runaround about ACTUAL information.

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink |

          Someone I was reading on whirlpool with regards to the “Telstra is killing competition” piece was claiming it was Socialist dribble.

          I laughed to myself, Renai? Socialist? :S Hes probably about as far from it as possible.

          I’m a Social Capitalist myself, Renai doesnt strike me as someone who is a Socialist, he strikes me as someone who would generally be conservative.

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink |

            I have been very public over time that I am personally of the libertarian socialist political leaning philosophically. I am a very strong believer in small government where government is needed, and in favour of the freedom and power of the individual. Hence I am a writer and a journalist, devoted to keeping government and other powerful figures accountable.

            However, this doesn’t mean I can’t examine policies for what they are, irrespective of my political leanings. In this sense, it seems clear that Labor’s NBN policy is the best bet Australians have right now for great broadband in the future. Would I like there to be a rival policy which didn’t create a new government monopoly? Yes, I would. But such a policy does not now exist, and so we come back again to Labor’s NBN: A policy which will at least work in terms of accomplishing the fast universal policy goal, even if it does it in an inefficient and uncompetitive way.

            • Bern
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink |

              So, what’s wrong with a government monopoly, that has a legislated limit to return on investment, with all excess revenue going back into infrastructure / price cuts?

              Especially for something like fixed-line telecommunications, which is as close to a natural monopoly as you can get? (i.e. the interests of the consumer are harmed by duplication, due to added costs per subscriber)

              We only have one road network, one railway network, one electricity distribution network, one water reticulation network, one sewerage network. It would cost a phenomenal amount to duplicate that infrastructure in order to provide “competition”. The common thread to all these, of course, is that appropriate regulation is required in order to maintain a reasonable return, and prevent monopolistic gouging. The railways & electricity markets are actually a fairly good analogue for the NBN – the fixed infrastructure (i.e. the tracks or transmission lines) are owned by a highly-regulated monopoly provider, with the competition happening in terms of the product delivered over that infrastructure – although, up here, QRNational (now privatised) fought tooth and nail against allowing other providers to run trains on the tracks owned by QR Network Services (still a gov’t owned monopoly).

              • Tom
                Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink |

                “So, what’s wrong with a government monopoly”, intrinsically, nothing. Its unequal playing field advantage can be controlled.

                However, it is a bit like HAL from the space odyssey when it suddenly becomes self aware. Its survival becomes paramount and its mission to serve becomes subservient.

                • Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink |

                  “However, it is a bit like HAL from the space odyssey when it suddenly becomes self aware. Its survival becomes paramount and its mission to serve becomes subservient.”

                  It can ONLY become “self-aware” as it were if it is privatized, which, I think you’ll find MANY pro-NBNers DON’T want.

                  Case in point, Telstra. People keep saying NBNCo. will be another Telstra….but you don’t generally hear people complaining about Telecom Australia when they WEREN’T a private company….

                  PUBLIC monopolies of utilities are natural, because the government controls the essential services quality and pricing for the benefit of its’ taxpayers. PRIVATE monopolies of utilities are a disaster because they’re only out to make money- screw the consumer.

                  • Tom
                    Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink |

                    “you don’t generally hear people complaining about Telecom Australia when they WEREN’T a private company” … a big call there. I can remember some bad experiences and, if you are honest, complaining was useless back then.

                    RTA, Medicare, the old Commonwealth bank, state health services – I think you would find they were / are all comfortable about their protected status.

                    • Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink |

                      “RTA, Medicare, the old Commonwealth bank, state health services – I think you would find they were / are all comfortable about their protected status.”

                      RTA…..mmm, that’s not really the same story. They’re a VERY convoluted government department (Maritime and Road services or whatever they are now) and a state department to boot.

                      Medicare- Yes and no. Again, they’re not a GBE. They’re a department.

                      CommBank- They WERE a GBE but they aren’t now. Can’t really comment on what they were like before they were….well before my time.

                      My point is, I think, in general, people would agree the Telecom Australia days, while far from perfect, were cheaper and easier than Telstra days. My father HATES Telstra. He though Telecom Australia were idiots, but he didn’t hate them. Private enterprise, namely Telstra, HASN’T delivered what we, as Australian Internet consumers want or need, because it is expensive due to our geography. If private enterprise WON’T do it, we have 2 options:

                      1- Subsidise (Coalition Ideology)
                      2- Build it ourselves (Labor Ideology)

                      In some cases, subsidies ARE better. Some of Howard’s subsidies were useful, even if you didn’t like him. In the case of utilities and essential services, I am of the belief as are many others who support the NBN, that they SHOULD be government provided infrastructure to ensure equality across service, price and availability.

                      WHY would we pay private enterprise to deliver infrastructure that they can charge what they like for and ONLY deliver it where specified, which is likely to be where it’s easiest and cheapest for the government to provide funds for?? Why NOT produce a utility that delivers the SAME service to ALL (in context) Australians at ONE price (per service) and with the same guidelines regardless of geography, social status or anything else discriminatory we can think of (such as whether they live in an apartment- see Telstra/Optus HFC)??

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink |

                        If you mean MediBANK you’d be right. They were a GBE. Not anymore….

                        I think this is the point overall. Governments over the past few years have sold off ALL but Aust Post as GBE’s (and only that because EVERY expert has told them that would be a quick way to see our mail system go down the toilet) and therefore everyone has assumed GBE’s AREN’T the way to ge things done.

                        This simply isn’t the case. There is WIDE support for utility GBE’s depending on circumstances Like ours, where we have a widely distributed geographic population that would otherwise have a divide in essential service quality. Hence the NBN.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink |

                        I was actually thinking of Medicare which included MediBank Private at the time.
                        1. There was a major bloc of “true believers (Gough, maintain the rage etc)” who were obsessively following the political scene as it affected their empire.
                        2. There was a tendency to spin when it came to Medibank Private’s performance.

                        You might be right about telecom / pmg though. On the whole the technician culture dominated and the political spivs were not as prevalent. As a result there was a pride in the place about technical excellence. Service? Well, it usually happened eventually.

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink |

                        I should probably listen to my father more often when he goes on about Whitlam and Medicare and all that. I just find it hard not to nod off….

                        Certainly “service” under PMG/Telecom was variable. But at least in general the charges were “reasonable” (for the time). I think the problem is today the service can’t afford to be variable, because that precludes cheap, efficient access to the internet, which is what we see under Telstra in bad areas. And in alot of good areas for that matter….

    17. CMOTDibbler
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink |

      I think you’re right, Renai. Having the NBNCo continue as part of Coalition policy fits with something David Thodey said a month or so back about re-negotiating the deal.

      I think the satellite and wireless components of the NBN will be too far advanced to stop. The same goes for the Tassie roll out. The Coalition agrees with FTTP in greenfield sites. The only difference that’s left is to switch the NBNCo from FTTP to FTTN in brownfield sites.

      So, we still have the NBNCo with 100% coverage but with FTTN in the mix. It’s not as good as FTTP but it could do the trick come the election. That’s the main goal imho.

      • Noddy
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink |

        “It’s not as good as FTTP but it could do the trick come the election. That’s the main goal imho.”

        Well, it would be short term political gains for long term cost to Australia,

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink |

        +1

      • Avid Gamer
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink |

        The only difference that’s left is to switch the NBNCo from FTTP to FTTN in brownfield sites.

        But that is also not entirely correct. The Liberal’s FTTN will be to the 5 main capital cities and maybe parts of the Gold Coast in brownfield sites. Regional and rural brownfield sites will get wireless/satellite or ADSL2+

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink |

          +1 Avid

          http://nbninfo.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/coalition-broadband-planmaybe-and-fttn.html

          I’ve gone through it myself, with some help.

          There literally is nowhere else for them to go.

        • alain
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink |

          ‘The Liberal’s FTTN will be to the 5 main capital cities and maybe parts of the Gold Coast in brownfield sites. Regional and rural brownfield sites will get wireless/satellite or ADSL2+’

          Where did you get this extraordinary detail from that the Coalition don’t even know about?

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink |

            “Where did you get this extraordinary detail from that the Coalition don’t even know about?”

            alain, read this:

            http://nbninfo.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/coalition-broadband-planmaybe-and-fttn.html

            That’s what I came up with between myself and Citigroup’s analysis. Because WE HAVE NO INFORMATION OTHERWISE.

            This is half the point. We have NO information on ANY sort of Coalition FTTN. And that is not acceptable. It is replacing a WELL advanced FTTH plan which, while it hasn’t yet begun to rollout commercially, has had 4-5 ears of setup behind it. If they’re going to change plans when they get in the Coalition NEED a policy that shows why they should undo all this work.

            It is simply unacceptable for them to sideline it. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is, it is untruthful and unethical of a politician, who is elected by the people, to simply ignore an important piece of policy.

            • alain
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink |

              oh I see, so that’s a no then, it’s not Coalition policy it’s seven_tech policy.

              • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink |

                “oh I see, so that’s a no then, it’s not Coalition policy it’s seven_tech policy.”

                I never said this would be their exact plan, or even they’d follow these lines. But if you actually follow the logical train of thought through, which is what I have done, you come up with around what I came up with. Citigroup did and they did it to show Telstra’s worth and consequently their rating approval of “buy”, so they’ve got a fair amount riding on it….

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink |

                alain instead of continuously dodging sevens points why dont you instead point out where and why you think he is wrong.

                • Alex
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink |

                  Seems we are quite the magicians Hubert.

                  Put him on the spot by asking a simple question and abracadabra, he disappears.

                • alain
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink |

                  I have made my point, it’s NOT Coalition policy, which is after all what we are supposedly discussing here.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink |

                    But yet you go off jabbering about Rudd in 2007, ABS stats and the system in the USA.

                    I guess using the topic as an escape route only matters to those who are unable to conduct meaningful and sensible correspondences.

                  • Hubert Cumberdale
                    Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink |

                    Actually I wasn’t asking you about your point at all, I was asking which points seven has made that you disagree with and why do you think he is wrong.

                    • Greg
                      Posted 05/06/2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink |

                      He should be banned, he exists to troll, and does not engage in “conversation”, never has. It doesn’t represent his political affiliation well, from my perspective.

            • Gwyntaglaw
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink |

              Very well put together piece, seven_tech.

              I agree with the overall analysis of the tech issues, and the effects of the policy statements.

              I’ve outlined my thoughts above, though very much in summary form – this is based not on technical expense, but on policy e pertinence in government, including having gone through a change of government in NSW last year and helped to manage a lot of high level policy transition.

              The political element is the X factor, which is by hard to quantify. What I mean is this: given that the work under contract at the time of an election next year will extend to roughly 30% of the total fibre rollout (and close to 100% of the fixed wireless & satellite), how will the Coalition avoid creating a patchwork quilt of haves and have-nots, those areas that received FTTH cheek by jowl with those that did not (and won’t expect to any time soon)? Because that will create a very sharp delineation of “Labor-benefitting” areas with fibre next to “Coalition-benefitting” areas without. That won’t be a good look.

              The areas that will really get screwed will be those small-medium regional centres that would have got fibre but aren’t on the three-year timetable, and will be legged to second-best solutions without any realistic prospect of anything better for a LONG time.

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink |

            I remember reading this somewhere Alain. Might have been the Australian ? Im not sure. I know I’ve seen it in a news bit somewhere.

            I always thought they had original intentions to do FTTH to the cities anyway, purely because the rollout would be faster and make more capital upfront. It’d make sense, the only reason its being done currently the other way around is because if the bush doesnt get done first, it’ll never be done at all.

      • alain
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink |

        Selective memory abounds on what did constitute Labor policy going into the 2007 election that Rudd won from Howard with this policy:

        ‘KEVIN RUDD, OPPOSITION LEADER: Nation building for the 21st Century lies in building a new national broadband network. It’s part of our pathway to the future.

        MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: In March, Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s broadband policy, a plan that would see a so-called fibre-to-the-node system rolled out within reach of 98 per cent of users. A public-private partnership that would give open access the system to all telecommunications companies but would see the government retain a 50 per cent equity. The sting is the cost: $4.7 billion. $2 billion and $2.7 billion taken from the future fund. Labor says it’s an investment for the future. The Government says it’s a politically driven raid on future prosperity.’

        http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1954840.htm

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink |

          alain. This was 5 YEARS ago. Labor have moved on….but apparently the Coalition hasn’t….

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink |

            LOL, so labor improve their broadband policy to a proper FttH build and he whines about it. Amazing.

          • alain
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink |

            That was the NBN policy that won Labor the 2007 election, you don’t like it being brought up because it makes Labor look like their policy has been all over the place since they gained power, sorry about that, but that’s because it has.

            • Hubert Cumberdale
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink |

              You can bring it up as much as you like, it doesn’t worry me, it just makes you look like more of an idiot. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but I am actually in favor of a FttH network plan not a FttN patchwork. I don’t care who came up with what or when, it’s totally irrelevant, the plan I am in favor of is the one that is in motion right now.

              • Tom
                Posted 30/06/2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink |

                Hubert, fingers in the ears? Now let’s sing, “la la la …”?

                • Dean
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink |

                  Who has their fingers in their ears? Labor’s policy at the 2007 election wasn’t very good. Most people have got over that and moved on. How is that putting your fingers in your ears?

                  • Tom
                    Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink |

                    Dean, quoting above, “the plan I am in favor of is the one that is in motion right now”. Yes we have moved on, both LNP and Labor. The question is did Labor learn from its half assed election winning plan?

                    Since you asked, the 3rd report on the rollout uses is muted language, however, the criticisms are stinging. I refer you to recommendations 2 & 4.

                    “The committee recommends the Government include key performance information in its six-monthly National Broadband Network performance report, listing and detailing: (1) established Business Plan
                    targets and (2) actual results for: 
                    *„  Homes passed; 
                    „* Homes connected; and 
                    * Services in operation. ”

                    A plan is only effective if it delivers results. We are not seeing any. The doubters are entitled to ask why NBN is so coy about its delivery record. Bad plan? Bad execution? …. or “lalala”?

                    “Recommendation 4 
                    The committee recommends that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in the development of future public education activities, undertake a study of similar international networks, with a view to adoption of: 

                    *„  International best practice;
                    „* Strategies employed by governments and companies building these networks; and 
                    „* Concrete examples of how this technology is being used and maximised by individuals, business and governments. ”

                    That is not an endorsement for NBN’s existing methodology either in the technical and business sense.

                    Dean, It is fine to move on, but it is not fine unless the same mistakes are not repeated. Otherwise it is same old, same old.

                    • Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink |

                      @Tom

                      I think you’re being a little disingenuous here:

                      “The committee recommends the Government include key performance information in its six-monthly National Broadband Network performance report, listing and detailing: (1) established Business Plan
                      targets and (2) actual results for:
                      *„ Homes passed;
                      „* Homes connected; and
                      * Services in operation. ”

                      This NBNCo. is ALREADY doing. What they’re asking for is 6 Monthly reports, rather than 12 Monthly reports. Re-read the second report, where they noted the same thing. It has not changed. NBNCo. cannot do this in a short period of time however, because of the nature of the rollout. I’d hardly call this scathing. The 2nd report was MUCH more scathing, using words like “The Committee recommends IMMEDIATELY” or “The committee recommends, with great haste”. This language is not shown in the 3rd report.

                      “Recommendation 4
                      The committee recommends that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in the development of future public education activities, undertake a study of similar international networks, with a view to adoption of:

                      *„ International best practice;
                      „* Strategies employed by governments and companies building these networks; and
                      „* Concrete examples of how this technology is being used and maximised by individuals, business and governments. ”

                      That is not an endorsement for NBN’s existing methodology either in the technical and business sense.”

                      This was in the 2nd report. It hasn’t changed. They will continue to recommend it. Even if they DO adopt these policies, which they are, because it is a REMINDER for them to KEEP doing it. That’s what an OVERSITE committee is- for oversight, for perspective. You are reading the worst that isn’t there. READ the language. In the 2nd report it WAS scathing, it is MUCH more friendly in this report because things are being done. LOOK at what the committee say on the WBA and NBNCo.’s allowance from 5 year contracts to 12 Month contract, the committee notes and appreciates it. The committee also notes the large amount of community consultation and education NBNCo. has been doing, which was a MAJOR criticism in the 2nd report.

                      You are LOOKING for criticisms that aren’t there. Recommendation is NOT automatically a criticism. It may be, but it also may be a suggested direction for better consumer protection or more transparent behaviour. There ARE criticisms in the 3rd report, but these AREN’T 2 of them.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:19 pm | Permalink |

                        Your underlying paradigm seems to be that NBN is entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt.

                        My paradigm is that the onus is on NBN to demonstrate that their delivery is in accordance with the expectations they have put out there and to demonstrate the due diligence behind their choice of delivery mechanisms.

                        I am happy to defer to you if you tell me where in the 3rd report, it deals with those two matters. I could not find it anywhere.

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink |

                        “My paradigm is that the onus is on NBN to demonstrate that their delivery is in accordance with the expectations they have put out there and to demonstrate the due diligence behind their choice of delivery mechanisms.”

                        But you see, this is the problem and as SOON as I say it, you’re going to say I’m moving the goal posts, but it is the problem. NBNCo.’s assumptions that made up the original Corporate Plan have changed, substantially. The Greenfields agreement. The 121 POI’s. The agreements with Telstra, Optus and now other ISP’s. These things change the assumptions (or their expectations as you call them) and therefore change the timing, cost and efficiency of the rollout. (due diligence around the delivery mechanisms)

                        It is not a simple matter to say “oh, well, they SAID they’d have 170 000 people connected by now and they only have 30 000.” when that 170 000 was accounted for by MUCH of the Greenfields that have had nothing happen thanks to the Government continually meddling in the USO.

                        If politics would leave the NBN alone for JUST 12 months, which is what is going to HAPPEN over the next 12 months now that all the regulatory stuff is mostly done, it will become IMMEDIATELY obvious that NBNCo. will meet their expectations. They are, as the committee STILL notes, STILL in start-up and regulation phase. It is NOT fair for a GBE this size, which will eventually incorporate EVERY Australian in one way or another, to be expected to:

                        1- Connect everyone at once
                        2- Connect everyone who DESERVES it t once (which is everyone)
                        3- Meet deadlines based on assumptions THAT HAVE CHANGED

                        How about we step back and get some perspective on this. NBNCo. came into existence in April 2009. JUST over 3 years later, ALL regulatory and industry contracts are almost complete. ALL business infrastructure (call centres, operations centre, PR etc) is WELL and truly complete or on their way to completion. ALL trials are now complete, with take up figures in most areas at or above NBNCo.’s own internal predictions for trial sites. Commercial services, except for multicasting are ALL successful (telephony has a bit of work yet) and already being ordered. Commercial rollout is JUST beginning (as of tomorrow actually technically).

                        HOW are these not acceptable for a company that has the scope of the ENTIRE country, in most cases, LITERALLY house to house??? Could they do better? Yes, hence the committee hearings. Are they blundering around blindly in the dark? Come on, be reasonable.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink |

                        Thanks for such a considered reply.

