I’m sure what you actually meant to say was:

“There is so much blatant dishonesty, disingenuousness and nasty abuse on the part of the anti-NBN zealots.”

hmmm, that makes much more sense. Thanks for stopping by.

I have a hard head and don’t particularly care what names you call me, however I might point you to the rules of conduct for Delimiter comments:

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

However, on your point of impeding competition:

- Telstra impede competition currently. So your point is a bit rich there
- NBNCo. will PAY Telstra to switch these customers to the fibre NBN network. Why WOULDN’T it be reasonable for NBNCo. then to expect these customers to be running on it as opposed to being offered Telstra 4G services??

This argument comes back to the same argument many of us have made about the Optus deal being too much money. It IS alot of money, but the requirement for as many people as possible to be on the network, thereby making the business case as viable as possible, which is required in this ridiculous political climate. The NBN will RADICALLY alter the shape of Australia as a whole. THAT alone should be enough for the money to be spent, yet the Coalition would use their short-sighted view pointing out all the money that was being spent and how there was no “real economic benefit” to Australians. If people will excuse my french: BULLSHIT. The economic gains of fast, reliable, ubiquitous broadband speak for themselves in many other countries. The Uniform National Pricing structure will save businesses MILLIONS of dollars a year for their internet services (and pay for the NBN JUST with theses savings alone) and will not ONLY save consumers money, but allow better health, liesure and business services for ALL Australians. This is NOT random rhetoric, it is backed up by Cisco, one of the most respected networking companies and best forecasters of growth in IT there is:

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/06/14/3524848.htm

The competition for people who WISH to be on wireless only is not relevant; those people will go on 4G if they want to anyway. What NBNCo. were TRYING to do was ensure Telstra did not try and sell them 4G INSTEAD of fibre, using their 4G service as an “alternative” to boost their OWN commercial gain as a result of copper switch off, AFTER entering into a commercial agreement with NBNCo. to ensure as many people as possible are on the NBN.

If you have any rebuttal to this, may I request you don’t insult me first. I may be more willing to listen to your argument then.

You, sir, are a [censored by Renai].

(Actually) read my [beeped out] post. l gave you what NBNco’s own interpretation of the wireless clause is. It has nothing to do with “misleading conduct”. It is all about impeding competition from wireless which is why the ACCC blasted it to smithereens.

. . . as opposed to your habitual, unrestrained “wall of text” rants where you continually shift the goal posts and demonstrate your [censored]

“We want broadband for the nation, but we want to make sure it is sustainable
broadband for the nation and there is a great deal of irony in the fact that when the
Government did a deal with Telstra for the National Broadband network I understand
part of that deal identified that Telstra was not allowed to sell its new 4G technology
as a competitor to the NBN because 4G has the capacity to be far superior to the
NBN. So what does the Government do? It says well you are not allowed to market it
as a competitor, I don’t know about you, but I use an iPad – the iPad I carry around
in the car. I don’t have a cable dragging behind the car. I use wireless technology and
I think that is the way functionality is going.”
(Source: Joe Hockey, Interview with Leon Compton, ABC Tasmania, 8 June 2012)

It’s not hard to spot the porky!

Frankly, the only “E-” that matters from now on is the impending “E-lection”.”

Thankyou. Thankyou for that well researched, factual analysis of the debate. I truly hope your convincing arguments will continue to grace this forum.

NBNco’s brain-dead cheerleaders are the biggest spreaders of anti-Liberal FUD and lies.”

Do you truly believe Telstra HAS to distort the market? They already have over 50% of the mobile market and more like 70% of the fixed line market. The market IS distorted. By Telstra.

Any consumer with 2 brain cells to rub together can add up the differences between quota on wireless and quota on fixed line and see the value is in fixed line for even medium data usage. And certainly for anyone with a family. What NBNCo. were trying to do was ensure Telstra did not try and purposely market 4G as faster, more stable or more reliable than fibre, none of which is true. They were trying to put iron clad guarantees in place thar Telstra WOULDN’T do this rather than rely on current legislation because Telstra have a record as long as the proverbial that show they are willing to bend (or break) every rule in the book to gain customers. Even at the expense of properly serving those customers.

The fact is, the ACCC denied it, NBNCo. accepted the ruling and moved on. It was not hidden. They did not harp on or appeal, they accepted what they’d have to deal with and dealt with it.

Please, when you have something sensible to debate over rather than rhetoric over “Pro-NBN arguments are all FUD!” with nothing to back it up, by all means, we’re listening.

“Telstra Structural Separation Undertaking — Attachment B – Questions Regarding DAs”

10: Have the parties considered whether provisions in the CCA regarding misleading and deceptive conduct would sufficiently prohibit Telstra from marketing wireless services as substitutable for fibre services?

The parties’ agreement concerning the restriction on Telstra promoting wireless services as substitutable for fibre services was not struck in light of the CCA provisions regarding misleading and deceptive conduct. That agreement was considered to be appropriate by the parties in the context of structuring the transaction as a disconnection arrangement.

12: Could NBN Co provide the ACCC with any additional supporting material regarding the rationale for the inclusion of the wireless restraints?

Given that Telstra has at least 50% of the fixed line market and therefore a good chance of influencing the migration choice of most of those customers, it would not have been commercially acceptable for NBN Co to agree with Telstra to a payment for disconnection model without commercial incentives to discourage the substitution of fibre services with wireless services.
——

In short, NBNco was trying to bribe Telstra into distorting the market, which is why the ACCC rejected the “wireless clause”.

NBNco’s brain-dead cheerleaders are the biggest spreaders of anti-Liberal FUD and lies.

Lolz!!!!! Yes, clearly the expectation of latency on par with my current ADSL2 service is unrealistic. I’m a fervent supporter of Labor’s NBN now? Umm no, I’m a fervent supporter of technology that doesn’t go backwards in terms of latency and congestion. Clearly my expectations are way too unrealistic. Sense of entitlement, pffff. Nice cherry picking there Joe!!

I wonder if I’d replaced ‘Gaming’ with ‘High speed work related video streaming’ he still would of used my comment as an example?

Sorry Joe, my /fail and /facepalm still applies.

Big mouthed fool. I don’t warm to the idea of trusting THIS GUY with the nation’s finances, let alone his Liberal Dogma soapboxing.

More FUD.

I don’t like any of our politicians, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant and so there shouldn’t be a problem with it.

Frankly, the only “E-” that matters from now on is the impending “E-lection”.

Not only is his information inaccurate he has the wrong suburb. Sorell, which has been live for only two weeks and has only a handful of connections, will be getting the newer equipment (I confirmed this by harassing a NBN Co. tech in the street) it’s Midway point that has the equipment that needs replacing.