                        Having worked in large government project environment (building), I understand the frustration of having politicians who are over optimistic or simplistic in their promises to the community. They have to create such expectations, otherwise they are drowned out by other politicians “selling” an even bigger, better “vision”. It then comes back on the minions to deliver on that expectation.

                        It is nice that the bloggers on this site actually passionately believe in their product and where their organisation is going. I am richer through reading their insights. Regards, Tom

                      • Posted 30/06/2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink |

                        “It is nice that the bloggers on this site actually passionately believe in their product and where their organisation is going. I am richer through reading their insights. Regards, Tom”

                        We’re ALL richer for being able to live in Democracy where this sort of debate is allowed.

                        Now, if only we could get rid of the politicians, we’d be set for a Utopia……

                        I mean, move on, nothing to see here….

                        Cheers

          • Tom
            Posted 30/06/2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink |

            Thanks alain, at least it puts to rest any suggestion that Kevin 07′s flippant ($4.7billion) “policy” had any intellectual or operational substance. However, he did not need any. Howard clearly missed the boat on this one. His answers are pedestrian, dull and flat headed. No wonder Kevin 07 breezed in.

            The Labor tinfoils on this site would never admit it, but the LNP’s policy today is far more rigorous than Kevin 07′s election winner.

            Naturally, Labor has also progressed. From the FTTN disaster to Conroy’s bullying of Telstra and his Orwellian censorship aspirations. All a painful exercise but one hopes that the union class technical dunderhead has at least learned some lessons.

        • Alex
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink |

          So alain you are saying the previous Howard Coalition government were much more intelligent than the current Coalition and knew FTTN was wrong for the nation, or should I quote – “politically driven raid on future prosperity”.

          Perhaps John should have a word in TA’s and MT’s ears, then.

    18. Noddy
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink |

      How can they say they are going to meet the objectives and then roll out FTTN? Short term objectives maybe. The goal of FTTH however was to meet our needs for broadband for 50 years. FTTN would need to be upgraded to FTTH in under 20. Talk about Liberal waste.

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink |

        +1

      • alain
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink |

        ‘FTTN would need to be upgraded to FTTH in under 20.’

        Conjecture.

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink |

          Conjecture it may be, but its very plausible

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink |

            I wouldn’t even call it plausible, since FttH is rolling out right now all over the world including Australia it all points to the same thing, higher speeds are and even higher speed will be needed. Only fibre can deliver these speeds. A FttN patchwork will need an upgrade to a proper FttH build within 20 years no question about it, Noddy is actually being quite generous here.

            • alain
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink |

              ‘A FttN patchwork will need an upgrade to a proper FttH build within 20 years no question about it,’

              Just droning no fact conjecture over and over doesn’t make it correct.

              • Alex
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:19 pm | Permalink |

                So why do you persist ;-)

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink |

                “Just droning no fact conjecture over and over doesn’t make it correct.”

                That’s right, it’s a fact that speaks for itself. Now please STFU, adults are trying to discuss the improvement of communications infrastructure in Australia.

        • Noddy
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink |

          Yes, conjecture, because it is not 20 years time. This is the space of time virtually every communications company puts at the point that a minimum of 1Gb will be needed. If they do get FTTN to the point of reliable Gb operation I am pretty sure with the way the current copper is going it will have to be over copper oxide.

        • Noddy
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink |

          And I was being EXTREMELY generous with 20 years

    19. Abel Adamski
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink |

      The FTTN solution I cannot see as being cheaper due to the actual real world state of the last KM. The HFC was NOT designed for broadband back in the 90′s, rather for Cable TV and telephony and dial up/isdn equivalent data which is why even though upgraded to 100Mb it is still so limited, even crippled. In the US due to the size of their customer base and the ubiquitous nature of cable TV since the 70′s, when they upgraded to HFC from Cable late 90′s early 00′s they designed in for broadband which they have upgraded since. The US has to spend over 300Bill for a very partial upgrade from the almost obscene mix of vertically integrated comms companies, about the only wholesaling is on copper with ADSL.
      The US pricing usually quoted is very selective as is the quoted standard of service. It is the failure of the private sector to deliver in the US that has forced cities and even counties to install their own fibre. Yet that is the objective of the Coalition, a model that has been a disappointment elsewher. One can only question why. As their model will destroy the ability of the NBN to pay for itself or provide a ROI, thus shifting the entire cost onto the budget whilst at the same time destroying the Standardised ubiquitous business capable model. They must have their reasons as any logical assesment would consider that as verging on insanity

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink |

        Thats because its NOT cheaper. It never will be.

        Its physically impossible for FTTN to be cheaper, there are many reasons for this, up-to and including:

        - Power requirements
        - State of the Copper infrastructure
        - Payments to Telstra
        - Renegotiation of the Telstra Agreement
        - Pits / Ducts being in a state of dis-repair.

        We could bandy about this all day. The facts are, that with a CBA, there is no way that this can be cheaper. It just cant. Faster rollout, sure. Similar speed? sure.

        You have to be an absolute %^&*ing tool to think that Telstra is not going to milk the absolute bejesus out of the Coalition Government the minute they get elected. They know they’ve got them over a barrel with FTTN, they’re going to be driving that punch home really hard.

        • alain
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink |

          ‘you have to be an absolute %^&*ing tool to think that Telstra is not going to milk the absolute bejesus out of the Coalition Government the minute they get elected.’

          But the $11 billion Telstra is going to get from the Labor Government for their co-operation with the NBN rollout including the shutting down of their own fixed line BB infrastructure is a bargain and in no way can be classified as ‘milking’?

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:56 pm | Permalink |

            “But the $11 billion Telstra is going to get from the Labor Government for their co-operation with the NBN rollout including the shutting down of their own fixed line BB infrastructure is a bargain and in no way can be classified as ‘milking’?”

            Nope, it’s a payout. Milking would be when Telstra sucks us, the consumer dry by charging up the creek for FTTN speeds which aren’t much better if at all than we have now, because the Coalition believe in the “open market” approach.

            Milking is long term. This $11 Billion is a payout to put them off for good.

            • alain
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink |

              Oh I see.

              • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink |

                Good, I’m glad you do (I choose to ignore your sarcasm).

                You wanna be milked for the next 25 years on telecommunications? Feel free to continue pushing FTTN. Have fun with that.

                Meanwhile, we’ll be sitting over here wondering why you’re complaining it costs so much for 30Mbps in 10 years time….

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink |

            Okay, to be fair – theres a good chance Telstra’s milking it a bit with an $11 billion dollar figure. Thats AFTER Telstra were forced to seperate and only if they were given entry to the Wireless Spectrum bid. Given that would be gone by the time of the next election … what incentive do they have to play fair? Zip.

            Given that Telstra’s Copper Last Mile would be completely core to the entire FTTN rollout, and Telstra would get to retain their own staff AND get to keep control of the last mile and given that a Coalition Government would have totally Zero carrots to throw infront of the proverbial donkey – that they wont milk it harder ? Get off it.

            Telstra are going to make out of this like bandits. They’ve already got money, hell $2 Billion minimum for cancelling the existing contract (IF the LNP cancels). Malcom Turnbull has rocks in his head if he thinks they arent going to go for every dollar.

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink |

        Btw +1 Abel. When I was in the USA last year, I was overseeing the Verizon plans for their upgraded fibre network (Vodafone’s holdings help us understand their market much like ours in terms of engineering), as part of my studies to upgrade my degrees.

        What impressed me was the absolute lack of management on a grand scale. Its like the Federal Government has zero control over their private sector. In numerous cases, we’d seen the other operators come and jack in to the fibre links, taking bandwidth. Theres no legal recourse for this, they’re just allowed to rock-up and do it.

        Then, swapping from a GSM to CDMA and back to GSM handsets just for one or two city blocks is a nightmare. Why on earth would the Coalition want to copy this USA system is impressive, its not worked there – why would they think that subsidising industry is going to work here ? The private sector doesnt care, they never have.

        • alain
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink |

          ‘Why on earth would the Coalition want to copy this USA system is impressive, its not worked there – why would they think that subsidising industry is going to work here ?’

          What do you know about Coalition policy detail that not even the Coalition know about that tells you their policy is a direct copy of the USA system?

          • Mike S
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink |

            How is this even an argument?

            “How can you make assumptions when even the coalition have no idea what they want to do.” Is not a strong stance to take.

            How can you defend that?

            • alain
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink |

              So that’s a no then Coalition policy is not a copy of USA policy, because that’s the point I was making which you avoided even making mention of.

              • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink |

                Well done alain, you successfully argued your way in a circle, without answering anything.

                Troll level 9000!

              • Mike S
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink |

                Yes, you’re quite correct, didn’t make mention of the USA because it wasn’t what I was addressing with my question.

                Would you kindly respond on how you can defend the position of “How can you make assumptions when even the coalition have no idea what they want to do”.

                If you’d like me to respond to the USA part of your post, I’d be happy to.

                • alain
                  Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink |

                  Repeat the question in a more direct manner, I don’t know what you are specifically asking here.

                  • Mike S
                    Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink |

                    The way you respond to a lot of posts shows that you think people shouldn’t make assumptions about the coalition policy that, as you said yourself, not even the coalition themselves know about.

                    So I guess my question would be: How can you use the coalitions lack of detail as a defense for it’s policy. When the lack of detail itself, is the main flaw? (Insert Hubert: “FttN is their policies main flaw”..yes yes..)

                    “What do you know about Coalition policy detail that not even the Coalition know about” – is not a strong stance to take, it’s saying “that the coalition dont even know about their own policy, so how could you”. Do you not see how bad that is?

                    That was more of a challenge to word than I thought it would be. Hopefully it makes sense.

            • Alex
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink |

              Mike S you just described the entire anti-NBN argument ;-)

          • Abel Adamski
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:59 pm | Permalink |

            Hmm
            Lets see what they have categorically stated.
            Use a mix of technologies
            Use the HFC
            Use Fttn
            Greater private sector involvement
            Greenfields to the private sector
            FTTN, ADSL VDSL and mainly wireless to the Rural and Regional sector

            Consequences
            No Standardised network
            Wildly varying services available
            Guarantee of no decentralisation, rather greater move to cities with massive taxpayer costs for infrastructure, roads, rails, law enforcement as greater crime and gang activity. Increased business costs and reduced flexibility

            The NBN funding can no longer be repaid and all cost are on budget as mining income and investment implodes. Our colonial economy will be hit hard

            Our present is the consequence of attitudes beliefs and decisions of the past. Our future will be built on the foundation we create from the present we are lumbered with, I am already concerned about the fate of our democrcy and the rising irrational anger and violence being created by our media and politicians. The foundation stones of our future are being laid

            • Alex
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink |

              And of course, blame the previous government for everything bad, whilst banging the chest wildly and claiming everything good as their own.

              • Alex
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink |

                Of course that would be the same if the Libs were in power and Labor came in…

                That’s politics.

            • Hubert Cumberdale
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink |

              “Use a mix of technologies”

              You know whats really funny about this one the coaltion also say they want to be “technology agnostic” when the goal is 100/40mbps speeds now and 1000/400mbps later if they wanted to be “technology agnostic” they wouldn’t be talking about a “mix of technologies” at all since only one is capable of achieving the goal.

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink |

            IF we want to play semantics all day – I’ve got nowhere to be. Theres 1200 more engineers than me out building today, its my RDO.

            ‘Why on earth would the Coalition want to copy this USA system is impressive, its not worked there – why would they think that subsidising industry is going to work here ?’

            What do you know about Coalition policy detail that not even the Coalition know about that tells you their policy is a direct copy of the USA system?

            I could quite easily say – How do you know it WONT be exactly that system? I never mentioned anything about a ‘direct copy’ I purely said a ‘copy’.

            In any case, as a rebuttal to your point – or lack thereof – the US system is currently based on a capitalistic system of subsidies, which the counties / cities hand out to carriers to upgrade their infrastructure. Sound familiar ? Its like the one we have now courtesy of previous LNP policy.

            Thats right, thats the one that doesnt work.

            You shouldnt need to subsidise the incumbent carrier to do anything. Unfortunately, they’re a business and need to manage their costs. Fair enough, so you subsidise wireless sites, fixed line connections in areas which are untenable to the business. I can see some logic there. But thats where it ends. What happens when you get multiple carriers that want those subsidies? You get a similar system to the US, where you have counties, cities and towns that can have totally different systems. CDMA in one, GSM in another. You need two devices to communicate in the US for the most coverage. Not very smart now is it ?

            Times have changed in the USA, for the most part Verizon covers most of the country. Doesnt change how smaller towns and rural areas are treated, either served by one or the other depending on subsidy.

    20. Mathew
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink |

      The biggest threat to the NBN may becoming from unmet expectations, that totally validate Malcolm’s comments that the NBN is proceeding at a snail’s pace.

      Quigley is a master of spin as evidenced by his statements in the Senate Estimates Hearing.

      Mr Quigley : “I think the best way to look at it is if you look at the 12-month and three-year plan that we announced publicly in February/March”

      I agree that this is the best for looking at planned roll out of services and you will notice I have not quoted the NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010) for expected number of premises passed or connected.

      If you look at the 3 year roll out to 3.5 million premises it is actually a 4.5 year roll out in which at most 2.5 million premises will be passed in by June 2015.

      What isn’t available in roll out plans?
      * Strategy
      * Financial Details (Costings & Pricing Models)
      * Take-up
      * ARPU

      On the subject of take-up and ARPU there are two interesting quotes from the hearing:

      “I can tell you that as of the end of March the average revenue per user was $29.55.”

      “For fibre the take-up of 12 Mb per second download speeds is 18 per cent, for 25 Mb per second it is 35 per cent, for 50 Mb per second it is 10 per cent and for 100 Mb per second it is 30 per cent. That is the averages. As I mentioned also in April, those numbers at the high speeds are climbing up.”

      Now if ARPU is below expectations ($33-34, page 110-111) and yet speeds are above expectations (page 118), this represents a concern. Sure RSPs are currently being given 150Mbps of free CVC but they should be purchasing at least 50Mbps of CVC to service more than one 100/40Mbps customer per POI.

      And take-up is another area where spin is at work:

      “A consequence of that is we have a take-up rate of 34 per cent in Kiama which is unprecedented in a rollout of fibre around the world. When we talk to telcos around the world and they hear that we have in the community 34 per cent take-up after this period of time they are staggered.”

      Yet on page 77 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010) we see that the lowest predicted take-up rates are 2012: 40%, 2013: 43%, 2014: 58% and every other year is above 60% and tends very quickly toward 70% (page 116).

      Now 34% is close to 40%, but that is best result, and not representative across the nation. First a couple of quotes from Quigley in the hearing:

      “Three months later we now have approximately 11,000 active connections across all three technologies”

      “We now have over 7,300 active services on the interim satellite.” followed by “I am also pleased to report that our fixed wireless service is now up and running. We recently completed testing and now have 52 active connections as part of a trial in Armidale.”

      From this I calculate 3,700 active premises connected to fibre. If 34% was representative, then NBNCo would have passed only ~10,882 premises. Yet we know in NBNCo’s six monthly report to end of December 2011 (published in April) that on 16-March-2012 there were 18,200 premises that could order connections. At best that gives 18%, but it would be reasonable to assume that more premises have been passed since then.

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink |

        Matthew 2 main points:

        1- The ARPU is currently low BECAUSE of the CVC subsidies.

        2- Quigley did not state at 34% uptake. He stated 18% and noted that at 34% Kiama was ridiculously high for takeup in a single community ANYWHERE in the world. Also, the 40% predicted in 2013? Well, that doesn’t take into account the 8 MONTHS delay of the Telstra Financial Heads of Agreement does it? OR Telstra’s ridiculous palava over the Greenfields USO meaning COPPER got connected instead of FIBRE, though little fault of NBNCo.

        Minus 8 months from the timeframe and add in nearly 100 000 greenfields….oh look, we’d be awfully close to the original Corporate Plan….

        My point is, plans change when on the ground approach is shown to be modified for practical purposes, such as the fact that 1/3 of their address data is rubbish. And it was bought!! And it changes due to unforeseen delays, like the Telstra agreement and the USO.

        How about we wait for the next Corporate Plan revisal and then look at June NEXT year?

        • Mathew
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink |

          > 1- The ARPU is currently low BECAUSE of the CVC subsidies.

          Agreed, but if you look at page 112 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010) there is a chart showing revenue components and AVC makes up the vast majority until 2015.

          > 2- Quigley did not state at 34% uptake. He stated 18%

          I’ve search for Quigley stating 18% in the Sentate Estimate Hearing. Do you have a reference for this statement?

          > Also, the 40% predicted in 2013? Well, that doesn’t take into account the 8 MONTHS delay of the Telstra Financial Heads of Agreement does it? OR Telstra’s ridiculous palava over the Greenfields USO meaning COPPER got connected instead of FIBRE, though little fault of NBNCo.

          These facts shouldn’t affect take-up percentage significantly.

          > How about we wait for the next Corporate Plan revisal and then look at June NEXT year?

          It will be interesting to see when the government release the plan. I suspect it will be many months because the contents are unpalatable.

          • Noddy
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink |

            It seems Internode aren’t fazed by CVC charges, they have just upped their out of quota speeds.

            “Hi -

            We’ve just increased the speed of excess traffic on two of our Fibre broadband services :
            * NBN Fibre : http://www.internode.on.net/nbn
            * OptiComm/OPENetworks Fibre : http://www.internode.on.net/ftth/estates

            This change is automatically applied to current Internode NBN Fibre & OptiComm/OPENetworks Fibre broadband plans, ie the shaping speed (once the monthly quota has been consumed) is increased :
            •Broadband Plans : excess shaping is now 256/256 kbps; up from 128/128 kbps.
            •Broadband Plans with a Power Pack : excess shaping is now 512/512 kbps; up from 256/256 kbps.

            The change is already in production; it’s automatic so Internode fibre broadband customers don’t need to do anything at all, as long as they are on a current plan.

            Cheers, Jim”

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 11/06/2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink |

              Interesting to note the change in the offerings from Opticom and Open Networks to remain competitive with the NBN. Also the main reason for the great deals on offer for internet plans at the moment is to lock customers in before the NBN hits the area. The NBN is delivering a better deal already

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink |

        Matthew
        I hope you have plenty of shares in the company making vaseline. But I suspect you have Telstra T2′s and maybe even some T1′s you bought at the T2 Launch for a similar price and are desprately trying to recoup your losses. Why did you think they were worth that price when Howard was going to cripple their income earning capacity in the name of competition?
        The Coalition does have a great track record in relation to the foundations of our economy, communications being a critical one don’t they?

        • Mathew
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink |

          Wrong I don’t have Telstra shares. I despise Telstra for the damage they’ve done to telecommunications in this country.

          Unfortunately, it starting to look like NBNCo will simply replace Telstra as the monopoly telecommunications provider in this country with all the associated problems.

          • Alex
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink |

            So once again, what is the answer?

            Let’s hear a better over-all solution than the NBN.

            • Mathew
              Posted 06/06/2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink |

              Technically, FTTP is the best solution.

              Unfortunately Labor have chosen to price fibre as if it was a scarce resource, rather than the abundant resource that we all know it is, especially in terms of speed. The result is that a significant portion of the country (50%? page 118 of NBNCo Corporate Plan) will be on 12/1Mbps speeds and would be just as good on ADSL2+, FTTN or 4G in many circumstances. That doesn’t mean these are correct technologies, just that the outcome is the same, for a lot less money.

              • djos
                Posted 06/06/2012 at 9:17 am | Permalink |

                Hmm, I love the smell of trolling in the morning! *groans*

                • Noddy
                  Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink |

                  “The result is that a significant portion of the country (50%? page 118 of NBNCo Corporate Plan) will be on 12/1Mbps speeds and would be just as good on ADSL2+, FTTN or 4G in many circumstances. That doesn’t mean these are correct technologies, just that the outcome is the same, for a lot less money”

                  I think it may be a somre sort of genetic disorder. The inability to tell the difference between the past, present and future. Since the first thing he read was that uptake will initially be 50% 12/1 it has figuratively welded into his concious brain. In 20 or 30 or even 50 years he will still believe half the country is on 12/1 despite reality. He read about world war 2 once and has is still hiding in his basement. His mother has tried giving him books to show him the war is long over, unfortunately he can’t budge that initial thing he read.

              • Abel Adamski
                Posted 11/06/2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink |

                Still waiting for your answer to Alex’s question

      • Murdoch
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink |

        Wrong subject I think. Unmet expectations is another discussion entirely.

    21. B Simpson
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink |

      coalitions policy= buzzwords, catchphrases and spi, nothing has changed. Are they going to announce anything concrete, or are they going to the next election this way?

      Sadly people are that stupid it might work.

    22. Observer
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink |

      Let’s face it if the Coalition had the best of intention with regards to the NBN, they would release a detailed plan. After all, Labor is unlikely to pinch their ideas.

      The reason the Coalition doesn’t is quite simple. Having started by deriding and attacking what is the gold standard for broadband, they have nowhere to go but down. Anything they propose will be unfavourably compared to FTTH. Even it is cheaper or faster or both, all the assumptions that underpin their approach will eventually be found to be wanting or incorrect.

      For example, their contention that manyt people do not want or require faster speed misses an important point. Leaving aside future applications, those who make little use of the internet now will no longer be around in 10,20 or more years. They will have been replaced by a new computer literate. generation who will need and demand faster speed.

      But then again, elections are about getting elected for the next 3 years.

      • alain
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink |

        ‘their contention that many people do not want or require faster speed misses an important point. Leaving aside future applications, those who make little use of the internet now will no longer be around in 10,20 or more years. They will have been replaced by a new computer literate. generation who will need and demand faster speed.’

        According to ABS stats 2010-11 of the 13.3 million people who said they accessed the internet at home the top three activities were: Emailing 91%, Research, news and general browsing 87% and paying bills online or online banking 64%.

        BTW these stats do not exclude the so called ‘new computer literate generation’ the age spectrum was from 15 yrs to those over 65.

        I think FTTN has that top three well covered , but then so does 1500/256 ADSL but I digress.

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink |

          alain, you are one of the most short-sighted people I’ve ever met.

          You honestly remind me of Bill Gates when he said “640Kb of RAM will be enough for ANYONE ever!”

          Have a look at US statistics about Netflix….35% of ALL web traffic is Netflix…..

          What happens when WE get a Netflix equivalent?….and we will, they’re already talking about it.

          • alain
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink |

            ‘You honestly remind me of Bill Gates when he said “640Kb of RAM will be enough for ANYONE ever!”’

            Except he didn’t say that.

            Sorry Netflix or it’s Oz equivalent didn’t make it into Australia’s top three, unless you are asserting it will pop up into the top three ‘real soon now’ if only everyone had FTTH.

            • GongGav
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink |

              LOL, in other countries where streaming is a common option, it has become the main traffic across the board. Are you so ignorant to think we’ll be any different with either a FTTN or FTTH base standard?

              Our online habits have allready shown we’re heading towards that. We’re the highest downloaders of Game of Thrones in the world. People are happy to stream something when they want to see it, and will use bandwidth to do so. The source isnt relevant, the service is.

              • alain
                Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink |

                Game of Thrones lol – I really don’t have much to add to that gem, is that sitting on the toilet posting into Delimiter on your Smartphone?

                :)

                • GongGav
                  Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink |

                  Now I know you’re just digging to be difficult. Its an example, something you never seem to give.

                  An example that as a country, we are willing to get our hands on digital content. In other countries, where its been made available as a mainstream option (Hulu, Netflix, etc), its become the biggest source of traffic for ISP’s. Fact.

                  Our digital downloading is increasing. When legal alternatives are here, that desire to get the content will increase. As I said, its happened everywhere else, why would we be any different?

                  I simply used the recent report that we are the biggest downloaders of Game of Thrones to show we want to get that content. If the tools to do that are provided, why would we stop?

      • observer
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink |

        Alain

        “BTW these stats do not exclude the so called ‘new computer literate generation’ the age spectrum was from 15 yrs to those over 65.”

        I can’t make up my mind whether you are disingenuous or just a poor thinker. First of all, this is not the main point of my post. Secondly, saying that the stats do not exclude the computer literate generation is meaningless, since the salient point would be how many of those interviewed could be classified as such.

        Further, whatever the present number is, it will inevitably increase.

        So, please enjoy your ADSL1 world but realise that, fortunately, most people are not like you.

    23. Tim
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink |

      Can anyone truly say how a mismash of technologies have helped us thus far. Currently I cannot get ADSL2+, I use to be able to in my old house.

      Some people cannot even get ADSL

      How does adding the uncertainty of what you will have help anybody at all. I mean people who move from a FTTH area to a FTTN area will get a huge shock, and if I am right the impact of broadband could easily skew housing prices.

      Also Malcolm, please give us some more details. What will happen to the FTTH in terms of prices, will NBN Co. still maintain their prices or will the FTTN rework destroy the business plan. Will a FTTN network be privately built with commercial rates of return?

    24. Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink |

      “Also Malcolm, please give us some more details. What will happen to the FTTH in terms of prices, will NBN Co. still maintain their prices or will the FTTN rework destroy the business plan. Will a FTTN network be privately built with commercial rates of return?”

      You won’t get them Tim. The Coalition believe that they’ll win the election with NO decent BB policy because of either:

      1- People such as alain who are utterly loyal and would vote for them anyway
      2- FUD- Enough bad mouthing of a good plan, when it isn’t defended properly (as Labor are doing) is enough to tip the balance against it.

      They are gambling on no policy. Because, let’s face it, any fleshed out policy they COULD come up with would show that even IF FTTH was not better under a CBA when it was begun, it is NOW because it’ll be nearly 1/5th done by the time they can do one!

      • alain
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink |

        Labor won the 2007 election with a FTTN policy.

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink |

          The coaltion lost the 2010 election with a FTTN policy.

          • alain
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink |

            The 2010 election led to a hung Parliament with neither Party receiving a mandate from voters to form Government in their own right with each major party getting 50-50 the exact same number of seats so in that case FTTH and FTTN both won and lost the election, depending how you look at it.

            • Hubert Cumberdale
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

              The coaltion lost the election based on their broadband policy which was FttN, they tried to fool the independents with this but failed spectacularly. The current government won the election based on the NBN which is mostly a proper FttH build. These are all facts and not open to interpretation.

              • alain
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink |

                They are not open to interpretation because you don’t want them to be because you only want one biased outcome to match your agenda.

                It is open to interpretation because as has been discussed before over and over the NBN was one of MANY enticements Gillard put on the table to entice the Independents to back her Government into power.

                • Hubert Cumberdale
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink |

                  “They are not open to interpretation because you don’t want them to be because you only want one biased outcome to match your agenda.”

                  That makes absolutely no sense. I dont have an agenda and I’m sure the fact dont either. Everything I said in those two comments is factual.

                  The coalition lost the 2010 election: FACT
                  The coalition failed to convince the independents with their broadband plan: FACT
                  The current government won the election based on their broadband plan (The NBN): FACT

                  Are you disputing those facts? Do you believe the events happened differently? If you are delusional I guess you could think they are open to interpretation. You’d have to be a very extreme case though…

                  • alain
                    Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:08 am | Permalink |

                    Yes I am disputing all of those facts, didn’t you get it?

                    • djos
                      Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink |

                      There’s your problem, Disputing facts = stupidity!

                    • Hubert Cumberdale
                      Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

                      “Yes I am disputing all of those facts, didn’t you get it?”

                      So in other words you are delusional. Thanks for stopping by!

                  • Tom
                    Posted 02/07/2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink |

                    “The current government won the election based on their broadband plan (The NBN): FACT” … Wrong, Wrong, plain wrong, there were dozens of other factors.

            • Alex
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink |

              This may sound familiar alain, it should…

              “You may not like the majority representation system as it stands but sorry that’s the way our supposed democracy works…”

              • Tim
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink |

                Unfortunately due to the sheer amount of people who are tech illiterate a democracy does not guarantee the best outcome for this country. Nor is an election held on a single issue so they are poor indicators of public good.

                Frankly the future of our telecommunications industry should be decided by telecommunications experts, which means not me, not mathew but people who actually have the respect of their peers in the field.

                • Alex
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink |

                  Agreed… and that happened when the panel of telecommunications experts gave FTTN the thumbs down and FTTP thumbs up.

                • Tom
                  Posted 02/07/2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink |

                  Wrong. Technical advice is important, but it is only one aspect of determining what is feasible and what is needed by the Australian public. The telecommunications industry exists to serve the consumers, not the other way around.

                  I suggest that there is a cultural challenge here that may need addressing.

          • Elijah B.
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink |

            +1, with much merriment!

        • Alex
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink |

          Labor won the 2007 election with a FTTN policy.

          Labor won the 2010 election with FTTP.

          You think the Coalition would catch on, but no :/

    25. Posted 05/06/2012 at 2:48 pm | Permalink |

      “Labor won the 2007 election with a FTTN policy.”

      No, Labor won the 2007 election because of Rudd’s 70% popularity rating and Howard’s thinking needing to be moved on, even AFTER the good job he did in general.

      The FTTN made little difference. Because it was small project, with a short-term view.

      The NBN however, 93% FTTH, was a major factor in the 2010 election, as reported by the LIBERALS THEMSELVES.

      • alain
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink |

        ‘No, Labor won the 2007 election because of Rudd’s 70% popularity rating and Howard’s thinking needing to be moved on, even AFTER the good job he did in general.’

        oh I see …. so Labor wins elections because of communications policy only when FTTH is the policy not FTTN, keeping in mind 2007 was a Labor landslide victory and they won Government in their own right and the 2010 election result was a hung Parliament where both major parties got the exact same number of seats each, and Labor governs on a knife edge courtesy of non-Labor MP’s.

        ‘The NBN however, 93% FTTH, was a major factor in the 2010 election, as reported by the LIBERALS THEMSELVES.’

        They did, where did they report this?

        • GongGav
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink |

          http://liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/07/18/~/media/Files/Peter%20Reith%20Review%20of%20the%202010%20Federal%20Election.ashx

          excerpt: “The failure to properly explain the Liberal Party’s broadband policy and the Labor Party’s effective scare campaign was a major cause of the party’s failure to win seats in Tasmania,” the report states. “This was the nearly universal review of people making submissions to the review and is borne out by research undertaken by the Liberal Party.”

          Link to the full story here on Delimiter – http://delimiter.com.au/2011/07/19/nbn-helped-coalition-lose-2010-election/

          You may have missed the link, its at the top of the page…

          • alain
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink |

            Yes it’s all been flogged to death before, my comment then still applies.

            http://delimiter.com.au/2011/07/19/nbn-helped-coalition-lose-2010-election/?replytocom=98265#respond

            • Alex
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink |

              It’s been flogged to death yet ONE and ONE only still defies!

              Oh that’s a classic.

              • alain
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink |

                So perhaps you can tell me how one small seat in Tasmania that is a strong Labor seat anyway dictates the voting intentions of all electorates in Australia after the 2010 election because post election Liberal analysis showed Bass MIGHT have voted differently if the Labor NBN policy had been negated?

            • GongGav
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink |

              So lets summarise. You ask “where did they report this” when it was stated “The NBN however, 93% FTTH, was a major factor in the 2010 election, as reported by the LIBERALS THEMSELVES”.

              I provide a link from the Liberals own website showing where they reported it, and you state “Yes it’s all been flogged to death before” and supply a link to where you commented on that thread.

              Reverse the roles for a second. You make a statement I disagree with, I ask for evidence, and you provide it, with me demonstrating I allready knew the answer.

              What do you think your response is going to be…

              Mine is simple. You’re either an idiot in my opinion, or delibrately argumentative. Which is it?

              By the way, which of your comments are you refering to? There are 13 from you, and my browser doesnt easily show which one you mean. I’m guessing the last big one, just want to be sure.

              • Alex
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink |

                GG.

                A. all of the above ;-)

              • alain
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink |

                See comment above yours which is the gist of my comment I was referring to ( I stuffed up the link URL).

                • Alex
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink |

                  Sorry, I was answering his mine is simple question for you ;-)

                • GongGav
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink |

                  Fun posting on an active thread like this, when comments can pass in the night :)

                  Nothing wrong with your comment, its perfectly valid whether I agree or not (havent thought about it), but it doesnt change what seven_tech said – the Lib’s themselves, as per my link to their website, admit their anti-NBN policy cost them the election.

                  You asked for a link, it was supplied. Not some 3rd party opinion, but a link to the Lib’s themselves. How much more evidence is needed than their own paper on the very topic?

                  But rather than admit it, you go off on a tangent. Standard.

                  • alain
                    Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink |

                    You still have not answered the question I posed, how does one small seat in regional Tasmania and its post poll survey dictate the voting intentions of ALL of Australia?

                    • Alex
                      Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink |

                      Once again…

                      http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/05/coalition-will-complete-nbn-objective-says-turnbull/#comment-442325

                      But keep asking because you think you finally found a winner *sigh*

                      • alain
                        Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink |

                        oh the well worn *sigh* routine when it gets too awkward (and you still have not answered the question).

                      • Alex
                        Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink |

                        Oh the well worn mention the *sigh* routine, when it gets too awkward.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 05/06/2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink |

                        Nice deflection though alain.

                        You asked where the Libs reported that the NBN cost them and when clearly shown, you try to blame everyone else, for you being wrong…

                        Interestingly, not even your FF’s (FUD friends) are silly enough to be dragged down by this one. Nor your other equally adolescent argument here relating to the government improving from FTTN to FTTP.

                      • alain
                        Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink |

                        Yeah in ONE small seat in all of Australia, Bass, where the result of their post poll analysis in of THAT SEAT told them it MIGHT have made a difference to a better Coalition outcome in that SEAT if they had NEGATED the Labor NBN better.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink |

                        So you disagree with the Liberals, wow a first.

                    • GongGav
                      Posted 05/06/2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink |

                      Sorry alain, I never offered or attempted to answer that question. I was answering the one where you wanted to know where the Lib’s admitted to making a mistake re: NBN and election. THEY said it, as shown in THEIR documents.

                      As for Tassie, I have no answer and any answer I give wont satisfy you. Its a question that cant be answered, because its not a fair question or situation. NBNCo has to use SOMETHING to base their spiel on, but as you say there is a fairly big asterix next to it.

                      Dont forget that the Lib’s tried to do something similar with other regions to put negative spins on the NBN.

        • Alex
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

          Seriously, I posted this for YOU just the other day.

          http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/29/higher-100mbps-uptake-will-spur-nbn-price-cuts/#comment-432111

          Probably best for you just to disappear again… *sigh*

    26. Thrawn
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink |

      I disagree that Coalition policy have changed substantially. The rhetoric from the media has. The rhetoric from some Coalition members has (especially those prior to Turnbul becoming Comms minister). But the policy itself hasn’t substantially changed (there’s one big change though with the structural separation issue, but thats it really)

      Renai, sometimes you should take timeout and read the Coalition Broadband policy document presented a few weeks prior to the 2010 Federal election. The principals presented in that document is pretty much exactly the same as what Turnbull been saying all along and even now.

      http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Infrastructure/Broadband%20and%20Telecommunications%20Policy.ashx

    27. Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink |

      Hey everyone,

      I just want you all to sit back, drink a nice cup of calm the hell down and realise that I haven’t suddenly become a Coalition shill. If you go back to Turnbull’s appointment, he was ordered to destroy the NBN. At the moment the Coalition is talking about meeting the same policy goals as Labor, with much of the same specific policy programs (satellite/wireless in the bush, separating Telstra, rolling out fibre infrastructure around the nation and even maintaining NBN Co as an independent company).

      There are some key policy differences, such as dumping FTTH in favour of FTTN, keeping the HFC cable networks operating, re-negotiating the deal with Telstra and so on. However, I think it is VERY important to note that the Coalition has come leagues closer to Labor on many, many issues with respect to the NBN over the past 18 months since Turnbull became Shadow Communications Minister.

      I’m not going to pretend I like the Coalition’s policy better than Labor’s — I don’t. I prefer the NBN. But I’m not going to become a Labor shill either and pretend the Coalition’s policies don’t have any merit. They do, and Turnbull’s position and understanding of the portfolio has become progressively better over time. It’s not quite there yet, but the important thing is it’s actually not too far distant from Labor’s NBN policy or Conroy’s own personal understanding of the situation.

      I think a lot of you would like me to just continually slam the Coalition and Turnbull all the time, and pump the NBN as the preferred policy no matter what. Well, reality check: I’m not anybody’s pet poodle. I write what I want, when I want, and if you don’t like that then you can go and read a media outlet which is truly biased towards one side or another, because I don’t give a rat’s ass about you as a reader — I don’t want people with closed minds and fixed viewpoints reading Delimiter. I want open minded people who can use rational thinking and evidence to debate issues.

      TL;DR: You can call me a Coalition stooge all you want, but you’re wrong.

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink |

        I dont understand how anyone could call you “coalition stooge” based on this article. I mean you were just reporting facts about what Turnbull said. Turnbull said “Coalition will complete NBN objective” that should be the debate here not if you agree with his statement or not.

        • alain
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

          True but the NBN objective can be anything you want it to be, Labor NBN was FTTN once it is now FTTH, see you can change your mind and it really doesn’t matter.

          Coalition could say the NBN is partial FTTN then again they could say it’s not, both before and post 2013 election result – it doesn’t matter.

          • Alex
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink |

            Tell us why Labor changed from FTTN to FTTP?

            • alain
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink |

              Tell us why Labor thought FTTN was best thing since sliced bread before the 2007 election and bingo within months of winning changed their minds completely?

              • Noddy
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink |

                Because experts looked at the alternatives and found FTTH was a better solution. But experts are interested in the best solution, not getting in to power, spending the least possible on something that their party doesn’t really care about and doesn’t hand out large wads of cash to their corporate mates.

                • alain
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink |

                  So Labor didn’t use any ‘expert opinion’ before they formulated their pre 2007 policy as a counter to Howard and Coonan’s OPEL policy?

                  • Alex
                    Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink |

                    Obviously they used the same shonky ones the Coalition is now using ;-)

                    • alain
                      Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:26 am | Permalink |

                      Apparently FTTN was going to take us into the 21st Century!

                      ‘Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy today said that Labor is committed to building a national high-speed broadband fibre‑to‑the‑node network.

                      The new network will deliver minimum broadband speeds, 40 times faster than current speeds to 98 per cent of Australians.

                      The remaining two per cent of Australians will receive a standard of service that is as close as possible to that offered by the new network, and will be delivered by the best available wireless, microwave and satellite technologies.

                      “This new network will jump Australia into the 21st century,” said Senator Conroy.

                      “It will be open access, promote competition and put downward pressure on consumer prices.’

                      http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2007/government_committed_to_fttn_national_network

                      • Alex
                        Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink |

                        And then Conroy (with expert advice) realised he was wrong.

                        Something the Coalition seem incapable of.

                        Thanks for confirming it.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink |

                        Get over it, that was 5 years ago. Many people have told you over and over and posted many links showing why FTTH did not go ahead, a lot of it to do with problems with Telstra. It’s happened, time has moved on. FTTH is what is being rolled out in many countries now as it is now practical to do so. FTTN was a boat that was missed. If FTTN was rolled out back then it would have had a useful life, now it would be a waste of money.

                  • Hubert Cumberdale
                    Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink |

                    “So Labor didn’t use any ‘expert opinion’ before they formulated their pre 2007 policy as a counter to Howard and Coonan’s OPEL policy?”

                    I wasn’t impressed with any of the plans put forward, FttN included, if they had asked me I would have said stop wasting time and go with FttH as it’ll have to be done eventually anyway… the experts agree. The OPEL plan was a joke and the fact that the coalition clowns would actually now prefer labors leftovers FttN plan is proof of this.

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink |

                “Tell us why Labor thought FTTN was best thing since sliced bread before the 2007 election and bingo within months of winning changed their minds completely?”

                Because the consensus is FttN is a waste of time and money. They wanted to do the right thing for Australia and not waste time and money on a substandard network that would need to be upgraded even before it was finished.

              • Alex
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink |

                Tell us why the Coalition thought FTTN was no good before the 2007 election and bingo, even with a panel of experts in comms to tell them otherwise, changed their minds completely?

                • alain
                  Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink |

                  Which panel of experts advised the Coalition FTTN was no good?

                  • Alex
                    Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink |

                    Serioulsy, that is either being childish or blatant trolling.

              • Posted 05/06/2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink |

                “Tell us why Labor thought FTTN was best thing since sliced bread before the 2007 election and bingo within months of winning changed their minds completely?”

                Actually alain, if you look into it, you’ll find that the only way they could’ve done this was with Telstra’s help. Telstra, the network being FTTN and using the Copper CAN that is THEIRS buy payment of shareholders, with Sol still at the head, was not going to accept less than $15-20 BILLION dollars for, essentially, buying the CAN because it had to be chopped up in this FTTN plan, rather than pushed aside and left intact as in the NBN.

                http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-11/20b-feud-with-telstra-drove-nbns-birth/2621826

                If you’d ACTUALLY read my blog post I listed about the history behind how we got here, you’d know this. So, instead of a $4.8 Billion “incremental” increase to BB, they’ve ended up with a $25 Billion FTTN network to about 40% of Australians….oh and Telstra wouldn’t have signed any anti-competition, they admitted as much in this above article. Which meant they could simply build their own fibre out wherever it was financially beneficial and COMPLETELY waste 2/3 of the money just spent. And they don’t have to look after the copper to boot AFTER being paid to dump it.

                THAT is why Labor and in fact Kevin said “#$K THAT!- I’m not giving that Sombrero wearing profit hog ANY government money” (ironically I can ACTUALLY see Kevin saying this. He may have been a bit of a dope, but he certainly knew how to be blunt :D) And then, as you say, Conroy and Kev came up with a back of the napkin plan, which it was found, when fleshed out and poured over for 3 YEARS by experts, was actually not only viable, achievable and reasonable, but was in fact world leading AND would serve Australia for the next several decades.

                I tell you what, if I came up with an idea like that on a napkin….well, let’s just say I wouldn’t be complaining about Zuckerburg’s stupid Facebook, I’d probably be laughing with him in a pool of money. WHERE the idea came from doesn’t matter, the fact that the idea is now mature and workable, with some guidance and modifications of course, is the important thing.

                Please, read around for once. I read Malcolm’s blog, Paul Fletcher’s blog….I can’t hack Tony’s, because it’s mostly PR anyway….the guy’s an internet dolt (“Is this where I put my credit card to use the internets and buy cat videos??).

                Point is, I’m not averse to changes in the scheme of the NBN, as long as it’s goal remains fibre to the vast majority, or an equivalent technology (which, as yet I’m unaware of) that can provide the bandwidth, both up AND down, without serious contention, for many years to come. There is NO point in an incremental “upgrade” (if you could call it that) to FTTN now. That time was the early-mid 2000′s. We have no other choice now, if we want to remain competitive, than FTTH. Hence New Zealand’s stop of FTTN and change to FTTH. The US’s gradual, but continual rollout of FTTH. And most European market’s, who have already had FTTN for a number of years, change to FTTH as a matter of course.

                We are behind and to catch up we must do something a little grander in scale- I give you, the NBN.

                • Hubert Cumberdale
                  Posted 05/06/2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink |

                  “And then, as you say, Conroy and Kev came up with a back of the napkin plan”

                  imo this is actually one of the more impressive things about the NBN, think about it, all they needed was a napkin meanwhile the coalition with all their resources have had five years to come up with a decent plan and have continuously failed.

                  “Point is, I’m not averse to changes in the scheme of the NBN, as long as it’s goal remains fibre to the vast majority”

                  yep, that’s been my opinion for a while now too, fibre for the majority should be the goal regardless of who is in power. Of course I would prefer 93% over say 70%, that just makes sense however it doesn’t take a genius to figure out if the fibre part gets reduced to something like that it amounts to the same thing as it wont be long before that other 23% get fibre too.

                  • Abel Adamski
                    Posted 12/06/2012 at 12:26 am | Permalink |

                    HC
                    True, the Coalition are unfortunately hamstrung by their obsession with ideological purity. We are more interested in practical results. We want the best most effective infrastructure for the Nations present and future at minimum cost to the taxpayer. An eventual ROI of 7% would be infinitely preferable to the taxpayer being bled billions for what? Practical common sense is needed, there are many areas where the private sector and competitive tensions deliver the best results, that is not the case for essential national infrastructure.
                    What could competition deliver, development by our companies of better technology?. Sorry we we have no companies developing in technology. The Conservatives made sure of that after WW2, AND for those that can remember the Whitlam Govt. realised there was no seed funding or assistance or support for innovative inventive startups, they started funding them, there were some turkeys – yes, but also a few with great promise and patents and research. As soon as Fraser/Howard got in power, Howards haste and unholy glee in shutting funding bankrupting them just as they were getting to being viable businesses. The conservatives said, if the CBA or business plan stands up they will get support. However in those years that was not the case. There is that article on technology spectator “what if Bill Gates was Australian”. The comments have been edited, many removed. There was a link to the White Hat website. Plus as expected comments of mine – now gone

                    • Abel Adamski
                      Posted 12/06/2012 at 12:39 am | Permalink |

                      Managed to google another version
                      “http://technologyspectator.com.au/emerging-tech/applications/what-if-bill-gates-was-australian?opendocument&src=idp” -

          • Avid Gamer
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink |

            True but the NBN objective can be anything you want it to be, Labor NBN was FTTN once it is now FTTH, see you can change your mind and it really doesn’t matter.

            Coalition could say the NBN is partial FTTN then again they could say it’s not, both before and post 2013 election result – it doesn’t matter.

            Jesus alain you just won’t ever concede anything will you? Never answering, always attacking, always hypercritical, always negative. You sir are the ultimate forum TROLL

            • alain
              Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink |

              You don’t like reality being spelled out to you how politics works in Australia and the ragged history of BB policy, and that’s from both sides of politics and having your rose colored glasses view of the Labor NBN interfered with in any way.

              To say we have ‘finally got it right’ with the Labor FTTH is wishful thinking in the extreme, tell me that we have ‘finally got it right’ in 2022 when the NBN FTTH rollout is due to be completed and all the targets on uptake and ROI in the NBN Business Plan have been met within budget and on time.

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink |

                “To say we have ‘finally got it right’ with the Labor FTTH is wishful thinking in the extreme”

                It’s not wishful thinking at all, that is reality. FttH is the right way forward. Not FttN. Get over it.

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:34 pm | Permalink |

            “blah blah blah, see you can change your mind and it really doesn’t matter.”

            Well actually it does matter. Changing from FttN to FttH is an improvement, raising the standard, making progress and thus it is GOOD thing. Changing from FttH to a FttN patchwork however is a step backwards and thus it is a BAD thing. It does matter.

      • Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink |

        I like you. You impress me.

      • FlopFlip
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink |

        +1 to not a stooge.

        I think a lot of people are afraid they won’t get the NBN and react very strongly to anyone who appears to be supporting the Liberal policy. Fear is a powerful motivator and clouds people’s judgement.

        I know I’m afraid I won’t get the NBN. I’m just outside the current planned areas and as such will hopefully be amongst the first to be done after the next election should the miraculous happen and Labor retains power.

        I don’t want FTTN, I’m already on 20Mbps ADSL2+. It’s more than just the speed, FTTN is a poor solution cost wise and planning for the future wise. The coalition can keep all the HFC they want but I want fibre to my house and I want a nation that makes the better long term choice instead of the quick and nasty low cost solution.

        Should the Libs get in and I miss out they’ll have lost a voter pretty much for life.

        • Avid Gamer
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink |

          Should the Libs get in and I miss out they’ll have lost a voter pretty much for life.

          Same here, I will never ever forget this to my dying breadth and I am normally a swing voter. I will make it my life’s ambition to convince future voters to vote for any other party but LNP. And I will be getting FTTP (March 2014), that’s how strongly I feel about Labor’s TRUE NBN.

      • Noddy
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink |

        Who cares if you’re a Liberal or Labor support. Just so long as you don”t play Terran. It’s Murdoch’s fault Terran is so imba. Or is it Protos that is too powerful this week?

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

          Best comment so far.

          Terran > Protoss. Sadface =(. We play Starcraft 2 at work sometimes when we’re bored vs the electrical engies at sites. Network Engies normally win =).

          Good for you Renai, stand up for something. Tell everyone to harden the %^&* up. I like that. Tell it like it is. None of this Shovel vs Spade bullshit.

        • Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink |

          PROTOSS IMBA

          :)

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 7:46 pm | Permalink |

            Zerg all the way….it’s all about the numbers. Throw a few dozen Zerglings in then go after with a few waves of Hydralisk, backed by Guardians. Maybe a few lurkers for good measure.

            Sorry, what? Were we talking about something else?…. :D

            • Noddy
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 8:40 pm | Permalink |

              Lurkers? C’mon man, time to get SC2. (BTW, the single player missions are really fun, SC1 they got a bit samish)

              • Posted 05/06/2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink |

                “Lurkers? C’mon man, time to get SC2. (BTW, the single player missions are really fun, SC1 they got a bit samish)”

                Hey! Just because I’ve got a soft spot for Original SC (+ broodwar) and the fact that it was the first real game as a kid I REALLY got obsessed with…and I might still be a little obsessed with….alot…. :D

                Also, I don’t like the fact hat I have to pay 3 times for 1 game. Come on Blizzard. I KNOW it’s been over a decade in the making, but have some principles not based on profit…

                I also spend so MUCH time on these forums already (mainly deflecting alain…) that I’d have little time to get my 4 hours a night sleep in….

      • Thrawn
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink |

        ‘At the moment the Coalition is talking about meeting the same policy goals as Labor, with much of the same specific policy programs (satellite/wireless in the bush, separating Telstra, rolling out fibre infrastructure around the nation and even maintaining NBN Co as an independent company).’

        The above is pretty much exactly the same as listed in the Coalition 2010 policy.. so I don’t really see what have changed. A form of NBN Co is even listed on that 2010 policy (except they call it National Broadband Commission).

        I don’t believe even now that Turnbull will grant NBN Co completely monopoly of future construction. Whats likely when they go into power is that Turnbull would meet with the NBNCo guys, get their proposals to achieave a certain objective.. then go out and put out a tender for private companies to achieve the same objective. Whoever wins gets the deal (could be multiple parties).. NBNCo will effectively just become one prospective bidder for a cheaper and quicker rollout.

        • Thrawn
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

          Also, the whole ‘Abbott destroy NBN’ thing has always been misleading quote.

          Turnbull is sent out to ‘demolish’ NBN as a policy. If once Coalition is elected he rolls out a significantly different network (non-public rollout, no 93% FTTH, no universal pricing, keeps HFC, etc), then I’d say he completed the target objective of ‘demolish’ the ALP NBN policy

          • Avid Gamer
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink |

            Turnbull is sent out to ‘demolish’ NBN as a policy. If once Coalition is elected he rolls out a significantly different network (non-public rollout, no 93% FTTH, no universal pricing, keeps HFC, etc), then I’d say he completed the target objective of ‘demolish’ the ALP NBN policy

            +1 you nailed it right on the head.

            • alain
              Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

              You mean like Conroy demolished the Coalition OPEL policy and any contracts that had been made when he got into power in 2007?

              • djos
                Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink |

                The difference is OPEL hadn’t even been started and it wouldnt have done most of what it claimed to do as discovered as soon as it was reviewed – I worked for an ISP with a large metro WiMax network and can tell you from experience the OPEL design was doomed to fail from the start!

      • Murdoch
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink |

        Absolutely Renai.

        To those of you labelling him as such, learn to attack the policy, not the man. The Liberal policy has merit, as in, it’s workable for what little we do know.

        It comes with a whole bunch of caveats for Australia that the Coalition won’t discuss (if ever) at this time (such as scalability and ubiquity of connectivity across Australia, relies on the copper CAN etc), but it can be made to work in some form.

        Just …… that’s not my definition of “working”.

        But that’s my beef with Turnbull, Abbott and Co. They want a communications infrastructure priced to what the market can handle. I want a ubiquitous communications platform for equality of connectivity for as many Australians as possible. The current Labor NBN so far is closer to what I want than the Coalition’s.

        • Mathew
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink |

          > But that’s my beef with Turnbull, Abbott and Co. They want a communications infrastructure priced to what the market can handle. I want a ubiquitous communications platform for equality of connectivity for as many Australians as possible. The current Labor NBN so far is closer to what I want than the Coalition’s.

          This might be true if you had the slightest appreciation of what the result is of the Labor Party’s policy, but you refuse to accept that NBNCo plan to raise ARPU and that this will impact significantly on the average price paid by consumers.

          • Noddy
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink |

            Yes, this is where the Coalition plan is brilliant. Speeds and quotas are self limiting. In 10 to 20 years it may be like sucking golf balls through a garden house to get the data that other countries are getting on their FTTH networks, but we will be in no danger of ARPU increasing due to increased CVC.

            • Noddy
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink |

              Umm it trimmed my sarcasm wrapper. That was sarcasm for those who will jump on this post.

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink |

            “This might be true if you had the slightest appreciation of what the result is of the Labor Party’s policy, but you refuse to accept that NBNCo plan to raise ARPU and that this will impact significantly on the average price paid by consumers.”

            Matthew, you keep saying this and yet ALL your previous comments have not shown any difference TO THE CONSUMER. You seem to think you’ve shown the CVC pricing will increase overall and thereby the cost will be passed onto the consumer. Although I’m not sure that you actually have, because the Corporate plan, which you use for your numbers, is certainly not predicting that someone who is on 25/5 NOW paying say $49.95 will be paying $60.00 in 5 years time. If you mean it will make the total SPEND go up on average Australians spend on telecommunications, possibly. But that would be like saying “I predict with the advent of mobile phones Australians will spend more on telecommunications”. That’s a no-brainer. It is becoming more integral to our world, so it consequently takes more precedence in the budget on average per person. That doesn’t mean prices are LITERALLY going to rise $10 over 5 years. I think you’d be VERY hard pressed to prove that.

            The average ARPU will go up because NBNCo. are working on the premise that more people will go to higher tiers, which means a higher ARPU because those tiers they can make more money on…..how does this affect the consumer? Are they being FORCED to go up a tier? No. And BNCo. won’t have to “incentivise” them too much, as it seems people ALREADY want higher tiers than they predicted….yes yes, I know you think this isn’t a “normal” trend. But we’ll just have to wait, won’t we?

            And yet this STILL isn’t good enough, because then you say, wait, that means they’ll need MORE CVC than NBNCo. is predicting, more cost, more non-existent price rises.

            You treat the NBN as something that will be static. If NBNCo. see the CVC bottleneck becomes a problem, there’s ALOT they can do before simply raising the CVC pricing to kerb usage. But you can’t see that?

            • Mathew
              Posted 06/06/2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink |

              > You treat the NBN as something that will be static. If NBNCo. see the CVC bottleneck becomes a problem, there’s ALOT they can do before simply raising the CVC pricing to kerb usage. But you can’t see that?

              I very much doubt that AVC & CVC pricing will rise. It is the fact that it won’t fall at the same rate as demand that is the concern.

              Hopefully it is not controversial to suggest that data demands in the future for the same product will increase. For example today most would consider 720p to the low standard for video, with the 1080p the norm and I would expect the next step is 4320p (a jump from 2,073,600 pixels to 35,389,440). Significantly more data.

              As an example if you want to stream a sporting event live with multiple camera angles (or play an online game) then it is clear that as production companies step up resolutions to provide the “best picture”, consumers will need to upgrade speeds and quotas. To express it another way – how many people watching an analogue TV today would feel they are seeing the same quality picture as a HDTV?

              This is what NBNCo is banking on and why they are convinced they can drive ARPU up. The effect for consumers is that if they want to have the same relative performance compared to their peers then they will need to increase their monthly spend, to meet NBNCo’s demand for a rise in ARPU.

              Another way of putting this is that NBNCo’s prices today are a discount to what is required for the project to be financially sustainable.

              • Posted 06/06/2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink |

                “This is what NBNCo is banking on and why they are convinced they can drive ARPU up. The effect for consumers is that if they want to have the same relative performance compared to their peers then they will need to increase their monthly spend, to meet NBNCo’s demand for a rise in ARPU.”

                Which is pretty standard technology market guidelines. If you want to have a good tablet, you spend more money. If you want to have a better computer, you spend more money. Broadband is the same. Those who want to continue on just using internet as a hobby, will undoubtedly have no effective price increase. Meanwhile, in 10-15 years when the majority of us WANT to use the internet more, then we have to be prepared to pay more. It won’t be as much as now, the price will gradually fall.

                As I said, telecommunications will slowly rise in the weekly spend of the average Australian. I liken it to when electricity first came out. Few appliances were available to begin with, so little electricity was used. As more people used more appliances, their average use goes up, so does their subsequent average spend on electricity. Now, it is an essential service.

                This is standard “essential service” marketing. And I don’t think it would be a stretch to believe that in 10-15 years, seeing as it is verging on it now, that broadband will be considered an essential service.

              • Noddy
                Posted 06/06/2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink |

                Wow, without the lines about 720% increase in CVC charges making it look like prices will sky rocket the argument is quite good. There will be an increase in prices as speeds and plan quotas grow to, but they don’t seem massive.
                It will hurt heavy downloaders, but they have either been constantly subsidised by lower quota users or just work on spare capacity in networks such as pipe which may have well be used. In many cases the really big users I know of personally just use it because they can. Many run their torrent seeds from chinese servers now anyway as Australia’s upload speeds are pretty dismal.

          • Murdoch
            Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink |

            Mathew, take this argument back to Whirlpool and I’ll engage you in your attempt to make the NBN ARPU world according to your view. If you’re going to engage me here, engage me on the topic at hand.

            • Mathew
              Posted 06/06/2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink |

              I prefer forums where the fanboi herrings don’t result in the Mods censoring perceived criticisms of NBN.

              • Murdoch
                Posted 06/06/2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink |

                Then move it to the forums on Delimiter which Renai moderates. Or find an article of Renai’s where he’s addressing the ARPU issues you have and post there.

                I fail to see how your ARPU topic has anything to do with Malcolm Turnbulls statements and Renai’s underlying comments about the Coalition completing the NBN’s objective.

                I am happy to continue stomping your misguided crusade in an appropriate forum, but please stop cluttering up unrelated articles with your rhetoric. Either get on topic in here, or arrange to move to an appropriate forum.

              • Posted 06/06/2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink |

                I don’t know if you’re talking about Delimiter, but I don’t censor criticism of the NBN. I do, however, censor people who harm the conversation, as outlined here:

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

                • Murdoch
                  Posted 06/06/2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink |

                  Hi Renai. Yes, I was talking about the Delimiter forums, as Mathew seems to have it in his mind that I’m a “fanboi” of the NBN and he feels prejudiced against in Whirlpool.

                  Rather than rehash a rather lengthy series of posts in Whirlpool, I thought it would be more constructive to move this to your forums, rather than going over the same arguments at the bottom of an article that doesn’t really have much to do with his specific points (that is, raised ARPU = raised NBN prices for consumers).

                  • Noddy
                    Posted 06/06/2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink |

                    Unfortunately not just here it’s all over so many forums and news stories. His ARPU crusade has been going for 8 to 9 months now. Any story with the letters N B and N next to one another gets the ARPU treatment. I am really sick of reading it at the end of every NBN article I read on almost any site.

                    • Hubert Cumberdale
                      Posted 06/06/2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink |

                      It’s very interesting though isn’t it, you’d think someone that concerned over “mods censoring” wouldn’t have over 4000 posts there… as for the crusade part once again the whirlpool profile sheds some light as to why.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink |

                        I might have missed what you mean. All I can make out is in an area with fibre being rolled out in the next 3 years. His aura indicates his posts aren’t popular. He posts the ARPU argument over and over.

    28. FlopFlip
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink |

      The aim of Malcom’s recent speech wasn’t to indicate a change in Liberal policy but to obscure the LNP language surrounding the NBN. The change is to try to convince people who aren’t too discriminating that the difference broadband wise between the Labor NBN and Liberal NBN is very little.

      The actual solution the coalition would deliver hasn’t changed at all.

      • Alex
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink |

        +1 FlopFlip.

        And herein lies the (dark) humour.

        The Coalition prefer to trick people into believing their plan is a similar alternative and then give us a lesser product, which will inevitably cost the nation many $b’s in subsidies to private companies, for them to build and own Australia’s comms network.

        As opposed to just agreeing to continue with the current NBN which will cost $0 (according to the official projections) and will be an asset for all Aussies.

        With the Coalition wanting people to believe their plan is a svelte version of the current NBN, the Coalition have just made their minions here, spruiking 24/7 anti-NBN bullshit, look even sillier than their comments already do ;-)

        • alain
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink |

          But it’s ok for Labor to ‘trick’ voters with one policy and then have a policy change after they got elected?

          • Noddy
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink |

            Improving on what you promised isn’t tricking someone. I am not sure how many people in the bush are pissed off that the % covered increased.

            • alain
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:09 pm | Permalink |

              oh I see, well anyone can play that game, the Coalition policy when finally formulated will improve on Labor policy, see that was easy.

              • Noddy
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink |

                Well, it would be hard to say the Liberals have tricked anyone as they haven’t told anyone really what they are going to do. They could roll out one FTTN cabinet and say job done for all the details they give.

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink |

                “the Coalition policy when finally formulated will improve on Labor policy”

                Except it won’t be an improvement at all. Surely you must be aware that the speeds capable on a FttH network are above and beyond what FttN is capable of totally eclipsing it. A FttN patchwork is a step backwards not forward, I know you might find this confusing but if you do a bit of research you can figure it all out.

          • Alex
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink |

            So when Abbott is PM and going into an election says, we will spend an additional $51 per year on health and then spends $10B per year, we should all be outraged at his dishonesty?

            Like Noddy above, I think Hubert also said it best…

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/05/coalition-will-complete-nbn-objective-says-turnbull/#comment-441925

            • Alex
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink |

              $5B

    29. EmmettB
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

      “What exactly does Turnbull mean by “objective”? ”

      We all know exactly what it means… it means that if the the coalition are returned to Government, they will complete the NBN (the objective) at a cheaper cost by installing FTTN instead of FTTH…

      “we will complete the objective, but we will do so in a much more cost-effective way”

      Short term savings (maybe), but in the long term, a much poorer result which will ultimately cost this nation many more $dollars than Labor’s current FTTH solution, and even more in terms of Australia’s standing and competitiveness in our switched-on future.

      The Libs cannot be trusted. They are masters at the effective use of spin.

      I still remember Malcolm Fraser’s election promise that (in response to the Australian electorate’s concerns), “We will not dismantle Medicare”. (Australia’s universal health system back in the early 70s)

      And it’s true, they didn’t “dismantle” it… they simply turned it into another private health fund instead, and forced everyone back to paying the health funds for health cover, or having none at all.

      Libs… cant trust ‘em.

      • Soth
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink |

        I don’t think any politician or party can be trusted :P

        • Alex
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink |

          +1 exactly

          • Posted 05/06/2012 at 7:56 pm | Permalink |

            +2! Trust ‘em as far as you can throw them

      • alain
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink |

        Like the No Carbon Tax promise from Gillard you mean, oh sorry you only want Liberal spin mentioned in here.

        • Alex
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink |

          For someone who says he’s not a Coalition devotee, quack!

          • Soth
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink |

            Maybe all this Labor vs Liberal talk will all be put to bed once The Sex Party wins the next election… Mehehe. I wonder what their NBN policy is… I guess it’s got something to do with latex.

            • Alex
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink |

              FTTx(xx)

        • Noddy
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink |

          She has saved Tony some work, he is on record as in favour of a carbon tax.

    30. Avid Gamer
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink |

      So what would make a LNP broadband policy a good compromise? FTTH to the 5 main capital cities and the Gold Coast with wireless/satellite for the rest in a P/P partnership.
      Answer, won’t happen as it would still cost too much (many many billions) of tax payer funded dollars under a Liberal Government. Even Telstra would not be big enough to finance a FULL 5 main capital cities and the Gold Coast FTTP roll out on it’s own (they aren’t that big).

      So there is no good compromise for ubiquitious very fast broadband for all of Australia. There are times when you can’t compromise on something and this (Labor’s NBN) is one of them. It’s either all of nothing for this to truly work for the future of Australia as a whole.

      A LNP BB policy in whatever form it takes leading up to the next election is just not going to cut it no matter how you slice and dice it. It would have been better to just leave everything at the status quo and save billions then to continue down the Liberal path.

      • Thrawn
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink |

        ‘Even Telstra would not be big enough to finance a FULL 5 main capital cities and the Gold Coast FTTP roll out on it’s own (they aren’t that big).’

        Yes Telstra is that big. They came close to pulling it off a decade ago with HFC. If the revenues are there, Telstra would definitely want to pull it off.

        • Avid Gamer
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink |

          ‘Even Telstra would not be big enough to finance a FULL 5 main capital cities and the Gold Coast FTTP roll out on it’s own (they aren’t that big).’

          Yes Telstra is that big. They came close to pulling it off a decade ago with HFC. If the revenues are there, Telstra would definitely want to pull it off.

          I don’t think they could raise the capital in today’s world economic climate. It would have to cost 20 billion+ dollars minimum to do a FULL (includes outer suburbs and not just close to the CBD) 5 main capital cities and the Gold Coast FTTP roll out and Telstra would want a ROI north of 20% for that kind of outlay. Plus full control and non interference from the ACCC/Government as well.

          • Alex
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink |

            Why would they even possibly consider spending $b’s on FTTH, when the Coalition plan on throwing money at them to use their shitty copper and to re-gift them another stranglehold over Australia’s comms and our wallets.

            • alain
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink |

              Where in Coalition policy does it say that Telstra will be allowed to keep their current monopoly?

              Which is interesting seeing Turnbull supports the structural separation of Telstra.

              • Alex
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink |

                Where does it say they won’t?

              • Noddy
                Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink |

                They haven;t mentioned a plan to remove it. The current plan removes it by removing the copper. The Liberal plan keeps the copper. Has there been any mention of purchasing the copper from Telstra?

          • Thrawn
            Posted 05/06/2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink |

            Only about 50% of Oz population lives in the top-5 capital cities. And its by far also the cheapest 50% to rollout FTTH in.

            NBNCo actual construction cost is estimated to be around 30 billion. I reckon it’d be less than 10 billion for Telstra to pull it off. Its doable..

            Its even doable for Optus, TPG (aka PIPE), iiNet maybe…

            • Posted 05/06/2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink |

              Only about 50% of Oz population lives in the top-5 capital cities. And its by far also the cheapest 50% to rollout FTTH in.
              NBNCo actual construction cost is estimated to be around 30 billion. I reckon it’d be less than 10 billion for Telstra to pull it off. Its doable..
              Its even doable for Optus, TPG (aka PIPE), iiNet maybe…”

              It might BE doable Thrawn, but is it fair that only that 50% get decent BB while the rest of us are stuck with the shit we’ve had for years?

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 05/06/2012 at 9:25 pm | Permalink |

              Thrawn, it is not just the fibre to the premises, the NBN as planned is an integrated NATIONAL PLATFORM designed purely for wholesale, as such they have built the capacity to just switch services up or down to isp’s and customers, they have been building their core network control centres and backbone. As Quigley stated, the lease of the Satellite capacity is far more expensive than it will cost them for their own satellite, and that is just for a 6Mb, whereas the NBN is designed for 100Mb and will be running at 12MB. Obviously NBN expertts will have had to go overseas , that is where the expertise is thanks to the incompetance of our Lib Governments from the 1950′s. So to say any of those could do it for 20Bill is fallacious in the extreme, who will own it and what ROI will they expect over what time frame and who owns the core infrastructure that has been built ?

    31. Angy
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink |

      I’m just not sure if Mr Turnbull’s existing arguments are entirely in line with the NBN objective. He’s talking about minimising expenses by utilising existing infrastructure that is wholly owned by telcos. NBN Co is talking about providing a wholesale-only network with completely open access.

      Many felt the deals with Telstra and Optus were expensive, but what of alternatives? This is by definition, a minor player in opposition thinking. Wouldn’t it cost more to buy the HFC network than to ask them to gradually shut it down as part of a broader agreement? What about the copper lines? Is using TW’s network to provide FTTN congruous with the goal of providing open access?

      On a very broad base, yes they are both talking about improving broadband saturation, but on specific enough terms to call it the same objective? I am not convinced that what they propose is anything to do with the NBN objective. Rather, I suspect that a Coalition govt will simply “consider its options”, perhaps enact a lengthy Cost-Benefit Analysis and eventually, quietly decide to make no significant changes to the project.

    32. Zok
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

      Abbott: “Our objective is to demolish NBN.”
      Turnbull: “Coalition will complete NBN objective.”

      Detailed new policy different to their previous policy has been announced by Turnbull! Let’s all break into a song and dance routine and celebrate! :P

    33. ICT Admin
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

      The best analogy I can think of when it comes to the Coalition’s version of the NBN is the reversible expressway in Adelaide. It works, to a certain extent. Eventually though it needs to be duplicated in order to work effectively. Just like setting up a FTTN will need to converted to a FTTP/FTTH to work effectively.

      As far as I recall the Liberal party are the ones responsible for the world’s longest reversible expressway. Do we really want to repeat a mistake like that?

    34. Goresh
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink |

      “The Government attributes to the NBN all of the benefits of internet access. And what it fails to do is recognise and disclose to school students the central issue in this debate, which is not whether broadband is good or whether internet access is good. But whether this reckless Labor Government is going about it in a responsible way or not. And our argument is, we say yes to high speed broadband, yes to every Australian having access to it, and yes to doing it in a cheaper, faster and more affordable way. And so the real issue is about how you do it, not the objective. And of course, they glossed over all of that because they don’t want anyone to look at their wastefulness.”

      And we will achieve all this by redefining “high speed” as anything with a peak speed faster than dial-up.

    35. snows
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink |

      one of the most deceptive titles to an article i’ve read in ages.

    36. Abel Adamski
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink |

      How many of you have recieved a letter box drop from the AEC asking the residents to ensure they are enrolled to vote?
      The hard reality for the nation may be coming sooner than you think, may be a good thing, time for Australia to learn some home truths even though we will pay a massive price to do so. P.S saw an item, a labour hire company is recruiting 60,000 New zealanders for the mines as fly in fly out, they can take ALL THEIR earnings home, skills , as long as some allied skills, cleaner, electrician fitter and turner etc, training and skilling provided. Thousands of Aussies have been trying for years, taking on training and skills enhancement, applying for menial jobs in the mines and they recruit from NZ instead?

      The Chinese steel mills are shutting down production, closing for maintenance etc, defaulting on contracts, the ore and coal mountains are building in the Chinese ports, soon the flotillas will once again be building around the Chinese and Korean and Japanese ports. Good luck WA

    37. djos
      Posted 05/06/2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink |

      I just hope Turbull decides to let it go on as planned while announcing some “efficiencies” being imposed on NBN Co to “prevent” it cost 50billion – sure they’ll try to take credit for the NBN but at least we’d have it done properly!

      • Noddy
        Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink |

        Let’s hope those efficiencies aren’t hand it over to the private sector because they are far more efficient. We will end up with Verizon prices.

        • djos
          Posted 05/06/2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink |

          Agreed, I suspect they’ll just make a song and dance about “greater outsourcing” to specialists etc (which is the case any way) and then go “look how great we are, we made it come in on-budget at only 36 billion and under labour it would have cost 50 billion” and the mug punters wont know the difference!

          Pathetic really!

    38. Paul
      Posted 06/06/2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink |

      You only need to search on google “fiber to the node vs fiber to the premises” or something similar, to read forums and real world discussions on how FTTN in a flawed technology and a complete waste of money. Here is one such link:

      http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Verizons-FiOS-Slowdown-Justifies-Our-UVerse-Plan-109834

      Read the comments on how inferior FTTN on AT&T is verses Verison’s FTTP with real feedback from people who have both. As a nation I think we have to drop our favour to any party and just suck it down that an investment in a near country wide FTTP network is simply a better way to INVEST 40-50bn over 15 years than WASTE15-25bn over 10 years on a patchwork infrastructure where the nation is divided in terms of inferior copper / cable / FTTN and FTTP.

      How will any amazing new services or technology ever grow in an environment where the potential market is so divided in terms of service quality and reliability?

    39. Maude
      Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:14 am | Permalink |

      I don’t believe for a minute that the MT leopard has changed his spots. More likely he has merely camouflaged them.

      Early on in the comments thread Abel Adamski said:
      “It is the failure of the private sector to deliver in the US that has forced cities and even counties to install their own fibre. Yet that is the objective of the Coalition, a model that has been a disappointment elsewher. One can only question why. As their model will destroy the ability of the NBN to pay for itself or provide a ROI, thus shifting the entire cost onto the budget whilst at the same time destroying the Standardised ubiquitous business capable model. They must have their reasons as any logical assesment would consider that as verging on insanity”

      Coalition politicians do have their reasons, and they are very logical. It’s to do with politics, power and profits.

      Encouraging debate over costs and technical questions is a clever way to divert attention from the real aim of the Coalition which is to deliver what their key supporters want – a severely hobbled NBN (or preferably, none at all). By supporters I do not mean voters. Supporters for politicians are those who can deliver large numbers of votes, or large amounts of donations. Thus the NSW Clubs supported the O’Farrell coalition (by donating lots of money and also advising club members how to vote), receiving poker m/c tax cuts within months of O’Farrell taking office.

      So, who are the Coalition Supporters in whose interest it is to hobble the NBN? Whoever they are they will be driven by the profit motive.
      At a later point in the comments thread GongGav said:
      “LOL, in other countries where streaming is a common option, it has become the main traffic across the board. Are you so ignorant to think we’ll be any different with either a FTTN or FTTH base standard?”

      And reporters in The Australian have sometimes come close to what really drives the opposition to the NBN. Here’s two quotes:

      “Free TV Australia, which represents the free-to-air TV networks, notes that the NBN would speed development of internet protocol TV …………. Free TV says the (anti-siphoning) regime, which gives the likes of Seven, Nine and Ten the first pick of major sports rights, should be extended to IPTV services to prevent the rights moving from free-to-air TV to internet TV.” JANE SCHULZE The Australian June 15, 2009

      “NBN’s national benefit should come by increased competition from single-program sources such as AFL’s own channel,..” JOHN DURIE The Australian September 02, 2011 12:00AM
      That is, High speed internet (down AND up) will allow content providers, small or big, to stream to a huge audience. Content providers will not have to negotiate with Foxtel or the FTA TV stations because there will be alternatives. Sport has the big audiences that the stations love, but competition for the content will affect their profits. The only solution is to stop the rollout of the NBN, and this is why the FTA stations, Foxtel and its part owner, News Ltd, continue to campaign against it with such vigour, to the point of irrationality.

      So, as Thrawn said (later in the thread):
      “Turnbull is sent out to ‘demolish’ NBN as a policy. If once Coalition is elected he rolls out a significantly different network (non-public rollout, no 93% FTTH, no universal pricing, keeps HFC, etc), then I’d say he completed the target objective of ‘demolish’ the ALP NBN policy”

      Precisely.

      • Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink |

        Well said Maude.

        There’s no question the TV providers are SHIT scared of the NBN. The ironic thing is, IF they came on board and got legislation put in place to enable it, they could provide IPTV Broadcast TV themselves at a LOWER cost than broadcast across the air and STILL get advertising revenue as well.

        But that is not what they care about. These companies and Murdoch’s empire are slow, lumbering behemoths who make their money by destroying any possible competition. Innovation means nothing to them, only profits.

        If the Coalition get in and destroy the NBN, Australia will be set back COUNTLESS years in innovative digital products and economic growth. I will be sadly shaking my head and considering whether my British passport is better value than my Australian one, even though I’m a born and bred Aussie.

        I am so disgusted at and disillusioned of our politics.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink |

          7T
          For a little little known historical background. Told to me by my mates neighbours brothers mate uncles son in law :)
          The TV networks have used leased dedicated (contracted) full time and itinerant (on call ) links between the capital cities since the first coax cables were installed, as the coax’s degraded and were superceded by radio links the 9 network was offered 2x dedicated video links, they chose to pass on the second and the ABC snapped it up. The itinerent was the sacrificial back up link (cheaper rates) which covered both video and telephony bearers, so was unreliable, that was when the 9 network started their hate campaign against Telstra (The precious little princess Jana was upset that the link would go down during her moments of glory ). Then fibre replaced the radio bearers, ( 9 network and to a lesser degree the ch7 (by then Stokes) network still based much of their requirements on itinerant links rather than pay top dollar 24/7). The itinerants would be switched up 15 mins early and down 15 mins late unless there were sequential bookings. The networks would use every second. This was only possible because Telecom was vertically integrated and standby bearers could be switched between telephony and video as required with just ONE phone call on the direct order wire 24/7 .
          A separated Telecom would have introduced a separate layer and the networks their ability to have on call links as required, It would have meant them having to lease extra dedicated links. Big dollars.
          Packer spoke and Howard touched his toes, The sparation Keating had inb progress was reversed and we have what we have so Packer and Stokes could save some money and retain their flexibility and excellent network at minimal cost to them, massive cost to the Nation.

          Now we have the whole coalition touching their toes in unison. the mental image is horrific. But the end result will be the same, the Nation screwed over for the benefit of powerfull people. Remember Howard was a proud monarchist as are most of the Coalition members, Abbot is a part of the Rhodes organisation, both are subservient to their superiors , however can be strong and courageous against their peers or inferiors. Apply the filter and like with the glasses in National Treasure. things become clear.
          All this hullabaloo is about the HFC and cable TV and most importantly the SKY channe. The propanda and manipulation tool. The suggestion is already there for taxpayer dollars to extend and upgrade. For one reason only and it aint broadband.
          To understand the present, first know and understand the history, that is why those in power rewrite it

          • Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink |

            You should write Abel….very good read :D

            There’s no question there’s a MASSIVE amount of pressure on the Coalition in the form of the networks. When you’re paying out a BILLION dollars for 1 football code’s 4 year deal, that’s big money across a whole industry. It is DISGUSTING that this sort of money is being thrown around at a bunch of blokes who throw a pigskin around. $250 MILLION dollars a year goes to AFL from Telstra to have “exclusive rights access” to AFL when it is the 3rd most popular code in Australia. I don’t want to THINK about what League and Union are getting….

            I have no problem with sport. And I think people who are very good at it should be paid to BE good at it. But:

            1- I don’t consider football a sport so much as a running biff up (note, this is my opinion, others are entitled to their’s- although don’t talk to your average League player about it….you’ll only get monosyllabic responses….)

            2- And more importantly, the amount people are paid to be good at sport is determined by one thing; potential advertising revenue. Who is that pushed by? The media, specifically the Murdoch empire and Telstra/Austar/Foxtel.

            I love/hate cricket (you know, one of THOSE relationships) and I want to see it played on free-to-air broadcasts, but the amount the International players get paid is borderline criminal. Not only do they get hundreds of THOUSANDS of dollars salary, they ALSO get sponsorship and advertising deals too. It adds up to, for many higher end players, well over a million, sometimes 2 a year in total benefits. For playing SPORT! For FUN! Sure, they’re (in general) good role models for kids and good promoters of causes, but you can be that WITHOUT being paid 2 million dollars. Why not just a decent, high paying wage, like a executive, with a sponsorship deal thrown in. Why? Because Australians love sport and if your people love something, what is going to happen? Someone sees money to be made and ALOT of it.

            This is just sport, and it’s a bit of a rant of mine particularly because I believe it is given too much importance.(yes for those “you’re just jealous you couldn’t play” types, as a matter of fact I WAS bullied as a kid about being bad at football. I also now have more than 4 brain cells to rub together as payment for not being involved….AND I played every OTHER sport) But the point stands for alot of broadcast content in Australia. The amount of money that changes hands means people and companies COMPEL just about EVERYONE they deal with to make it bigger and better. Greed is a powerful mistress.

            And meanwhile, your average Australian, who enjoys watching cricket/football/tennis of an afternoon, can’t afford to pay the $120 a month to get “exclusive access” to their favourite viewing, because a broadcaster has found a way to make even MORE money off those who are much better off and can pay for it. THIS ALONE is good enough reason to have the NBN.

            Will broadcasters find a way to make money in an NBN world? I’d rather bet on a dead horse than say no, but their influence on media and living in general will be GREATLY reduced in this world. And so you’re absolutely correct in your assumptions that these organisations, particularly those involved with payTV, are desperate to stop it anyway they can.

            THIS is why the Coalition can “fall in line with the NBN mandate” all they want, but they will NEVER back down on scrapping it as a whole plan. Will some of it stay in a Coalition government? Almost certainly, but the overreaching plan, that works BECAUSE it is so ubiquitous, will be destroyed. It will be a sad day for the Australian people, it will devastating for the country’s growth and it will business as usual for this farce that is becoming Australian Democracy.

            If that’s hyperbolic, shoot me, I make no apologies. I believe this network can revolutionise Australia in the decades to come. And I will be doing everything I can to ensure it comes to fruition.

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink |

              7T
              Agreed, in fact when you look closely at it it almost verges on being traitorous

              • Posted 07/06/2012 at 5:48 am | Permalink |

                HA!

                My point about our politics is proven this morning. For WEEKS Craig Thompson has been saying he’s innocent if using Health Union funds on a prostitute….and now it comes out CHANNEL 7 tried to pay her $50 grand to say she did and when she was unsure, offered her $60 grand! Even though she said she hadn’t seen him!

                Anything for a headline. And anything to make sure the other party loses….even if It’s untrue

    40. Paul
      Posted 06/06/2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink |

      +100 Maude !!!

      What the NBN really comes down to is that it levels the playing field across the board. It shifts the power from those few who have it to essentially any one entrepreneurial enough to go out and seize it. Think about what Bill Gates did in a garage and multiply it by 1000 – that’s the true potential for a FTTP national network!

    41. Soth
      Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:17 am | Permalink |

      Not sure if related, but I see mikcomm laying fibre optics in front of my office in the city (Perth)… Now all I need to do is re-route it to my home…

    42. Posted 06/06/2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink |

      Attention Alain:

      I don’t disagree with many of the points you are making. But your posts are primarily merely attacking other users’ and going over old ground with respect to the NBN. I don’t dislike devil’s advocates, but there comes a point where people tire of it. I suggest that you change your style and be a bit more positive, with more constructive ideas. Otherwise I will put you in the sinbin for a week, as you are harming the conversation and a few readers have complained about your posts this week.

      Renai

    43. Harquebus
      Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink |

      Fibre to the node and wireless to the home. Those that want fibre can then pay for it.
      Keep the NBN in government hands. Do not privatize it.
      Give every Australian free shaped and then pay for extra. All Australians helped pay for it.
      This is what I would do.

      • Posted 06/06/2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink |

        ASThose were my thought too Harquebus, I am quite intrigued over “Fi-WI” as they call it.

        There are some issues though. The wireless would have to be VERY high powered in reasonably dense zones as there would be multiple nodes and each would lower the strength of the other.

        There’s also the issue that it is still a FTTN architecture and would therefor be a reasonable amount of work to go to full FTTH which would happen eventually.

        And of course contention on wireless too. BUT it could be good for some areas. Even 5% would make a fairly significant cost difference. Don’t get me wrong though, I’d prefer FTTH for everyone, but there is scope for some possible changes.

        But this is NOT what the Coalition will do

        • Harquebus
          Posted 06/06/2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink |

          The wireless I envisage would use television style aerials and use higher frequencies. The flexibility of wireless can not be ignored.

          • Alex
            Posted 06/06/2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink |

            Of course it can’t…

            It is a fantastic complementary technology for on the run ease… as opposed to fixed for the hard slog.

            The pro-NBN people know this and accept it readily.

    44. Posted 06/06/2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink |

      “The wireless I envisage would use television style aerials and use higher frequencies. The flexibility of wireless can not be ignored.”

      TV Style Aerials are for TV signals, which are at frequencies similar to LTE, but the shape of the aerial is as much defined by the type of wireless. Higher frequencies would not be preferable. The higher the frequency, the lower the range. Get about 2000Mhz and you’ll struggle to get above 2-3km even with high power transceivers. I’ve no problem with 700Mhz Wireless “nodes”. And you’re certainly right that wireless is very flexible compared to a cable in the ground. Especially in the fact that as new houses come along, you just add them to the cell.

      However, again, the danger in this is the contention of the wireless cells. You can manage it, but it may get to a point, in very dense areas, where you have so many nodes and transceivers it would be easier, cheaper and more reliable for speeds to just run cable. You also still have to watch interference from Wi-Fi, NORMaL mobile wireless, TV and any other number of signals, which all reduce the coverage of other wireless cells, even if only slightly.

      That’s why I’d see this being primarily a low-density populous option. That’s not to say it isn’t a valid option, but it would be for a much smaller % of the population. And they might feel a bit gipped if they got wireless instead of fibre now that Labor has said 93% of us will get it. That would be badly politically damaging. But It could still be a viable option.

      Again, though, the Coalition are unlikely to do this. We don’t have ANY information from them really, so it’s possible, but I don’t see it as likely.

    45. I See Dinosaurs
      Posted 07/06/2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink |

      Sorry Turnbull i aint buying it. Fact of the matter is your hand has been forced to admit to continue the NBN in some form. Here is the key, you’ll still deliver a NBN in some form. A far substandard NBN to Labor as the Fibre cut off points will connect to an old copper wire network. Ever heard the saying “if you don’t do something properly don’t do it at all”. But still i’ll take what i can get just stop trying to spin it cause we in the know, know you’ll be delivering a severely inferior NBN.

    46. George
      Posted 07/06/2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink |

      “We are not going to rip it up or tear it up or abandon it. But we will complete the objective, but we will do so in a much more cost-effective way.”

      Please Malcom…. why are you trying to trick us. Its a clear word of use.

      Australian people want and need the CURRENT NBN plan, which is 93% of fibre to the HOME.

      We DO NOT want you’re crappy Liberal plan of FTTN, or HFC, or crappy wireless networks.

      You cannot compare apples and oranges, and say that “see, we made is cheaper” and “as fast”.

      I’m sick of the constant problems of a ancient degrading copper network. I’m sick of pair gains, I’m sick of rims, I’m sick of distance to the exchange. I’m sick of Available ports.

      Fibre to the Home is far better than FTTN. Do it once, and do it properly. Eventually FTTN would have to be replaced to FTTH anyway, so why do a half job?

      I also like to know how you’d try update the HFC, considering its already Docsis 3.0 and the fact that its a SHARED network, which the speeds slow down the more users there are. I’d also like to know how the HFC could offer the same upload speeds that the real NBN can provide.

      Liberals stance on the NBN is a joke, and they will not get my vote.

    47. Abel Adamski
      Posted 07/06/2012 at 7:33 pm | Permalink |

      So to recap
      “Coalition will complete NBN objective, says Turnbull”
      He also has stated
      1) Greater Private sector involvement
      2) Cheaper and quicker options using
      a) Cheaper FTTN over our suspect copper pairs delivering comparable performance .??
      See link for pricing of SHDSL http://www.bit.com.au/News/303859,internode-doubles-dslam-coverage-what-it-means-for-businesses.aspx. Compare with NBN equivalents
      b) Upgrade and EXTEND HFC. Neither Optus or Telstra want to know about it, ageing and maintenance costs are rising, Nodes will need to be tripled meaning more fibres will be required to feed those nodes. Most cost effective solution to replace existing. benefit ?, only to Foxtel and Murdochs Sky Channel. Let them pay the 800 Million and do the extensions and upgrades themselves instead of fleecing the taxpayer for their benefit.
      c) Increased use of wireless

      Consequences
      1) Rather than a Standardised Ubiquitous Business Capable Readily upgradeable State of the art NATIONAL Communications platform that will pay for its installation costs and provide a return to the taxpayer plus adequate cash flow to fund expansion and upgrade while tha Nation still has private cable networks by many comms companies, some wholesale and some dedicated. Sort of best of both worlds in a way.
      This will be replaced (meeting the NBN objectives ) by a hodge podge dogs breakfast of technologies creating mutiple platforms and technologies that isp’s will be forced to operate within. The standard of service available will not be guaranteed to be business capable and will vary wildy in quality . The prices currently available via the NBN will no longer be sustainable as the private operators will target the cheap quick and easy to install high profit and value areas. This will be achieved through direct government (taxpayer) subsidy . The NBN Co bussiness model which is a good one will collapse as it is no longer universal and the core systems and infrastructure is built for anational network, not a crippled stub.
      Thus ALL costs will go straight to the Budget bottom line to be paid for by the taxpayer on top of all the other taxpayer gifts and subsidies many of which will have to be ongoing. The taxpayer not only gets screwed over financially, bout we also get shortchanged with a third rate national infrastructure.
      Take this in conjunction with the previously mentioned Labour hire companies recruiting 60,000 NZ workers for the mines when there are actually more than that Australians similarly skilled who cannot obtain employment in the mines. This equates to at minimum$6Billion leaving Australia, tax paid in Aust or NZ ?, those planes carrying the FIFO workers will also bring in the food they need from NZ, meat, fish, cegetables, fruit dairy etc. This 6Bill would have generated a further 10B at least within the economy + the food etc supporting local producers, this factor was why the Reserves cut rates, and why unemployment is growing. Those miners are begrudging paying a super profit tax when the ore is loaded on the Chinese ship at cost inc wages of $25 Ton and sold for up to $180 currently about $120 Ton. The Coalition will cut the taxes they pay.
      Australia has been advised if we Dont achieve a surplus our AAA credit rating will be cut. So when TA gains the power he so desperately craves and destroys the Labor NBN model to replace it with their Mickey Mouse model, that in conjuction with the miners raping Australia , in every way they can our National credit rating will take a dive and government expenditure will have to be cut like crazy.

      For all the Media spin, I have always considered on results that Libs have not been particularly good financial managers, scrooges yes. They have constantly shown a failure to comprehend what is required of a government, even though I have only ever voted Labour twice in 45 years they have shown better management of the Nation.

      To fiddle too much with the very well planned NBN model has risks of disastrous consequences for the Nation not only long term but also very much short term

      MT I thought better of you. Tell the media Moguls to Rack off and adjust like everyone else has to in a changing world. Murdoch can start offering free satellite installation.

      Sorry about the long rant which appeared to slip off subject a little, however it is all intertwined

      • Alex
        Posted 07/06/2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink |

        + many Abel

      • Posted 07/06/2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink |

        Rant accepted.

        The truth is long and ugly. But it’s the truth and it needs to be dealt with.

    48. Abel Adamski
      Posted 07/06/2012 at 9:41 pm | Permalink |

      I forgot to add.
      Considering the majority are influenced by the media portrayal and the shock jocks. I believe the Conservatives will win , possibly if they get their way with an early election. Then when the proverbial hits the fan the media and the conservatives will blame Labor mismanagement rather than face the truth. So save every relevent opinion piece and news item. Save the threads on Renai’s site. With respect Renai powerfull people hate exposure and a form of censorship would not surprise me, ultra right wing regimes and totalarian regimes of any flavour make a specialty of it. There are so few sites where comments are still allowed and so many of those are “moderated”, this can mean many things. On Murdoch sites pre pay wall I could rarely have a post accepted that disagreed with the article when I quoted references to disprove the article. I suspect that will be the norm , we may have to comment on overseas forums. Hope your isp has cojones

      • Posted 07/06/2012 at 11:07 pm | Permalink |

        I truly hope this Dystopian 1984 we’re heading towards runs out of steam. But I can’t see it doing so yet.

        The Coalition will CERTAINLY blame Labor for the hit on the budget. Mind you, if it were reversed so would Labor. Except in this instance, Labor have actually DONE a reasonable job. Not perfect, but reasonable. But you wouldn’t know it from the papers.

        As I said, I’m going to be doing everything I can to make things as uncomfortable as possible for the Coalition if they do get in. I have plans in progress towards a survey site on the NBN, which will be as impartial as possible, that will link with Facebook, Twitter and probably a mobile site. The guy I will be getting to help me with the web design HAS the NBN and can’t praise it enough. He’s REFUSED to move (even though they’ve no REAL reason to go anywhere) his family until he KNOWS where they’re going has the NBN. The plans will hopefully gather enough (I’m hoping over 20 000, to start) respondents to make it into a petition. If I can expand it further, I will. Anything above 20 000, I believe, will construct a decent argument in media circles. The largest petition is of course the Live Animal Export ban at over 200 000. I’ve no idea if it could ever get to that height, but you can only plan and hope. According to the polls, the numbers are out there, many millions. And many millions have the internet…..ironically….

        The ONLY way to turn a tide like this is with public opinion. And the ONLY way to get public opinion on your side is to show them the numbers, because tech specs mean nothing to the average punter. $40 Billion, up front, paid back over 35 years for a network that will last 50 years and produce as much if not many times more in economic benefit in that time. OR $40 Billion on the budget already stretched, for a network that will result in….precisely nothing more than we have now but a few bumped speeds. Leading to a long, slow decline in the Australian economy PARTICULARLY once Mining Boom MkII burns out in 5-10 years time.

        I truly can’t believe this Coalition is so focussed on power it is TOTALLY ignoring what is best for the country AND what is WANTED by the country. It would be equivalent of Howard stepping aside on the waterfront issue in the late 90′s. Our exports would be crippled and we’d be a shell of an economy powerhouse we are now. Even the GST to a certain extent. Can business ever imagine going back now? No! Even Kim Beazley said it would be stupid and HE was against it!

        WHY has our political system failed so badly? Media? Definitely. Apathy? Possibly, particularly with popularist media pushing it. I mean come on, I like TV as much as the next person, but Lara Bingle’s OWN reality show…..save us all. A Current Affairs program that tries to pay a prostitute to say a leading Federal minister was using Union funds to sleep with her? (Oh Ray Martin would be rolling in his….oh wait, he’s alive; he’s facepalming somewhere) Tell ME that there wasn’t a dark shadowy conservative silhouette in the background while Williams was on the phone to her…..

        It’s not as dismal on a day to day basis but we get disheartened and disenfranchised when we see crap like this. But it’s hard to see the light when these over-arching policies that will shape Australia for the decades to come, are pushed aside for a snide joke about a fellow parliamentarian or when trying to race each other out of the chamber in a stunt to make sure they’re not “perceived to accept tainted votes”. Tainted votes…..I’ll tell you what a tainted vote is- A vote in our Elections.

        Carbon Tax, NBN, Mining Tax. All these WILL happen. It’s inevitable. Without a carbon tax, in 50 years time, because money hasn’t been diverted to alternative technology, oil will be too expensive to buy for 90% of the population and the coal will be gone anyway. Without an NBN, we may well become a 3rd world country as far as the digital world is concerned. Without a mining tax being pushed into infrastructure for the future, and savings for the ageing population, the economy is likely to simply collapse in a heap in 10-15 years time, seeing as we’ll have no major exports left.

        But WHY do they have to happen LATER? Our economy is strong, let us take the hit while it is, rather than trying to clamber up a moving climbing wall as the economy inevitably shrinks in a few years time. I cannot believe the short-sightedness of it all. I’ve never considered living elsewhere, I love this country. But it’s governance and media make me weep.

        Rant returned….with interest :D

        • djos
          Posted 08/06/2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink |

          @SevenTech Maybe this should be done via GetUp! as they are capable of running TV ads and Print ads when they get behind something and im pretty sure the NBN is a pet subject for GetUp Members.

      • Tom
        Posted 30/06/2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink |

        “The conservatives will win” You mean the 70% of Australians that want Labor out?
        Forget about the ultra right, if Conroy’s censorship thing is allowed to proceed, kiss free speech in Australia good-bye. It might pay you to look up a young Rupert Murdoch’s politics.

        • Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink |

          “You mean the 70% of Australians that want Labor out?”

          Yes because Neilsen polls are ALWAYS so accurate, especially this far out from an election:

          http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-faces-wipeout-20100606-xn7v.html

          Yeah….that happened didn’t it. We ended up with a tie. Hardly what I’d call a wipeout….

          “if Conroy’s censorship thing is allowed to proceed, kiss free speech in Australia good-bye. ”

          Conroy is stubborn and stupidly dopey to continue with this. You’ll notice however he hasn’t said anything substantial about it in a LONG time. Because he KNOWS people don’t want it. Yes, believe it or not, even us Pro-NBNers….

          “It might pay you to look up a young Rupert Murdoch’s politics.”

          Dear LORD I can’t think of a worse way to spend a few hours of my life. The man is an arrogant prig who controls 2/3 of our media to say anything he wants us to read. Yes, I’d LOVE to know what his politics were/are like.

          • Tom
            Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink |

            To save you the trouble, Rupert was a very strong and outspoken lefty in his uni days.

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 04/01/2013 at 7:48 pm | Permalink |

              Tom.
              Put simply.
              Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts abdolutely

              • Tom
                Posted 05/01/2013 at 2:45 pm | Permalink |

                Thanks Able I think he is too. Profiles in power are interesting. One of the first insults directed at a pollie or a journalist that does not agree with our point of view is that they are a megalomaniac (or failing that, they are certain to become a megalomaniac). It is always hard to argue with because it is usually true. It is true for all from Thatcher to Don Corleone to Stalin to Saddam to Mao. BTW: I still have a red book.

                I am not sure where that takes the dialog on Rupert’s motivations and its effect on NBN other than to observe that any tool becomes a weapon in the hands of the devil.

                Take care, Tom.

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 04/01/2013 at 8:18 pm | Permalink |

        Re censorship.
        As you may be aware Alan Kohlers Business Spectator and the stable of Spectators including, Technical and Climate etc have been bought out by News Ltd.
        Technology Spectators most commented has been pruned from 10 items to just 1. The only post is my plaintive question. I have tried to post many comments on this item, courteous and avoiding any reference to media influence, just commenting directly on the item. Went into moderation never to appear. I wonder how long Supratihm will have a job.
        Which other independent unbiased site or publication will be next?. The ABC and Fairfax are in the gun sights
        enjoy the illusion of Democracy while it still exists

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 05/01/2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink |

          Interesting
          Subsequent to the above post I was finally able to have a post accepted on The NBN in 2013 article, I had given up on commenting on the article and wrote a comment effectively directly to the moderators and surprise it was permitted.
          However the item on News Ltd.

          http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/national-broadband-network-to-help-elderly-stay-in-own-homes-project-boss-says/story-e6frf7kx-1226543755255

          Note the comments permitted and the dates posted , what would be the impression the reader gathers from the article and permitted comments, I have attempted to post many comments answering the other commentators and also commenting on the article, information etc since the 27/12/13. Comments are still being invited up to this time.
          Illusions of free press and open and non manipulative media, actually far worse than just not allowing comments

    49. Rhys
      Posted 08/06/2012 at 8:50 am | Permalink |

      I just want to say.. I think there is alot of hot air in all of this. The conversation seems stail, let’s retire till Turnbull changes his views next week, ok?

    50. Posted 12/06/2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink |

      Anyone who’s interested there’s a webcast going down on NBN.gov.au:

      http://webcast.viostream.com/?viocast=5605&auth=4ebc7a4a-0e21-44c1-874d-fab3b890c277

    51. Abel Adamski
      Posted 13/06/2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink |

      Just for an indication objectives of the Subsidise the private sector and fleece the taxpayer brigade. Plus Links to of some of the Public and Business objectives and an indication of the level of product development and research occurring

      Without subsidy, costly NBN is a firewall to students

      * by: Jan Thomas
      * From: The Australian
      * June 13, 2012 12:00AM

      INTERNET access prices could almost triple under the National Broadband Network, forcing many students offline, unless the federal government subsidises its scheme.

      Students with disabilities, from remote areas and those from poorer backgrounds could miss out on the intended benefits of the $36 billion NBN because of its associated high cost.

      Funding and subsidies must be injected otherwise the digital divide will widen, with those most in need left offline and behind.

      And, as more universities increasingly deliver content and support to students via the internet, affordable and competitive packages are crucial to ensure the government’s equity and participation targets are met.

      The copper network, which the NBN will replace, needs to remain online until NBN prices drop or the government subsidises the scheme.

      Under the NBN, 93 per cent of homes, schools and businesses will be connected to the new fibre-optic network boasting broadband speeds of up to 100 megabits per second.

      All remaining premises, including most remote communities, will be served with a combination of next-generation fixed wireless and satellite technologies, providing peak speeds of at least 12Mbps.

      Rural and remote students will be hardest hit when NBN internet packages become compulsory in three years.

      Under the copper network, students can access the internet from as little as $20 a month but, under the fibre optic high-speed NBN, internet service providers face a $24 a month access fee even before retail packages are offered to consumers.

      In other words, the ISP wholesale charge is higher than the current end cost for many consumers.

      Furthermore, the $24 wholesale cost will be charged separately on data and phone points should students opt not to “bundle” internet and telephone services with the same provider.

      Under the new system, an entry-level broadband user will face fees of about $60 a month, effectively tripling costs, while mid-level plans hover about $90 and high-level packages at $110.

      It remains to be seen whether entry-level NBN plans will be sufficient to access learning and support materials should universities live stream lectures or offer videos and other media.

      As virtual classrooms, discussion boards and online dialogues grow in popularity and success, access to that education must be equitable.

      Unfortunately, NBN prices are expected to remain high for the best part of a decade, as the government attempts to recoup the cost of the new network. For students living on or just above the bread line, the question remains as to how they will stay plugged in. A compulsory connection to the high-priced NBN is a firewall to learning for many students.

      The NBN is not the solution.The federal government needs to act now, to ensure funding packages are put in place to keep students online.

      The NBN, unless subsidised through some form of means testing, will create the very situation it is trying to resolve: widening the digital divide instead of closing it.

      Jan Thomas is vice-chancellor of the University of Southern Queensland.

      We wonder why the Skills shortage and the reduced standard of our graduates with the exception of some centres of excellence.

      http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/427437/nbn_stop_rural_brain_drain/?fp=4&fpid=78268965
      http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/jobs-go-begging-as-students-shun-it-courses-20120612-208be.html

      for the wireless is cheaper and better, however intelligent practical solution
      http://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/news/article/-/13934160/verizon-hikes-data-fees-in-pricing-revamp/

      • seven_tech
        Posted 13/06/2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink |

        This is disgusting. I can’t believe a media outlet allows people to write such rubbish without basis….oh wait, It’s The Australian….they don’t check their own facts let alone anyone else’s. I assume this is in the opinions section Abel?

        I will most definitely be writing a counter opinion, not that I have much hope it’ll get published in this farce of a newspaper.Where does she get this $20 from?? I don’t know ANY person who could get fixed line internet for $20. Dial up requires line rental ie. $50. Naked DSL would NOT be available for these remote regions and the cheapest I can find is $39.95 anyway. And mobile broadband….well that’s mobile broadband! The NBN won’t make an iota of difference to this.

        If she is speaking of subsidies under the governments ‘Broadband Guarantee’- 95% of people on it are on satellite. That means 5% could potentially be on copper….except most of that 5% use NextG pico stations….

        I do not understand how a woman like this, who supposedly is working for a university, could write such tripe. I sincerely hope this is not the average calibre of weighted opinion that comes out of our universities.

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 22/06/2012 at 8:00 am | Permalink |

        http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/427470/which_nbn_plan_best_/

        Also gives pricing, and also there is an ISP Club Telco that does monthly plans, perfect for students especially overseas

    52. Abel Adamski
      Posted 23/06/2012 at 1:00 am | Permalink |

      Interesting article by Malcolm
      http://technologyspectator.com.au/nbn-cos-faulty-economics

      http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/428411/turnbull_tells_nbn_co_ceo_he_should_back_down/?fp=4&fpid=78268965

    53. Abel Adamski
      Posted 27/06/2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink |

      Just for interest, extending and solidifying WiFi load shedding for Mobile Data consumers

      http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/technology/55434-cellular-data-offload-to-wi-fi-takes-a-great-leap-forward

    54. djos
      Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink |

      Great NBN poll on surprise surprise the SMH:

      http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/we-will-not-cancel-the-nbn-turnbull-20120629-217f3.html#ixzz1zAiRwN96

      It’s now at:

      Yes, just get on with it. 79%
      Yes, but in a different form/funding model/technology 13%
      No, we don’t need it. 8%
      Total votes: 2760.

      Roll on NBN!

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 29/06/2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink |

        I put my vote, place yours, It was 12% another model now 13%, the Liberal teams must be getting on board to get the result they want

        • Posted 29/06/2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink |

          Well, considering from when djos voted, it’s now 1000 more people who’ve voted and its’ STILL only at 13%….I’d say people are getting sense knocked into them….slowly.

          Although some of the comments are disturbing:

          “Good, this was my last remaining reason to vote for Labor. Liberals here I come!”

          Shows people are FAR too trusting of what politicians SAY rather than what they DO. Paul Budde needs to be careful with his “Oh, I believe they won’t cancel it” stuff too. It honestly WOULDN’T surprise me to see the Coalition get in and, after the contracts run out, just simply stop in the middle and do very little. Seriously, they don’t see broadband as important. They’re still catching up to the fact that its’ a national issue.

          Don’t stop fighting the FUD guys! Malcolm needs to give us some proper details before I’ve ANY hope the Coalition won’t balls it up.

          • Tom
            Posted 30/06/2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink |

            “Seriously, they don’t see broadband as important.”, you are probably correct.

            However, “they” know that the subject is voter sensitive. As a result, Turnbull and co. would not lightly dick with NBN or broadband.

            Turnbull also realises that the internet has progressed from being a geek’s novelty to a mainstream (and sometimes mission critical) infrastructure issue. Howard missed the boat on broadband and Kevin 07 came in with the “vision” thing. Anyone who is honest would admit that Kevin 07 did not have a mature solution in mind. He sloganeered his way to victory. Politicians do that.

            Cost effectiveness of the ultimate solution and the budget effect of its implementation remains important. Why not take off your tinfoil hats and find ways to work with the LNP to get the best possible broadband result. After all, they are very likely to be in government.

            • Noddy
              Posted 30/06/2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink |

              “Why not take off your tinfoil hats and find ways to work with the LNP to get the best possible broadband result. After all, they are very likely to be in government.”

              Why don’t you make suggestion instead of spending all your time putting people down?

              • Tom
                Posted 30/06/2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

                I did Noddy, … ” …. find ways to work with the LNP to get the best possible broadband result”. Whoosh?

                • Observer
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink |

                  I have had the displeasure of reading your numerous and tedious comments.
                  Why are you so much up yourself about your views being the only game in town? Everyone who disagree with you is a jackass.

                  Furthermore, you seem to be under the delusion that you have a sense of humour. I note with interest that Alain is the only one to escape your schoolboy sarcasm. Perhaps, you two should start a relationship. It could be a match made in heaven.

                  You come to this site, complaining that you can’t dissent without being attacked. Unfortunately, you seem to be paralysed by your political tunnel vision and a desire to “show them” what a great debater you think you are. Get a life, get a tattoo of all you liberal heroes, do whatever you want but better still go away.

                  Feel free to try your usual sarcastic reply but be aware that you will only show your limitation.

                  • Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink |

                    Lol. Careful Observer. You’re stepping close to personal attacks there, don’t wanna see you banned.

                    Not without call mind you…..

                    • Observer
                      Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink |

                      I am not attacking the man, just the behaviour.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink |

                        Take a pill. Go and lie down.

                  • Tom
                    Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink |

                    “Perhaps, you two should start a relationship. It could be a match made in heaven.”? … ?

                • Noddy
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink |

                  I read what you wrote. I asked what is YOUR solution. Not someone else working to find a solution. You say the current solution is bad, you rubbish the numbers, that it is needed, with no evidence to back your statements. If you think their are better solutions lets hear your ideas.

                  • Tom
                    Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:02 am | Permalink |

                    The current solution is bad? Did I say that? Where?

                    Having asked that question, I do believe the Rudd broadband strategy was done all wrong. It was firstly put up as an election stunt with very little thought. It then morphed into NBN after the politicians fought with the Australian carriers. As a result it may not be optimal for the Australian people. (It may be).

                    My ideas? A combination of wireless, FTTP and FTTN, satellite, retention of some copper as a short term.

                    My strategy, first analyse the public’s needs (now and in the predictable future) in a TRANSPARENT way then pick a combination of technical solutions that will deliver those needs with the most reasonable impost on the public funding and ultimate cost to the user.

                    No, I have not got the whole technical solution. Nor has Turnbull.

                    For Turnbull to ignore where NBN has gone so far would be as stupid as Conroy trying to bully the ISPs and carriers. Not a good look. I sincerely hope Turnbull does not have a blunt approach to Mike Quigley when the time comes.

                    BTW: Conroy is still brawling http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/nbn-co-playing-hardball-with-local-councils-20120626-20zmj.html

                    Hope this helps.

                    • Abel Adamski
                      Posted 01/07/2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink |

                      Tom
                      If you actually followed up, reading the local papers. Not all that it seems. I have friends up that way, it is political and there are those in a country town of 200 dwellings who demand FTTP not only in the town, but also outlying areas. The joke on them is being put down the list, they will be stuck with the coalition option

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink |

                        “The joke on them is being put down the list, they will be stuck with the coalition option” …. including the pensioners?
                        Its not all about “we” won just because “they” lost. I know you did not mean “joke” in a nasty way. You probably meant something like “it is sad”.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

                        My parents and my uncles and aunt’es are all pentioners and they use way more bandwidth and need far more speed than I do. They have time to watch movies on demand, love sending videos on grand children to others. I think the non computer using pensioner is dying fast. Even my mother who didn’t get the attraction of computer games when I was a teenager now plays them a lot since retired.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink |

                        I agree Noddy. And in their age group, there is a wealth of opportunities to skype the grandchildren and stay in touch with their children when they are not up to travelling long distances.

                        Back to the lga, it appears they wanted fibre and pulled a stunt to get upgraded from wireless? Was Conroy giving them a technical solution that would not allow the pensioners to do all those things?

                    • Abel Adamski
                      Posted 01/07/2012 at 1:41 am | Permalink |

                      “My ideas? A combination of wireless, FTTP and FTTN, satellite, retention of some copper as a short term.

                      My strategy, first analyse the public’s needs (now and in the predictable future) in a TRANSPARENT way then pick a combination of technical solutions that will deliver those needs with the most reasonable impost on the public funding and ultimate cost to the user.

                      No, I have not got the whole technical solution. Nor has Turnbull.”

                      The combination, who wins who loses and on what basis?. Once FTTN, HFC and copper are included the standardised business capable aspect is lost.
                      Analyse the public’s needs. in a transparent way? how about including the business and economy and government and health and education, they all interact with the public. The analysis’s by world experts have been well publicised in case you haven’t noticed..
                      Impost on public funding. Well the nbn model has no impost, in fact will generate a return unlike the Coalition massive gifts to the private sector with no return for a collection of broadband fiefdoms.

                      The Black Spots and inadequate Broadband have been well known for years. The private sector and Turnbulls mates the Greenfields operators could have built fibre or fttn networks in those areas, why didn’t they?, we are talking many thousands of premises in all major cities

                      With respect Tom, look back over the other articles, comments and references on Delimiter and do some research. Education is good for the soul

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink |

                        “how about including the business and economy and government and health and education, they all interact with the public.” … good point.

                        However, I actually had all players (individuals, public sector and private sector) in mind in writing the word “public”.

                        e-health and other initiatives would then have their opportunity to submit speed and bandwidth requirements (both now and foreseen). If these potential users were able to submit their intended requirements, a crap detector could be run over there submissions and they could be publicly identified and listed.

                        I am talking about a transparent list available for public scrutiny and debate, not the Kevin Costner “build it and they will come” stuff.

                        I remember somewhere else you posted a comment to the effect that social justice has to be considered. “Social justice” is such a rubbery easily rorted phrase. I have no problems with giving a “Rolls Royce” to e-health and other such key initiatives where it is shown to be mission critical to have a “Rolls Royce” and giving the less expensive options to people who are highly unlikely to need it.

                        “The Black Spots and inadequate Broadband have been well known for years. The private sector and Turnbulls mates the Greenfields operators could have built fibre or fttn networks in those areas, why didn’t they?, we are talking many thousands of premises in all major cities”

                        1. The private sector does not have a community service obligation. They cherry pick where the profits are.
                        2. “Turnbull’s mates”? Ouch. … you mean Goldmann Sachs who stand to make a killing out of carbon tax through trading carbon credits?
                        3. OPEL was an attempt, albeit poor, to address to black spots. Just bear in mind, Conroy could have done something since 2007 and the technology is superior.

                        Yes, I should read more. It is a fascinating subject. I have to admit that talking with people on this site has been a positive revelation.

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 01/07/2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink |

                      Well, that is basicly the Coalition policy. When do you see the FTTN interum replaced by FTTH?
                      By all predictions of the Telcos and others such as Cisco and Google it will not provide enough bandwidth by about 2016. Add a few years to be generous 2018, would it even be rolled out then and then for how long?

                      I don’t really blame them for playing hardball with the councils. There are many of them trying stunts to get fibre rather than wireless. Be lean on them and you have every council in Australia trying it.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink |

                        Noddy, is that a statement that 93% is wobbling at the edges?
                        Or that that this lga must necessarily accept wireless (the cheap and nasty solution)?

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink |

                        “Noddy, is that a statement that 93% is wobbling at the edges?”

                        I am not sure what you mean by that. That the 93% isn’t concrete? The current figure is not 93%
                        It is 92.7% the other 0.3% is new green field the opens as the rollout happens. There is a cutoff on the number of premises need to receive fibre. If you are below it, you get wireless, not in an area where wireless is practical, satillite.

                        If anything I was saying it wasn’t wobbling. If they didn’t follow the guidelines and rolled out fibre to areas that complained about wireless towers everyone would do it. There is an alternative, they could pay to have fibre extended. The way to go about it isn’t to negotiate towers and then have them blocked a couple of times to try and force it for free. It’s to say “We want fibre, how much do we need to pay to make it happen?” If the fibre is run at the same price as wireless with the community chipping in the difference they will get fibre. They have mentioned that a number of times. So, if that is wobbly, yes it is.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink |

                        Thanks Noddy, pragmatic might be a better word.
                        It would be better for the NBN operational staff if the whole thing was low key politically. Then there would be no incentive for for councils to use stunts.

            • Posted 30/06/2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

              “However, “they” know that the subject is voter sensitive. As a result, Turnbull and co. would not lightly dick with NBN or broadband.”

              Turnbull doesn’t. That’s one of the things I like about him….but for the last 3 YEARS Abbott has barely known what an internet IS. And he CERTAINLY didn’t care if the average Australian wanted or needed faster access to one. He’s FINALLY being convinced of it I see, thanks to his latest speech at the Liberal Conference…..great, only took 3 years….about the same amount of time it took Labor to realise FTTN wasn’t gonna work….so, oh good, we’ve got ANOTHER 3 year wait once the Coalition get in and try to “plan” and “re-negotiate” before realising its’ just easier, cheaper and better to keep going…..

              “Anyone who is honest would admit that Kevin 07 did not have a mature solution in mind. He sloganeered his way to victory. Politicians do that.”

              He didn’t. I’ve no doubt it was a knee jerk policy. As was NBN Mk2. However, the difference being Mk2 has had 4 YEARS of planning behind it now. They KNOW what to do, they ARE doing it and they will CONTINUE to do it. And the Coalition are still stuck on FTTN. See, this is, again, the contradiction. You say Kevin’s FTTN policy wasn’t mature….and yet the Coalition’s IS, being VERY much the same thing??

              “Why not take off your tinfoil hats and find ways to work with the LNP to get the best possible broadband result. After all, they are very likely to be in government.”

              Because they have already stated they’re not prepared to work with the government if it involves FTTP as a majority solution. They have stated that if a CBA came back and said continuing the NBN, as FTTP to 93%, was the most cost effective way to deliver a broadband policy….they wouldn’t follow it. Tony said it, about 6 months ago. There IS no working with a man as arrogant as that. You might not agree with the Malaysia refugee policy either, I’m not sure I do, but to simply state “I don’t care what the committee setup to break this deadlock says, we won’t change our minds” while the PM is saying “ANY recommendations will be considered, INCLUDING Nauru AND not Malaysia” shows the UTTER arrogance of a man who truly, honestly BELIEVES he is due to have power in Australian government.

              • Tom
                Posted 30/06/2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink |

                “Because they have already stated they’re not prepared to work with the government if it involves FTTP as a majority solution. They have stated that if a CBA came back and said continuing the NBN, as FTTP to 93%, was the most cost effective way to deliver a broadband policy….they wouldn’t follow it. Tony said it, about 6 months ago.”

                That seems pretty close to what their policy is. Thanks, I agree that 93% is a major sticking point.

                Does broadband to Australians fall apart if FTTP is not a majority solution? I say this with a bit of sympathy knowing that people in NBN may have made major career decisions based on an assumption that FTTP would be a majority solution.

                • Noddy
                  Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink |

                  “Does broadband to Australians fall apart if FTTP is not a majority solution?”
                  Yes, because if it isn’t done now it will eventually have to be and a lot of time and money will have been wasted for interum solutions.

                  • Tom
                    Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink |

                    Are you saying that FTTH is the holy grail / the final destination?

                    • Tom
                      Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink |

                      Sorry FTTP.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes, FTTP is the best discription as it covers FTTH and FTTB.

                      • Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:00 am | Permalink |

                        @Tom
                        yes actually. As it stands with today’s and the foreseeable future, in fixed line, FTTP IS the ultimate goal.

                        Go and look up ANY Telco’s CEO talking about FTTP and FRTN and they will be saying ‘yes, of course the ultimate goal is FTTP because of its superior capacity’

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 30/06/2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink |

                      Yes, name another technology that could supply the countries fixed line capacity for the next 50 or more years? There maybe one that is cheaper to deploy available in 10 to 20 years, but in 10 or 20 years Australia’s communication system will be in the stone age compared to virtually every country in the world unless something is done soon.

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:01 am | Permalink |

                      And before you say then why not use FTTN until that time. FTTN will be obsolete before it’s rollout is complete. If they had have rolled it out in 2005 or so it would have had a useful life. Now it wouldn’t be completed til around 2018. By 2020 expected broadband requirements expect to be around 1Gb. It is not likely FTTN will be able to do much over 100Mb by then if it’s very lucky, let alone 1Gb.

                      • Tom
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:20 am | Permalink |

                        I won’t say why not FTTN because I accept your call there that it will be obsolete. I also won’t argue with your other call that FTTP will not be obsolete for “the next 50 or more years”. Let’s hope Turnbull listens when the time comes.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 01/07/2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink |

                        Look, if they do get in and roll out FTTN and waste tonnes of money, well they do. The the government wastes far more money on other things that have zero benefit for Australian’s. As long as they then fix it up later and don’t leave Australians with inadequate communications. I just don’t understand this penny pinching for something that is more and more defining nations, communications, that when it comes down to it is such a tiny sum compared to everything else they spend. Where are the news paper columns ripping them appart for spending $40 billion on another bunch of useless submarines? Handing billions of dollars of land and existing roads over to toll road builders? Giving Melbourne docklands land over to developers and less than outer suburban land prices? All this money and give aways to the wealthy but when it comes to getting good communications to the average Australian, nah, too expensive. Let the Telcos handle it then we can be sure it’s only available to the wealthy as it should be.

                • Abel Adamski
                  Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:42 am | Permalink |

                  The question becomes if less than 93% FTTP, who gets shortchanged.?
                  Give the mid and low income areas second rate, not business capable without spending really big dollars, or those country hicks don’t deserve FTTP in their major centres, wasted on those hayseeds eh?
                  Good old class warfare at its brazen best. FTTP for those that can afford it. Guess the unstated goal must be prevent decentralisation and diversification of the economy.
                  The Coalition model with it’s private sector involvement and requirement of competitive infrastructure will not work without massive taxpayer subsidies, the private sector are not good fairies acting only for the national best interest

                  • Tom
                    Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink |

                    Abel, “deserve” is not the appropriate word. It is about “needs”.

                    “…, to each according to his need (or needs)” pure Marx.

                    BTW: “hayseeds” and “country hicks”, a bit … florid?

                  • Tom
                    Posted 01/07/2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink |

                    Both systems will require “taxpayer subsidies” to ensure community service obligations are met.

                    The reason there is so much speculation both about Turnbull’s figures and Conroy’s dollar figures is that they are both coy about putting them in the public arena in a way that can be transparently and objectively evaluated.

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 01/07/2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink |

                      The difference is how those subsidies work. The Labor NBN is done with cross subsidy. Liberal’s is subsidies payed by the government to fund the country.

                      The difference?

                      Cross sudisation keeps the money within the NBN without loses as it passes from the taxpayer and eventually payed. Only those who use broadband subsidise it.

                      Everyone pays whether they use it or not. A certain percentage from the taxpayer to the subsidy is used up in administration. It is open to abuse by Telcos.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 01/07/2012 at 1:46 am | Permalink |

          Poll: Do you want the NBN?

          Yes, just get on with it. 80%
          Yes, but in a different form/funding model/technology 12%
          No, we don’t need it. 8%

          Total votes: 6501.

          • Posted 01/07/2012 at 2:59 am | Permalink |

            @Abel

            Mmmm, good results on the poll. But unfortunately, how many people think “Just get on with it” will include the Coalition’s “We’re just gonna get on with it and build it faster and cheaper”

            ?

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 01/07/2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink |

              7T – Covered by 2
              Yes, but in a different form/funding model/technology 12%

    55. Posted 30/06/2012 at 3:48 am | Permalink |

      And after that marathon kids, I’m going to bed. Sleep well and dream of faster interwebs!

    56. Abel Adamski
      Posted 30/06/2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink |

      Actually, censorship on Fairfax is now rife since Murdochs mole is running the show. On all their publications including rural ( that item appears in EVERY RURAL paper. Murdoch never was able to manipulate the rural sector to the same degree with News Ltd.
      I have replied to several of the comments and made a comment. NOT appeared so far, interesting to see if any do appear, if so how many. Let us keep score on how many balanced fact based comments do not appear.

    57. Observer
      Posted 02/07/2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink |

      I have just been puzzled to see so many posts by Tom. When I tried to see who they were replying to. I realised that many were replies to posts which were nearly a month old.

      I feels like Tom is on some debating practice, going though the thread looking to try his inject his political stance on them and ‘show them” what a ‘good’ debater he is.

      I, for one, come to these discussions, to hear and evaluate well argued and documented technical arguments which, hopefully, will make my views on the topic well informed. So, it should not be surprising that I find the politicising of discussions quite tiresome. I am yet to find a situation when politics enhance the debate. It fact, the first casualty is always the truth.

      • Tom
        Posted 02/07/2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink |

        Good for you old boy. Let’s hope you have a similar dislike of all the posters on this site conducting a political jihad against Turnbull.

        • djos
          Posted 02/07/2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink |

          Tommy rot! (pun intended)

          A lot of us here actually quite like Turnbull (myself included) and wish he’d dethrone Tony “Just is” Abbott as we’d then be much more likely to vote Liberal again (assuming he also decided to keep the NBN as FTTH) but it’ll be a cold day in hell before I vote for that ignorant fool TA no matter what his policies are!!!

          • Tom
            Posted 02/07/2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink |

            Oh, I see. A jihad against Abbott is OK then? Is it OK for me to disparage Conroy? Tell me where to draw the line?

            I have seen a heap of gratuitous, insulting comments “delusional” and others against “alain”, and there are probably others, that made me think people on this site enjoy a bit of robust discussion. However, now I gather that it is only “fun” when the leading lights are dishing it out to the minority view contributors.

            This is no more apparent than “Observer” who seems to strut around dishing out his bile, then crying when he cops a bit back. Just look at his whining protestation below.

            The side comment on ZDnet is “A view from the trenches of Australian telecommunications. As the name implies, it’s a two-way conversation and we ask you not to pull any punches … we won’t.”

            I actually pulled back from flaming pretty early. It is just a pity that this was not reciprocated by some people. So I feel I have a license to flame back.

            Perhaps, if this is a technical site, it should steer clear of topics such as “Coalition will complete NBN objective, says Turnbull”.

            If you are honest, NBN is being used in a very dirty political way. Gillard stated “Tony Abbott would rip up the fibre out of the ground.” Do you seriously believe that?

            Just another quote (and I don’t know his politics)

            “It wasn’t too long ago that one of the rallying cries of the Coalition’s NBN opposition was its insistence that Labor conduct a full cost-benefit analysis, comparing the government’s fibre-to-the-premise (FttP) strategy with alternatives such as fibre to the node (FttN) and wireless.

            By avoiding a formal cost-benefit analysis, Malcolm Turnbull argued over and over, the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments had broken the party’s promise for greater transparency on infrastructure projects — and pushed the country along a precipitous course towards what he has repeatedly lambasted as a policy disaster of the worst imaginable sort.

            Malcolm Turnbull once promised to subject Labor’s NBN to a cost-benefit analysis. But have we now passed the point where it could be useful? (Image by US Navy, public domain)

            On the first point, he is correct: Labor certainly seems to have forgotten its commitment to subject major infrastructure spending to the cold calculations of Infrastructure Australia, which seems to have become a cheerleader for infrastructure investment, rather than an independent assessor of it; a post last year by the Institute of Public Affairs described the body as “all but derailed”.”

        • Observer
          Posted 02/07/2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink |

          You can’t help yourself can you. You have to start your answer with a condescending remark.

          Furthermore, I do not see a political “jihad” against Turnbull. What I see is an attack on his approach which is glib slogans with no details. I am sure that if he eventually gives a fully fledged and costed explanation of his policy, most people on this website will give it the consideration it merits.

          Try for a second to take your liberal tinted glasses and look at the world in a non partisan way, you may be surprised to find that the world is much more complex and interesting than you realised.

          Remember too, that most politicians have often more friends on the opposite side than their own and that they rarely share the hatred some of their followers have for their political opponents.

          • Tom
            Posted 02/07/2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink |

            I loved your last point, Observer. But will you please stop crying?

            • Observer
              Posted 02/07/2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink |

              What planet are you from? No, hang on. I’ve got it you are here to provoke.

              Well done! You win . Congratulations. You are the king of schoolboy debating.

              And you are right, bile is oozing out of me. I have not stop crying or whining since I have realised that you were just too good, not just for me but for all of us. That quote from the institute of public affairs was the real killer blow.

              Now I quit. Good luck with your political career.

        • Alex
          Posted 02/07/2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink |

          I believe, no one is having a jihad against Malcolm Turnbull himself, Tom.

          Unlike your good self who openly admits to “hating” Rudd, Conroy and Gillard, we simply have a “jihad (as you most eloquently put it)’ against Turnbull’s words, which are at best misleading and at worst dishonest, imo.

          • Tom
            Posted 02/07/2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink |

            Alex, deliberately leaving the context out of a sentence in order to maximise its opportunity value to your case is pretty cheap stuff. Ask Mark Reilly.

            You might want to read:
            http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/did-abbott-say-shit-happens-or-shit-happens/
            BTW: Shepherd is not a right winger.

            Would you feel more comfortable if I had said “I hate their words”?

            Cummon Alex, I thought this site was all about honesty and not petty points scoring?

            • Alex
              Posted 02/07/2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink |

              I reiterate on behalf of myself alone…

              I do not hate Malcolm Turnbull or the Coalition! I do however hate what Malcolm Turnbull and the Coalition are saying in regards to the NBN.

              There is a big difference, imo.

              • Alex
                Posted 02/07/2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink |

                BTW – I agree, Tony Abbott didn’t mean anything derogatory towards our fallen soldier, he was just talkin’ like one of the boys and it came across as unfortunate.

                One might say, shit happens.

    58. Shane
      Posted 01/01/2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink |

      FTTN would be a worthwhile improvement to a large number of Australian households, and can be deployed quickly.

      Eg I have an ADSL2+ connection, that gets a maximum of 3mbits download (due to distance from the exchange).

      FTTN would see this increase closer to 20mbit (if they went VDSL2 route this could easily go to 100 mbit down). A decent improvement even for those that already have a fast ADSL2+ connection.

      I’m all for FTTH, but FTTN can be deployed quickly, and won’t see people on fixed wireless or sat connections because they were ‘too far’ or ‘too hard’ to run fibre too (obviously FTTN will not work for families on remote properties, satellite is really the only option here unfortunately).

      New housing estates, sure run fibre that makes perfect sense since there is no existing copper / cable infrastructure in place, but technologies like VDSL2 etc can deliver high bandwidth with minimal cost now, it’s all good and well to say fibre is the future and have 50 % of households still waiting to be connected in 2016 (time will tell though), still stuck with a < 8mbit adsl service.

      Why not set up a decent VDSL2 network (where nobody is more than 800m from an exchange or RIM) and then worry about fibre when it is truly needed. Currently NBN subscribers have maximum 100mbit download, many only with 30mbit plans. You do not need single-mode fibre for a 30 mbit connection!

      • NBNAccuracy
        Posted 01/01/2013 at 9:00 pm | Permalink |

        And you don’t think it’s a big waste of money to deploy an interim solution with speed limitations that all major networking companies agree will be obsolete by 2017? It may not even be rolled out by 2017.

        • NBNAlex
          Posted 02/01/2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink |

          And of course like all FttN advocates not only the waste, stop gap measure and usage of an already worn and obsolete medium (copper) isn’t mentioned, but the all important “Telstra” factor is again, simply ignored :/

          • NBNAccuracy
            Posted 02/01/2013 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

            He sounds pretty clueless really.
            “Currently NBN subscribers have maximum 100mbit download, many only with 30mbit plans. You do not need single-mode fibre for a 30 mbit connection!”

            If he had done any sort of research he would know they don’t even have a 30Mb plan. That the majority were taking up the 100Mb plan. That 1000Mb plans will be available soon and unless he can’t think past the next election those sort of speeds will be needed in the next 10 years.

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 03/01/2013 at 11:40 pm | Permalink |

              Nor is he facing the fact that the NBN box provides FOUR data ports plus telephony port. i.e FOUR different isp’s/services cab be catered for, allowing for dedicated internet video direct to media centre, Plus separate broadband , hard wired or WiFi for the parents and one for the adult children with their own account. All ports could be 100/40.
              However the TPG 12Mb Unlimited would make a good dedicated TV service.
              As more people/families are forced to share due to housing costs and falling incomes especially omce the Coalition has their power to cut wages/employment costs for them business sector.
              , 4 Ports is looking brilliant
              Also 3 fibres. 1 livew, 1 spare, one for premises development (dual occ/granny flat)

              FTTN provides just ONE feed of variable quality on just ONE pair in most cases

              • NBNAccuracy
                Posted 04/01/2013 at 10:14 am | Permalink |

                “However the TPG 12Mb Unlimited would make a good dedicated TV service.”
                I think the big plus of the four services will be that companies will be able to provide TV services independant of whatever ISP you use.

    59. Abel Adamski
      Posted 04/01/2013 at 8:39 am | Permalink |

      Interesting article
      And there are those that believe Telstra should provide our communications infrastructure for the future

      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/super-slow-and-fast-way-to-frustration-with-telstra-and-nbn/story-e6frfhqf-1226547294010.

      She made the mistake of trying to use media products other than foxtel or Sky




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds — AustralianSuper, CBus, HESTA and more — is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, as was revealed in November, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well, and the Financial Review last week reported that Superpartners is actually close to turfing it altogether and going back to the drawing board.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights