• Enjoy the freedom to innovate and grow your business


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

  • IT Admin: No Time to Save Time?


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

  • Free Forrester analysis of CRM solutions


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

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


  • Reader giveaway: Google Nexus 5


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

  • Blog, Telecommunications - Written by on Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:53 - 238 Comments

    “Stupid, quasi-religious”: Turnbull slams fibre fans

    blog Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has called those aspects of Australia’s technical community who are staunchly in favour of the NBN’s fibre to the home model many things over the past year or so. My personal favourite was the time in April last year that he accused technology journalists (that’s me) of being ‘pro-NBN zealots’ who were encouraging “tech-savvy citizens” (that’s you, the readers) to want “the ultimate broadband” (fibre to the home; you know, the stuff they already have in Korea and Japan).

    Well, now we can add another base insult to the list. According to Turnbull, those in favour of fibre to the home are merely … “stupid”. Yup, that’s right. This is what the NBN debate has come to. The Member for Wentworth tells ABC Radio (click here for the full transcript) in response to whether fibre to the node was a second-rate broadband option for Australia:

    “Well, in that case we’d be in very good company wouldn’t we because we’ve got most of Europe, most of North America in exactly the same situation. I mean what a stupid thing these people are saying. I mean copper, look, copper, wireless, glass – all of these are technologies. This is not a religious issue. It is a question of being business-like and getting the balance right as I said. The problem with this debate is that it is proceeding in some quarters as a quasi-religious debate. It is not.”

    Why, Malcolm. We have to say that our feelings are very hurt. We can’t believe, after the long relationship that Australia’s technology community has had with you personally, dating back to your role with OzEmail in the 1990′s and after all the debates we’ve had on the NBN issue over the past several years, that it’s come to this, with you describing those in favour of a fibre NBN as “stupid”. Well … you’re just, you’re just a big fat jerk! So there! And you suck as well! Take that! Wait … has this NBN debate become just a little childish?

    Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

    submit to reddit

    238 Comments

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

    1. NBNAccuracy
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink |

      The more I see these comments by Turnbull the more I think he is:
      a) Pretty clueless on the technologies and his research has gone as far as reading that UK document about 1/3 to 1/4 that was written many years ago when FTTH cost more and they didn’t have to pay for the copper since the owner rolled it out.
      b) A selfish pig who cares more about the his career and the Liberals getting into government than the long term good on Australia as a nation.

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink |

        yep, pretty much. Also I think the reason why Turnbull sees this as a “quasi-religious debate” is simply because of the irrational opposition they have to it. It hard to fight logic and reasonable arguments with most of what they have been putting forward. After being totally demoralised in this debate time and time again (we’ve all seen Turnbulls Twitter feed) it’s only natural that he would resort to this.

        • tinman_au
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:53 pm | Permalink |

          Indeed Hubert…the Earl of Wentworth expects us to wait till King Tony ascends his throne before he releases his ” not CBA, but audited” figures/plan. Until then we should just be grateful that “honest Malcolm, friend of the people” has King Tony’s ear…

          So he wants us to take their “NBN that may or may not be FTTN…possibly wireless, we aren’t sure yet” plan, on faith. And ignore the costed business plan of a currently engaged project.

          Whose the religious nut here Malcolm? What sane person would accept an un-costed, bare bones fairytale over fact?

          Would you invest your on money on what you’ve told us so far?

      • Anand Marathe
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink |

        Mal is right. – far more often than not.. You are lucky he is in politics.

        Perhaps he is trying to save NBN from Abbott, our next PM, like it or not? Refer the recent opinion polls, and more importantly, the punters who put their money where their mouth is. Support Mal. He is more competent than Renai and many of us others put together.

        More seriously, if you want fiber to your door, you should pay for it, not the taxpayer. FTTN rocks – reasonably balanced give and get. Most Aussies will be too happy to have FTTH when they understand what it is, but how many will be willing to pay for it? Why am I paying for someone downloading porn at the speed of light?

        • djos
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:08 pm | Permalink |

          Nothing like a narro minded simpleton to show just how retarded the LNP mindset really is! :-p

          • chunk
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:26 pm | Permalink |

            LOL.. :)

          • tinman_au
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink |

            It’s especially telling when you consider the fact that the NBNCo will actually be giving money back to the taxpayer, while Malcolms “plan” will actually be money spent that taxpayers will never ever see again.

            Talk about short-sighted…

        • quink
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink |

          > More seriously, if you want fiber to your door, you should pay for it, not the taxpayer.

          No. Just no. I’ve already replied further down in the page and you owe it to everyone here to apologise for posting something that is as flat out wrong as that.

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:39 pm | Permalink |

          “More seriously, if you want fiber to your door, you should pay for it, not the taxpayer. ”

          Even more seriously that’s exactly what happens with the NBN. My payment will be made in 40 monthly installments of $100. This will take about three years but as a bonus I am willing to continue paying this $100 every month after my connection has been paid for. Hope that helps.

        • Harimau
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink |

          The taxpayer does not pay. The user of the network pays. At best, the taxpayer lends. When you buy a house, does the bank ultimately pay for the house, or are you paying for the house with your mortgage? Just think about it a little. A little.

        • Gene W
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:21 pm | Permalink |

          > FTTN rocks – reasonably balanced give and get.

          Is 80Mbps at one end of the street and 10Mbps at the other (and usually for the same price) “reasonably balanced”?

          When you have a GBE that pays itself off, all that matters is the services delivered and the monthly costs. There is no “cost to the taxpayers” other than this. You pay once.

          FTTH services:
          * Will get dramatically faster over time
          * Are perfectly consistent between premises, all get 2488Mbps
          * Use lines that generally don’t fail
          * Do not require active equipment near the premises

          FTTN services:
          * Get slower over time. Seriously. Copper corrodes and crosstalk increases. Technology advances don’t improve speeds for lines that are already at or near their theoretical limit (which in a FTTN network is all of them).
          * Have vast speed differences depending on the copper lottery
          * Use copper that can fail when exposed to water
          * Require powered cabinets that must be maintained

          So, FTTN loses outright for “services delivered”, and replacing failed copper/maintaining all your 100,000 nodes keeps the monthly costs nice and high.

          > Why am I paying for someone downloading porn at the speed of light?

          It is almost certain that you are already doing this. If you have an internet connection, you are paying for a share of a bandwidth pipe with a usage cap. When you’re not using it, others are using the pipe you are partially paying for.

          You also probably have electricity. You’re paying for a share of the maintenance of the whole network. Guess what other people use those lines for?

          Also, have a guess at the propagation speed of ADSL signals through copper.

          I will remind you that you have an option for a discounted 12/1 service over the NBN if you really want to pay a reduced share.

          • Bob Cairns
            Posted 06/02/2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink |

            > Require powered cabinets that must be maintained

            How will it be when there is a power outage from cyclone, flood, fire, overload, or any other reason. Do all clients of a node then lose their internet and home phone services while the power is down.

    2. Cameron
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:02 am | Permalink |

      But he also did promise that the CBA will cover the costs of finishing the NBN as planned…

      MALCOLM TURNBULL: Sabra, your persistence is admirable but it’s not reasonable. The problem that we face, that everyone faces, is that the NBN Co has an attitude to disclosure that would do credit to the Kremlin. They, we do not have access to the financial details of this business, we don’t have access to the contractual commitments they’ve got so we will inherit a great many costs and commitments that we don’t know about now that will impact on what the final cost will be.

      Now what we will do and I give this promise, when we get into government, if we do, we will have a thoroughly transparent audit of the NBN so that people will understand precisely what it will cost and how long it will take to complete the project on the current plan and what the implications were in savings of time and cost would be of an alternative approach of the kind that I have described.

      • NBNAccuracy
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink |

        “Now what we will do and I give this promise, when we get into government, if we do, we will have a thoroughly transparent audit of the NBN so that people will understand precisely what it will cost and how long it will take to complete the project on the current plan”

        And if the results of that audit, as the results of the studies the Labor government got done when they changed from FTTN to FTTH, show that the current plan is the most cost effective in the long term, what happens? Do they scope the study to exclude future needs? Only show capex costs and ignore maintenance and future upgrade costs?

        • Paul
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink |

          They ensure the study is done for a short enough term that it shows the result they are looking for.

        • SaveTheNBN
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink |

          First rule of politics never have an inquiry without knowing it’s outcome.

          Malcolm will set the reference conditions for his CBA so it delivers the outcome he wants, anyone who expects a real CBA is dreaming.

    3. Nich
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink |

      Wouldn’t ‘the ultimate broadband’ be more like what Google Fibre is laying out – a single strand of fibre per house, so there is no localised worry about contention ratios?

      : D

      Has he even talked about lack of real competition in a FTTN market, where lots of cabinets have no competitor hardware in them?

      • NBNAccuracy
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink |

        They actually can’t have competitor hardware in them and achieve the speeds he is talking about. Without vectoring those speeds aren’t possible. Vectoring means all lines must connect to the one VDSLAM.

      • Rich
        Posted 21/02/2013 at 10:38 pm | Permalink |

        There is no worry about local contention with the NBN’s design.

        Using 2.4gbit GPON and a 32-way split, a fibre would have to have all 32 subscribers and an the average plan speed of 75+mbit for contention to even be theoretically possible. EG 16 subscribers at 100mbit and the other 16 on 50mbit… and then they’d ALL have to try to use their max bandwidth at once to approach full link utilisation.

        An upgrade to 10GPON in, say, 5-10 years then allows for an average plan speed of 300mbit. Copper – xDSL or DOCSIS – is unlikely to ever offer that. Hell, the average line rate around my area is 1/100th that save for a few select blocks that can get VDSL2 @ 60mbit.

    4. Murdoch
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:19 am | Permalink |

      So we’re down to base insults from Turnbull again.

      OK ….

      Turnbull …. you’re mother dresses you funny, and errr …. every time Renai uses that picture of you above with your hands on your hips, it looks like you’re trying to hold in a monster fart.

      NYAH NYAH NYAH!

      Boy am I glad I’m not asking people to vote for me.

      • Murdoch
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:21 am | Permalink |

        In retrospect (other than the obvious grammar error/spelling mistake), I should have been more obvious and resorted to memes and abbreviated language.

        Trolling doesn’t come naturally to me, probably why I’d make a lousy politician.

        • stoffs
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:41 am | Permalink |

          honestly – if you want to insult him – put a picture of him up beside woody from toy story …

          Maybe we should just start calling him Woody …

          actually… possibly more of an insult to Woody

    5. Mark M
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink |

      As my desk calendar said the other day “Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued”

    6. stoffs
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:40 am | Permalink |

      hmm but if you invest in companies in other countries that are rolling it out .. .you’re not stupid?

    7. Paul
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink |

      His problem is he has declared his solution FTTN and therefore any opposition to that model is “stupid”. Short term economics always trump long term economics for short term politicians.

    8. Andrew B
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

      Turnbull is correct. People who advocate FttH as the only solution are a small, but very vocal (on the internet at least) minority and they tend to be zealots. Mind you, if the liberal government had have given Telstra regulatory conditions that would allow them to build FttN at a reasonable commercial rate of return back in 2005 ish we’d have his solution already.

      • Murdoch
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink |

        @Andrew B

        “Mind you, if the liberal government had have given Telstra regulatory conditions that would allow them to build FttN at a reasonable commercial rate of return back in 2005 ish we’d have his solution already.”

        We sure would. And a Telstra free of regulation to charge what it likes to retail service providers (i.e. other ISP’s). The monopoly would have had no shackles. Y’know what happens without regulation don’t you? The most glaring example recently is the GFC. It doesn’t turn out well Andrew, even the Liberal government at the time weren’t dumb enough to agree to this.

      • Daniel
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink |

        Well if you take that view point, so are the people talking about FTTN…

        Infact, last couple of polls enjoyed a high popularity.

        http://delimiter.com.au/2012/02/21/nbn-enjoys-prolonged-popular-support/ – Feb 2012
        http://delimiter.com.au/2012/10/02/two-thirds-of-australians-support-the-nbn/ – October 2012

        So make sure you be very carefully stating “small minority”.

      • skywake
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink |

        The difference between strong supporters of FTTH and strong supporters of FTTN (because those are the only serious options for urban) is that FTTH is being planned. It’s like the republican debate, it’s the job of the republicans to convince the monarchists why we should change not the other way around. Opponents to change aren’t necessarily against it they could just as easily see no reason why we should

        The fact is we know that FTTH is technically the best solution and this is a fact that Turnbull agrees on. It is why he supports the rollout of FTTH in some areas and supports FTTH in Greenfields. What he needs to do is convince us, the people who like the current plan, why we should downgrade some areas. Not downgrade to something not FTTH but simply downgrade to something we know performs worse. I’m not a FTTH zealot, I’m just not convinced changing it will give us a better result.

        …………. and being called stupid doesn’t do much to convince me that we should change to his option :)

    9. Brett Haydon
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink |

      Turnbull, I want to see your savings benefit analysis on downgrading the NBN to FTTN.

    10. Daniel
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:56 am | Permalink |

      We maybe the so called “fibre” fans, but lets face it.

      It brings communities closer, Wireless and FTTN don’t.

      All forms of technology at some point require fibre, fibre for backhaul, fibre for interstate, fibre for international backhaul.

      Fibre has the distance and can be used under water, this is good for flooded areas.

    11. looktall
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:57 am | Permalink |

      has this NBN debate become just a little childish?

      my dad could beat up his dad.

      • Daniel
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink |

        That’s the fault of the Coalition, it should of got a Royal Assent and bipartisan support, but the Coalition turn to USA Tea Party style tactics.

        Coalition current bunch of former Howard staff can’t get loss over 2007 and 2010 election.

      • andyrob
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink |

        ROFL. love it

    12. andyrob
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink |

      blah, blah, blah. wake up MT and stop the untruths. The Australian people are not paying for the build (other than when finally get to utilise it) and they will get a return on investment. For gods sake, as such a grandiose business man, you surley understand ROI. it is how business operate. Sick to death of YOUR and your PARTIES stupidoty. The FUTURE IS FIBRE AND WE ARE BUILDING IT WITH ROI. PERFECT!!!

      • wrong
        Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink |

        Honestly, having a ROI doesn’t mean it is a good decision. 7% is extremely low. Most businesses accept nothing less than 25%. I’m sick of people thinking just because there is a return, that makes it a good business decision.
        I’m one of the very few who would actually benefit from NBN, but it is a waste of money for 99% of homes. 20mbps is plenty, let alone 100mbps.

        • Nich
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink |

          Surely 7% is reflective of the risk and factored to be better than the typical bank/bond rate?

          That being said, the average return in the hospitality industry is 4% or something ridiculously low considering the risk.

        • Posted 02/02/2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink |

          Let’s just make up random statistics and then made assertions on future demand without any analysis and all based on “gut feelings” and anecdotal evidence.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:04 pm | Permalink |

          Wrong
          Typical Liberal Conservative view
          Essential National Infrastructure is simply a business venture with NO REGARD for the national interest or what is best for the Nation long term.
          Just a vehicle for investors to make fat profits and bugger the rest of the economy or the people

          http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/452658/nbn_help_produce_a-grade_students_study_finds/

          Not achievable with the Coalition’s and your Mickey Mouse Solution, wildly assuming the future leaders and innovators, inventors and creators can only come from a specific demographic, talk about delusional tickets on yourselves

        • WDTV and SOUND
          Posted 15/02/2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink |

          Did you enjoy the speed of dialup modems. Go and boil the kettle and in that time an email would come through.
          Well the younger generations are more impatient, as they are in the same situation to watch a movie on demand, as the newer generation don’t watch TV as much as we use to, watching YouTube at higher and higher definition picture quality etc.
          The younger people in most communities stifle the data speed in the afternoon for businesses when they get home from school.
          The NBN will give one and all consistent internet speeds all day long, as the NBN will make shore there is enough band width to go around that can’t be chewed up buy the likes of a bus full of tourists pulling up suddenly using their mobile phones and clogging up a small cell tower.

    13. Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:04 pm | Permalink |

      Now if only we had a politician calling for honest, informed policy debate, instead of abuse, catcalling and spin… someone like… oh wait.

    14. andyrob
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink |

      And what of all the other factors you dhead.

      http://www.zdnet.com/au/iinet-hooks-tasmanian-police-to-the-nbn-7000010450/

      Do you not see that the Tassy gov will save money by decommisioning in situ servers at each cop shop (oh not your goverment, don’t care), will use less power (greener for the environment). gees this is just the start, how many other businesses/depatments etc will this flow onto. It will save the WHOLE COUNTRY money everywhere in the long run. It is a National infrastructure stragegy for the good of all Australians. OH AND DID I MENTION, THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT (WHOEVER IS IN) WILL GET A ROI……..

      • andyrob
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:57 pm | Permalink |

        And then there is the FACT that the project is creating many,many,many jobs (don’t know the exact figure? how many jobs are the LNP saying they will create. gees!). Their everyday purchases are returning to the government, in the form of GST. Oh and has anyone looked into the GST factor once we start using it. How much GST revenue will us all using it generate back to government coffers?? mmmmmm now I think that should be factured in as well?

        CONROY (mmm Labour), start hitting back, you are alowd to be childish and stupid like the majority of Australia. start putting the pressure back on the LNP to “please explain” their stance. I presume you arn’t because the MSM don’t listen to you, just ask you about costs and rollout speed because they just listen to LNP and find that gospel (oh wait, NBN means an end to their livelyhood apparently)…….again, GEEES

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink |

        Not only that but there is apparently increased interest in Tourism, partly because the modern connected tourist likes to have access to high capacity and speed broadband provided by NBN fed WiFi

    15. djos
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink |

      The LNP, which prides itself on being Pro-Business, is once again trying to hold aussie business’s back in the copper age by not allowing them to access the FTTP infrastructure needed to compete in the 21st century!

      *facepalm*

      • andyrob
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink |

        Exactly my point djos. They are so clever, they know best….

      • ferretzor
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink |

        Whats even worse, the Nationals who are supposed to be “in tune” with the needs of the bush, are completely silent on the benefits of the NBN. How ridiculous is that? Barnaby should be shouting for joy at the benefits his far flung constituency will receive, but all we get is “ditto to what the Earl issued forth”.

        • djos
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink |

          That Nats are a bunch of pussies! Barnaby was one of the first prominent Aussies to put forward the FTTP NBN concept and now we either hear nothing from him or he bag’s what is essentially what he asked for!

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:18 pm | Permalink |

          Heard that national Drongo’s statement that the coalition will provide better and cheaper for the bush.
          Really – How?

      • Michael
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

        The vast majority of businesses with enough staff to justify it, actually do have FTTP.

        The only difference between the NBN and current FTTP solutions is that current FTTP solutions are expensive. But they are not going to be replaced by the NBN, anyway – at least with the offerings on the NBN right now – because there is no way for RSPs to offer the same quality of service as they do with enterprise-grade fibre.

        • djos
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:55 pm | Permalink |

          Sorry that’s pure BS – I was the business Customer Delivery Manager for a top 7 ISP and many many business’s had to resort to either forking out $20,000 or $2,000 per month (for about 3 years) for 100/100mbps PtoP Microwave links per Site!

          Those that didnt have line of sight had to resort to bonded DSL and many even ended up on WiMax because even DSL wasnt a viable option!!!

          I had the occasional CBD Customer that could afford fibre and even then they usually had to fork out $40,000 to bring the fibre 50 meters into their building!

          Anyone outside the CBD was pretty much not getting Fibre unless they have really deep pockets. eg BAE Systems spent millions connecting their 3 main SA and 3 main Victorian sites with fibre but all the other little sites where stuck on expensive and slow ISDN links with Hardware compression boxes at each end to try and squeeze more out of the tiny pipes!

    16. quink
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:19 pm | Permalink |

      http://imgur.com/liqxVS9.png

      The ABS says that downloads are increasing four-fold every 3.5-ish years. FTTN will roughly increase download speeds four-fold. Hence, FTTN would cover about 3.5 years in increased demand.

      I’m using a bunch of numbers from the ABS and a very simple fact from the FTTN that you yourself have stated frequently. Doing only this shows that FTTN is not a good idea.

      How am I being stupid or quasi-religious?

      Adding two more less certain but still fairly ball-park facts, how is spending $15-ish billion dollars and spending until 2019-ish for the FTTN network, according to Citigroup, justified to cover all of 3.5 years in increased demand?

      You’ve got a plan that’s good for 3.5 years and you’re complaining that demanding politicians look forward more than that is stupid and quasi-religious? It looks like there’s only one thing the coalition cares about, which meshes very well with that 3.5 year figure, and that’s getting elected just about every three years.

      • quink
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink |

        /me rings up ABS

        Hello ABS

        > Hi???

        The numbers you have released are stupid and quasi-religious and don’t fit the coalition’s policy. You should change them at once to show much, much lower figures. For starters, this exponential increase you’ve had going on, even though in basically every other country in the world we’re seeing the same thing, both for download speeds and download amounts, it doesn’t fit with the election policy of the coalition. As I was saying, your releases show numbers that are stupid and quasi-religious. I demand your numbers abandon their politically hostile stance.

        > *click*

        Hello? Hello???

    17. Mr Creosote
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:20 pm | Permalink |

      The “stupid” thing is that those who support FTTH have stated many times the grounds for their belief, e.g. the trend of FTTH happening all over the world, FTTH being a better technology, FTTH providing future proofing, the NBN frees us from Telstras control of the sector, etc,etc,etc.

      If Turnbull was truly wanting to prove us “stupid” he would provide actual policy detail, outlining how and why what he is doing is better, how much it will actually cost, how quickly it will happen, how he will deal with Telstra, and what his plans for the necessary future upgrade to FTTH are.
      With all that indisputable evidence that Turnbulls claims proves us wrong, we could all then collectively slap our foreheads, and exclaim “What were we thinking to ever have doubted Malcolm!” ;)

    18. ferretzor
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink |

      Its pretty stupid of the Libs and Mr Turnbull in particular to measure the NBN on a “how much does it cost” basis only. Only a luddite, an ass, or an economics professor can possess such a cult like mindset to this sort of project.

      Copper. Wireless. Glass fibre. Tin cans and string. Pigeons. All of these competing technologies should be used in a balanced manner.

      All hail Cthulu.

    19. Mud Guts
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink |

      If we’re going to be childish, then Mr. Poopy pants (Turnbull) needs to stop being hypocritical.

      He bleats on about pro NBN types being religious zealots but his fanaticism with FTTN and HFC is in itself religious zealotry!

      Oh, and the Turnbull Bullshit Network/Atomic Banana is weak, throw it in the creek. The NBN is strong, like king kong!

      lol

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:46 pm | Permalink |

        “He bleats on about pro NBN types being religious zealots but his fanaticism with FTTN and HFC is in itself religious zealotry!”

        Indeed it is. One of my favourite Turnbull lines is the “technology agnostic” line because it proves their patchwork plan is anything but “technology agnostic”.

      • DenisPC9
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:57 pm | Permalink |

        “He bleats on about pro NBN types being religious zealots..” Just follow his money.

        Back in the days of when, he invested in OzeMail and made a packet. Now he has invested in European Companies (that re still majorly Govt owned) that are rolling out FttH.

        A merchant banker doesn’t often lie about what he wants HIS money to do.

        • nonny-moose
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:24 pm | Permalink |

          reminds me of this one:

          “It’s difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

          Upton Sinclair

      • ungulate
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink |

        I’m a quasi-religious motherhood zealot :)

    20. Trevor
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:04 pm | Permalink |

      I’d say Turnbull’s statement shows surprisingly convoluted logic, but it’s not really surprising. As others have said, you fall back to baseless insults when all other avenues of argument have failed. Saying that those who support the FTTH NBN model are ‘stupid’ merely demonstrates Mr Turnbull’s disdain for facts and scientific argument, when such a position is overwhelmingly supported by science, by engineering, by industry experts, by financial costings, by facts, vs the FTTN argument which is demonstrably inferior from all perspectives, even deployment time and costs, or simply the LNP argument which has not progressed beyond assertion – no concrete policy has been provided, no estimated costings, nothing but meaningless (and increasingly unhinged) sound bites delivered through suspiciously compliant ‘journalists’ who almost universally fail to ask any probing questions or even add informed analysis that may actually provide illumination on the issue to Australians, but instead act as LNP PR muddying the waters with misinformation, spin and obfuscation.

      It’s interesting that he describes the debate as quasi-religious, when the religion vs atheism debate essentially amounts to baseless assertion vs logic, reason and facts, and the NBN debate is essentially facts and concrete evidence (for FTTH NBN) vs baseless assertion (LNP policy). So I guess he’s actually correct comparing the two arguments, only he’s got the comparison around the wrong way ;-)

      (and before anyone lampoons me for the religious statements, Mr Turnbull introduced the comparison, not me)

    21. Brendan
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink |

      Ad homonym attacks, when all else fails? Bravo, Turnbull. Bravo.

      You could respond with logical, reasoned retorts as to why and how FTTN is a viable interim solution and the costings/ policy for it’s replacement with Fibre.

      You could then present a genuine roadmap, with clearly defined goals and a sense of costs associated.

      Instead, you label all those whom don’t agree with your assertions as religious zealots. And stupid.

      The unshakable belief that FTTN and a massively scaled back solution is the only option, regardless of what the rest of the world is saying and doing?

      Priceless.

    22. Todd
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink |

      May Malcolm Turnbull be struck down by the optical fibre omnipotent one!

    23. midspace
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:08 pm | Permalink |

      MT: ‘pro-NBN zealots’
      I’m sure Christopher Columbus was called worse when trying to put together his voyage to prove the world was round. Look where we are now.
      MT: “This is not a religious issue”
      Those Catholic theologians that thought the Earth was flat certainly thought otherwise. There was a Catholic sect in the early 1900′s still thinking it was flat.

      If we’re ‘pro-NBN zealots’ Mr Turnbull, then you sir are a Luddite.
      Luddite’s should not be Parliamentarians in control of portfolios that include technological resources. Which pretty much includes all of them.

    24. midspace
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:10 pm | Permalink |

      On second thought, anyone with the name of Bligh shouldn’t be in charge of anything, due to the health risks involved in talking to natives.

    25. Daniel
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

      Don’t forget to note about this report:

      http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/07/18/1226096/993940-reith-report.pdf

      Reith Report which was taken down on Liberals website.

    26. Dave
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:47 pm | Permalink |

      Please can we get some details on the actual policy that are worthy of our votes! Are they planning on buying or renting the copper or will Telstra still be running the last mile? What minimum speeds will we be getting? What percentage of the country will be on FTTN, wireless, satellite etc? How much will it cost? Will the policy be making a return on investment? What is the estimated costs of end-user plans?

      FTTH is the best technology and there can be no argument about this. Labors policy will generate a return of 7% and plans are priced lower than the current ADSL plans on Telstra infrastructure. I need it explained to me why the Liberals plan is better? Cheaper is an outright lie when the current policy will generate a return. Completed quicker is so far the only positive for the plan but even this is questionable if they have to spend a few years re-negotiating the Telstra deal and get it signed off by share holders and the ACCC.

      This is not a quasi-religious rant. I want to be treated with respect and given a choice of policies to vote on. I certainly don’t want to be or my entire industry to be treated with contempt as seems to be the case currently!

    27. Anand Marathe
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink |

      Mal is right. – far more often than not.. You are lucky he is in politics.

      Perhaps he is trying to save NBN from Abbott, our next PM, like it or not? Refer the recent opinion polls, and more importantly, the punters who put their money where their mouth is. Support Mal. He is more competent than Renai and many of us others put together.

      More seriously, if you want fiber to your door, you should pay for it, not the taxpayer. FTTN rocks – reasonably balanced give and get. Most Aussies will be too happy to have FTTH when they understand what it is, but how many will be willing to pay for it? Why am I paying for someone downloading porn at the speed of light?

      • djos
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:08 pm | Permalink |

        Nothing like a narrow minded simpleton to show just how retarded the LNP mindset really is! :-p

      • quink
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:21 pm | Permalink |

        http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/how-are-we-paying-for-it/

        > The $27.5bn Government component of the NBN is funded by debt, through the issuing of Australian Government Bonds. That is, the Federal Government offers our AAA-rated bonds to investors, at an interest rate of about 4% (depending on the term).
        > Taxpayers don’t really have anything to do with NBN funding. It is users of the network who will pay to build it, whether they are taxpayers or not.
        > This is completely different to the majority of Government spending, which doesn’t earn any return.

        • kentlfc
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink |

          Don’t read backsliders comments on that link! He tears NBNmyths to pieces!

          The Contingency Funds were raided to fund the NBN! How is that not we the people’s money being used to pay for it?

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 03/02/2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink |

            “Don’t read backsliders comments on that link! He tears NBNmyths to pieces!”

            Seems the opposite is actually true. Backslider used to post comments here on Delimter but after being “teared to pieces” one too many times left. I’m not surprised.

      • GongGav
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

        Was going to post, quink beat me to it.

        You DONT pay for the NBN, private investors do. THEY take on the risk, however great it is, and THEY fund the outlay. They also get about a 7% return on that investment, while we get a fresh start to our future telecommunication needs.

        If you disagree, show us how the money comes from tax dollars.

        Have issues with the NBN all you like, healthy debate is always welcome. But try to make sure those issues are correct, and not based on incorrect information..

        • GongGav
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

          Should also add that its because we are willing to add evidence to our points of view that The Turnbull labels us as “stupid” and “quasi-religious” when all we’re doing is backing up our stance with facts.

          Which he doesnt. He just re-iterates outdated stories from two or three years ago that have long proven to have changed. Like his “UK is building FttN” or “NZ is building FttN” when they are no longer going down that path.

          • quink
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:30 pm | Permalink |

            He has even lied about this in the past: “Labor’s national broadband network is falling disastrously behind every benchmark the government has set for it except one – the amount of taxpayers money being spent,” he said in a statement.

            http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/govt-lets-down-taxpayers-on-nbn-turnbull/story-e6frfku9-1226446186295

            If we were to summarise every single misleading statement, untruth or flat out lie by the coalition frontbenchers on the NBN we’d be here until the election.

            • GongGav
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink |

              We’ve got 8 months. Be interesting to see how many mistruths are out there after all this time, and get something advertised a week or so out from the election :)

            • quink
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink |

              And sorry I used the ‘l’ word – I know it’s serious. But in this case there is no objective way to come to the conclusion that Malcolm Turnbull has been ignorant enough about the financials of NBN Co in the year 2012 to make a statement like that or have it be a mistake. This is a malicious lie intended to create a false duality between spending money on the NBN or spending money on something else for a dumb audience.

              That said, the Malcolm Turnbull plan for VDSL has (or better put, had) potential and, combined with remediation of copper (blow-out of a budget that’ll be), would provide much relief. But at this point it’s doubtful that the average premise will see FTTN under Turnbull’s plan show up more than a year before FTTH would, and if the ABS statistics on downloads are showing what they’re showing, the gains made by FTTN would be wiped out in three or four years. Now that gain is substantial, but doesn’t change the fact that for household X which in 2022 would have requirements that exceed the capabilities of ADSL, the coalition plan might provide relief until 2025 or 2026 instead, which is not a substantial enough change to warrant delaying future upgrade capability substantially until FTTN is repaid or a future possibly Liberal government has to, using either the private sector or NBN Co, get FTTH out at a reasonable cost to the end-user which may well take ten or fifteen years. Yet nothing changes the fact that Labor has been in power more than 5 years now and a embarrassing pittance of premises are on FTTH. Labor should have taken note in 2005 when the Howard Government trying to negotiate a deal with Telstra and thought out a policy on broadband that would take care of the Telstra question then, not in 2010. Labor has had five years between 2005 and 2010 where their broadband policy was enough to ultimately get them elected, but it took until 2013 until the first signs of it are going to become a reality in a noteworthy number of Australian households, and that is shameful. But that doesn’t make the VDSL plan the better option, and it probably never is as long as we have the problem of Telstra.

              And we’re here and FTTH is the way to go, for better or worse – and, summed up to a timeframe to 2040 instead of 2020, full FTTH deployment over the next few years is substantially more likely to produce a better result in the vast majority of aspects.

              But I’m being stupid and quasi-religious.

        • Michael
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink |

          The taxpayer UNDERWRITES the NBN.

          The people who are claiming that the taxpayer pays for it are looking at the current source of equity and they are correct. All equity for the NBN has come from the taxpayer. Please correct me if I’m wrong GongGav, but the NBN is currently entirely funded by government funds and has not been privitised (ASX or otherwise) yet. That means that the taxpayer owns the NBN and stands to gain from any profits and cover any losses.

          As the SAU has limited the IRR to 7% this has effectively capped the profit, ( it is a monopoly) which means that profits are limited but liabilty is not.

          • ungulate
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink |

            Michael,

            The risk involved in the NBN is that we all stop using the internet. In other words, if something were bad enough to threaten the future viability of the NBN, we’d have bigger problems to worry about.

            You know, war, famine, pestilence, Abbott.. etc.

            Oh and btw the “cap” on the profit.. How awful we’re getting a network where the end user prices are mostly to do with the cost of physically constructing it rather than an uncapped profit margin!

            • Michael
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink |

              Either way until it is payed off by NBN Co’ or sold off, it is still taxpayers funds.

              BS does not just come from one side of the fence.

              • NBNAccuracy
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:29 pm | Permalink |

                Well, no it isn’t. It is money raise with bonds expressly for funding the NBN and paid back by NBN income. Those bonds cannot be used to fund hospitals or roads or rich bastard parental leave as none of these thangs make a return to pay them back.
                Try getting a loan from a bank on an asset like a house and one for a holiday, which will they give you more money for at a lower interest rate? The one that is asset backed of course, not one you where the cash just disappears.

                • Michael
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink |

                  Yes and until the money is repaid to the “bank” or “financier” the asset is still secured or underwritten by that body.

                  Hence until you pay off your mortgage the bank still has a claim on your house.
                  Until you pay off your debts your creditors have a claim on your company.
                  Until the NBN is payed off it is owned and funded by taxpayer money.

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink |

                Michael please…

                Remember pre the GFC, all of those big tough companies telling governments to go fuck themselves, stay out of our businesses…this is democracy? Snouts in the multi $m trough? Gorge, gorge, gorge…

                Then recall the GFC when it all went sour and the same big tough businesses who fucked up, dropped to their knees ready to (excuse my French) suck every cock in town, oh we are so sorry, please save us?

                Seriously Michael, do you have no memory at all?

                • Michael
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:41 pm | Permalink |

                  Yes and the government Should have let them go broke. I am a strong believer in moral hazard, and having a safety net for banks and even deposits on an institutional scale creates a lot of moral hazard.

                  This in turn creates a lot more incentive for more risk taking and leads to market failure, a good example locally was the unlimited bank gaurantee.

                  You have to remember a lot of ecomonic policy is not necessarily decided on the merits of the policy but also based upon who is in office and who their advisers are (used to work for) and who will benefit from the decision.

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink |

                    So you support letting them go broke?

                    Even your bank and you losing all of your money?

                    • Michael
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink |

                      Yes, I would rather the bank go broke. That is the risk associated with investing in a bank (depositing funds).

                      Iceland took this path compared the rest of the EU, e.g. Ireland, Greece, Spain, UK, US.

                      A small bank gaurantee on deposits to prevent unnecessary bank runs would be a good thing, but it would be on a scale to prevent exploitation by retail / industrial investors. 10s-100s of thousands.

                      Also see my above post about moral hazard.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes… I believe you (whilst you still have your money)… :/

          • GongGav
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:25 pm | Permalink |

            Michael, this is an argument that is always going to go back and forth, and neither side is going to change.

            For me, its a very simple situation – do the funds paying for the NBN come from the budget, and the answer is no. That is what drives opinions, not who underwrites it, or what bonds are being sold, but whether the money could be budgeted elsewhere.

            In that regards, no it cant. And once that money cant be used elsewhere, where’s the argument? Its specialised fundraising for a specific reason. The plan, which nobody has questioned, is to repay that money over the next 20 years.

            With 7,000,000 people paying $23 per month, its not hard to do the math on what will be raised per annum. Take out running costs, and the profit goes back to that specialised fundraising to rebuy those bonds.

            But the money never comes from public coffers. Doesnt go into it either.

            What would the outcry be if the $40b being raised from the bonds was counted in the budget? As you say, it cuts both ways.

            • Michael
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink |

              Irrespective of whether they are bonds that can only be used on the NBN they are still government bonds.

              You said before,

              “You DONT pay for the NBN, private investors do. THEY take on the risk, however great it is, and THEY fund the outlay. They also get about a 7% return on that investment, while we get a fresh start to our future telecommunication needs.”

              It is completely wrong to claim that there is no risk, it might be small but it still exists. It is especially wrong to claim that private investors fund the outlay, that is entirely the government. Those are the main issues I was addessing in your orignal post.

              Who pays for it will be seen in the future but does not change where the funds come from originally.

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink |

                Yes there is risk…as there is with any build. However the funding is not from income taxes… or rather the poor hurting taxpayer as the naysayers say…

                Funny though, how some talk risk for a build that has a ROI (NBN) and no risk for a build which doesn’t (roads, schools, hospitals)… because they accept budgetary, non-ROI government builds :/

                • Michael
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 7:33 pm | Permalink |

                  There is still other form’s of risk for those projects as well NBNAlex,

                  There is risk around the ROI which is not present on the projects which do not have one.

                  But there is still risk in the capital / operating costs as shown by the large number of government projects that have cost blowouts.

                  The risk of capital cost blowouts etc is included as part of the risk to ROI but is not all of it, but is often glossed over for infrastructure projects as we always “assume” that the estimate are correct.

              • tinman_au
                Posted 03/02/2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink |

                The funding comes from those that buy the bonds, in this case the government is basically acting as a guarantor/middleman.

                If the government were funding it directly, it would come off the budget.

                • Michael
                  Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:13 pm | Permalink |

                  Does a bank own your mortgage or do deposit holders own it?

                  • tinman_au
                    Posted 04/02/2013 at 2:24 pm | Permalink |

                    There is a big difference between a bond float and a mortgage (see my post below). If the government were going to do it the way you seem to think (mortgage style), it would be taxpayer funded and “on the budget”. it isn’t.

                    • Michael
                      Posted 04/02/2013 at 7:19 pm | Permalink |

                      Mortgage / bonds / Bank note / personal loan / overdraft etc are all names for different types of loans with different terms, lengths, types of interest / repayment / flexibility etc.

                      Foir the government whether it is on budget depends on whether it will be payed back or not and what the interest rate is, or IRR.

                      See other post for more discussion.

                • Cad
                  Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:37 pm | Permalink |

                  That’s right tinman.

                  When you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, the bank’s buying (or investing) in the house, not you.
                  You’re just guaranteeing the mortgage or acting as a middleman in the transaction like the real estate agent who sold the house.

                  Welcome to “NBNeconomics”.

                  • tinman_au
                    Posted 04/02/2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink |

                    Except that bonds are a different thing to a mortgage.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_bonds

                    Private investors (and banks) buy the bonds that supply the money to NBNCo, NBNCo pays that back. The government is just a middleman (and guarantor) in this.

                    The only way NBNCo effects any public monies is if the process doesn’t run it’s full course.

                    • Michael
                      Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink |

                      The difference is that NBN Co’ is NOT selling the bonds itself. The government is selling the bonds which is why i compared it to mortgages as they use an intermediary.

                      The government is not guaranteeing the bonds, the government is selling the bonds and that is why they are at the government bond rate. The government is then providing equity to NBN Co’. The other situation you are confusing it with is for example during the GFC (part 1) when the banks were able to use the government guarantee and issue notes backed by the Australian Government and get a better rate for them.

                      This is completely different to NBN Co’ selling bonds to raise equity, as NBN does not have to pay back any notes to investors except the government. There is no need to roll over bonds of different lengths etc or any other issues facing companies raising capital through bond financing.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink |

                        I tend to agree Michael…

                        It is funded by government debt… but NBNCo are planning to offer NBN specific bonds in 2015.

                        However, the nay-sayers keep saying, my taxes, taxpayer funded…

                        So once and for all the crux of the argument is, “the NBN is not being funded from our income taxes”.

                      • Michael
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 8:00 pm | Permalink |

                        My original point was to correct the very common fallcy that since it is off the budget it has nothing to do with taxpayer funds. The bottom line is that taxpayer funds are underwriting the project. They are providing security and equity so that the NBN can be build and generate returns in the future.

                        Is it on budget no. It is “costing” tax payers, not as it is forecast. It is a class of government asset. Nevertheless, unless it is privitised it is government money.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 8:17 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes taxpayers ARE underwriting the NBN (as I have said all along) “but we are not actually funding the NBN”…

                        Go on say it… our taxpayer income taxpayers are not actually paying for the NBN!

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 8:25 pm | Permalink |

                        Let me try again…something went astray in the mix there :(

                        “Our income taxes are not actually paying for the NBN”

                    • tinman_au
                      Posted 05/02/2013 at 3:12 pm | Permalink |

                      The point I was making is it’s not being paid for by taxes (as an aside, I find it disingenuous of Tony Abbott saying he’ll build roads with what he saves by stopping/changing the NBN). Yes, the government raised the bonds, but it makes sense for them to do so (thanks to the strong dollar, they can raise them cheaply, but NBNCo will be paying them back.

                      If the plan goes the way it’s outlined, the government/taxpayers wont have actually “spent” a thing on the NBN, except for those that actually become users of it.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink |

                        + 1 tinman_au… exactly…

                        For all the bullshit these guys want to carry on with, the crux is exactly that,, the taxpayer is not paying for the NBN

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 04/02/2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink |

                    You know what I find comical Tosh and Michael…

                    “Even though the NBN is not income taxpayer funded”…that anyone could have a problem with governments using tax dollars for building infrastructure for us :/

                    Or is it just one infrastructure build, where a political line in the sand has been drawn you vehemently oppose :/

                    • Michael
                      Posted 04/02/2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink |

                      NBNAlex,

                      I have nothing against infrastructure. I am arguing economics and definitions. Yoiu have skipped my first post. (I also stuffed up my previous post, i left out a question mark as I assumed it would be implied but apparently it wasn’t).

                      “Is it on budget no. It is “costing” tax payers, not as it is forecast. ”

                      Should be;

                      Is it on budget no. It is “costing” tax payers?, not as it is forecast.

                      I am debating the dodgy economics which has become so prevalent is the most recent term of government.

                      Writedown of government revenue = decreasing forecast growth from 12% to 7%. A writedown is a loss, there has been no loss, just a decrease in expected profit. Calling tax increases, as “budgetary savings”.

                      You and this community claim to hold politicians accountable on the NBN. To do that you need to be correct on the finances as they are important. It would be like claiming FTTN / FTTP are close enough since they both use fibre optic cable to delive the internet for most of the distance in comparing the government issuing bonds to raise equity to give to NBN Co or NBN Co issuing bonds.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 10:27 pm | Permalink |

                        http://delimiter.com.au/2012/09/06/backdown-turnbull-accepts-nbn-budget-accounting/

                      • Michael
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 11:53 pm | Permalink |

                        Setting up a strawman is a poor way to avoid answering the other points in my post.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 4:20 pm | Permalink |

                        Strawman… LOL.

                        The government say the accounting is correct and the opposition via MT says the accounting is correct., but Michael says strawman… LOL again

                      • Michael
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink |

                        1. You are misrepresenting what I said, I said that the NBN finances are based on forecasts, not that they are wrong just that they are forecasts. Stating that they are forecasts is just the facts. That you assumed you meant they are wrong shows just how touchy you are or how desperate you are to setup the strawman.

                        2. The discussion from above was about how the NBN finances were classified nothing to do with their forecasts.

                        Setting up a line of argument that misrepresents what I said is the definition of a strawman. But I can understand why you want to change the topic.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 7:49 pm | Permalink |

                        “Setting up a line of argument that misrepresents what I said is the definition of a strawman. But I can understand why you want to change the topic.”

                        Err Mikey, I simply linked to a URL… As such I’m not misrepresenting anything, I am simply “demonstrating” on an evidence based forum… with (shock, horror) evidence… that both the government and opposition via MT are saying the NBN is being accounted correctly…

                        Once again let me repeat… both the government and MT say the NBN is being accounted correctly… but Michael says no it isn’t., strawman.. ROFL…

                      • NBNAccuracy
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 7:52 pm | Permalink |

                        Michael, so there are investments where profits are a certainty and not just forecasts? Tell me, I’ll buy them immediately.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink |

                        BTW Mikey, I have never said the NBN estimations are fact! Instead I have actually said they are NOT set in stone (or words as such) but are an analysed gauge of where we should be… so speaking of strawman :(

                      • Michael
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink |

                        Ok, I have absolutely no idea why you linked it there then if it wasn’t an oblique reference to where I mentenioned forecasts.

                        Otherwise we have been debating the difference between “pays for” and “underwritten”. That has NOTHING to do with what you linked so I do not know why you introduced it.

                      • Michael
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink |

                        Oh and how underwritten can lead to it being government funded irrespective of who pays for it.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 8:25 pm | Permalink |

                        Really, does everything have to be spelled out ala` another poster beginning with a, just to go through the motions?

                        You were questioning the accountancy of the NBN and I linked to a URL suggesting MT agreed with the government that the NBN’s is accounted for properly…In fact also the Parliamentary Library who deal with such aspects (via Brian Dalzell iirc… his name) also agree…

                        Do you disagree with the government, BD and MT?

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 8:35 pm | Permalink |

                        Strawman Mikey… what you say is all smoke and mirrors if all the actual movers and shakers (not the trusty foot soldier, nay-sayer, Coalition hangers-on) say the accountancy is correct :)

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink |

                        Sorry, “by” income taxes :)

                      • alain
                        Posted 07/02/2013 at 7:25 pm | Permalink |

                        @GongGav

                        ‘But its also got proven numbers behind it to show how its risk is minimised, ‘

                        Nothing has been proven yet.

                    • Michael
                      Posted 05/02/2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink |

                      Thats where you are wrong.

                      I am not questioning in the accountancy. That is why I called it a stawman. Either that or you don’t understand the concept of underwriting despite multiple explanations or are just trolling.

                      Why do you continue to think it has to do with the accountancy of the NBN when I said @ 8.02 that it does not? If you think it does explain why it does. Explain to me how my understanding of the concept of underwriting is incorrect in the case of the NBN. Explain to me how the government is not underwriting the NBN.

                      The rest of what you linked is the budget accounting which is all around the IRR. Iresspective of what the IRR equity to pay for the work still has to be found be any construction can start and the source of those funds and how it was classified was what was under discussion.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 9:39 pm | Permalink |

                        Whatever, you could have shortened your FUD and just said white elephant, like the rest :)

                      • Michael
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 10:32 pm | Permalink |

                        NBNAlex,

                        You do not understand economics. And when you do not understand something you resort to trolling and just repeating tired accusations over and over again.

                      • Michael
                        Posted 05/02/2013 at 10:37 pm | Permalink |

                        But just to clarify my above post,

                        Stop trolling.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 6:50 am | Permalink |

                        Nice rebuttal… LOL

                        I am trying to demonstrate, no matter how hard you argue that the NBN may not be being accounted correctly, that all parties agree it is being accounted correctly… that’s it, don’t read anymore into it…PERIOD.

                        You can then say, you didn’t address “my” points… err I wasn’t trying to, I was simply showing you information. BTW – it’s not all about “you”!

                        This is a simple excercise of all parties agreeing, but, apparently except you… I mentioned nothing technical, within these particular correspondences… just this simple agreement. Got the picture yet?

                        So make any excuse try to cloud the issue with bullshit all you wish and call me a troll (LOL), but at least try to accept this one simple fact, the Gov. Opposition and Parliamentary Libray Economists say the NBN is accounted correctly.

                        But of course “you” know economics…

                      • Michael
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 7:12 am | Permalink |

                        I cannot believe you are so in love with your NBN that you will not lead your castle of preconcieved notions. Before your post at 10.27 04/02 no one questioned that the NBN should be off the budget YOU have been the only one to claim that.

                        Repeat: You have been the only one to question the accountacy of the budget. You do not understand how it is financed.

                        But since you prefer to cling to your castle of always being correct and don’t bother to read the post’s explaining the difference or just go off on tangents. Troll / Strawman are appropiate labels for you.

                      • Michael
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 7:16 am | Permalink |

                        “This is a simple excercise of all parties agreeing, but, apparently except you… I mentioned nothing technical, within these particular correspondences… just this simple agreement. Got the picture yet?”

                        Just to Highlight since you seem so hells bent on ignoring it wherever you can.

                        Prior to your inroduction of that article I did not mention the accountancy of the NBN wrt the budget and nor do I disagree with them. You keep trying to paint opinions onto me which I have never claimed. That is why Troll / Strawman.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink |

                        LOL who’s trolling and being the strawman… not I.

                        Here… Speaking of I can’t believe you are so bogged down in your admitted conservative dogma (and thus NBN opposition) to see I actually agreed with you FFS…

                        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/31/stupid-quasi-religious-turnbull-slams-fibre-fans/#comment-573579

                        So without trying to deflect from the crux of this whole issue further, please answer one simple and all encompassing question:

                        Is the NBN being funded for income taxes? Yes or no?

                      • alain
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 9:25 am | Permalink |

                        @NBNAlex

                        LOL who’s trolling and being the strawman… not I.

                        No of course not, you NEVER get anything wrong.

                        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/01/telstra-remediation-work-delaying-nbn/#comment-573605

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink |

                        In that case, I was mistaken, my faux pas… not the first and won’t be the last.

                        FYI – it is easy and adult to acknowledge such errors… you ought to try it, even once (out of the many, many possibles) because I can assure you, it doesn’t hurt.

                        So since you have all the answers, have a go at this…

                        Is the NBN being funded by our income taxes? Yes or no?

                      • GongGav
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 10:28 am | Permalink |

                        Is this debate still going on? Wow.

                        Can I put it a different way Michael/alain? how about, rather than get caught up in whether its underwriting, or tax dollars, we look at the end result. One method (underwriting) has a smaller risk of become a public liability. The approach has proven numbers backing that underwriting up, notably some 7 million properties paying $23 per month, plus businesses doing the same (not sure what their cost is), plus phone lines.

                        Those numbers are guarantees once the copper exchanges are turned off. That means guaranteed income to offset the risk of underwriting. 7 million properties generating some $2b a year. $2b a year that increases by a small amount to compensate for CPI.

                        THAT negates the risk of underwriting. THAT makes it an investment, not a budget cost. The combination of that is how the NBN pays for itself if its allowed to continue as is.

                        The alternative is the $30b FttN will cost. The end result of that is $30b less to pay for hospitals, roads, education, etc etc. THAT comes from tax dollars.

                        Which is better? An underwritten $40b cost with a demonstrated and provable plan to repay the cost, or a budget cost of $30b with no plan to repay the cost?

                        If that underwritten plan is accruing $2b per annum, where does the risk come from?

                        Simple questions. Should be simple answers.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 3:10 pm | Permalink |

                        @ alain,

                        I see it all became too hard for you and you again went MIA after being asked a simple question.

                        My this is a familiar theme isn’t it?

                      • tinman_au
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 5:14 pm | Permalink |

                        You now how it is NBNAlex, when the going gets tough, the tough get going :o)

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 6:15 pm | Permalink |

                        Indeed tinman_au.

                        I fucked up and I am man enough to admit and own up to that…

                        But our friend (ahem) is very keen to criticise, but when asked simple questions, ‘never (repeat never)’ able to legitimise :(

                      • Michael
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 6:38 pm | Permalink |

                        “You DONT pay for the NBN, private investors do. THEY take on the risk, however great it is, and THEY fund the outlay. They also get about a 7% return on that investment, while we get a fresh start to our future telecommunication needs.

                        If you disagree, show us how the money comes from tax dollars.”

                        GongGav & NBNAlex that is the crux of what I was trying to disprove. The weird notion that since it is off budget that it is not taxpayers dollars. The taxpayer pays upfront and then is repayed by customers a very big difference to private investors paying for everything.

                        “Can I put it a different way Michael/alain? how about, rather than get caught up in whether its underwriting, or tax dollars, we look at the end result. One method (underwriting) has a smaller risk of become a public liability. The approach has proven numbers backing that underwriting up, notably some 7 million properties paying $23 per month, plus businesses doing the same (not sure what their cost is), plus phone lines.”

                        Looking at the end result only? The end justifies the means? So it wouldnt matter what was charged customers as long as it recouped it’s costs? It could charge (wholesale) 200+ for a basic plan and you would be ok with that?

                        Just as a reminder, every bankrupt business, every failed startup has a solid, verified, accepted, business plan to get funding. There are no gaurantees in life. (maybe D&T).

                        I still don’t get why you felt the need to link that article NBN Alex, even more so since you showed me that post. (Sorry that i missed it).

                      • tinman_au
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink |

                        Your just being pedantic Michael, show me where tax money has been used for the NBN, cash raised through bonds is not tax money, hence no taxpayer has paid a cent towards it so far.

                        In fact, if everything goes according to plan, no taxpayer ever will…

                        Now, I guess you’ll come back with something like “But it’s public money being used”. Yes, it is, but it’s not public money from my (or any other Aussies) pocket, and once again, will be paid back by NBNCo, not me (or any other taxpayer).

                        Do you understand this? Thanks to the “magic” of accounting (but really more like banks wanting to park their cash in a safe haven), taxpayers will gain a worthwhile asset with no outlay from their taxes…

                      • Michael
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 8:09 pm | Permalink |

                        Hey tinman,

                        The interest from the public debt,

                        You know how when you borrow you have to pay interest?

                        That interest is on the budget….

                        Oversimplifying the issue is a sure method to get problems like Pink Batts / Green loans.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink |

                        @ tinman_au…

                        Isn’t it humorous watching them squirm… rather than (like I did when I discovered I was wrong) just manning-up and saying… you are right, income taxes are not paying for the NBN.

                        ROFL…

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 8:50 pm | Permalink |

                        @ Michael… “I still don’t get why you felt the need to link that article NBN Alex, even more so since you showed me that post. (Sorry that i missed it).”

                        No apology needed Michael… I was just trying to demonstrate a consensus that the NBN is being accounted correctly. If that doesn’t answer what you were saying perhaps we both have our wires crossed in relation to what each of us is trying to say (now say that quickly 3 times)…LOL..

                        Mate I enjoy corresponding with you (as you don’t normally resort to semantics and pedantics) and as such was taken aback, as I really thought more highly of you than to suggest I was wilfully trolling (I would however expect such an accusation rom certain others).

                        All good… but without trying to drag this out… do you really believe income taxes are paying for the NBN build?

                      • Michael
                        Posted 06/02/2013 at 9:43 pm | Permalink |

                        As I said above, it is not being “payed” for by the taxpayer in a pure sense but under-written. The government is using its borrowing power to get better rates etc than other-wise possible. What I took objection to was a prevalent opinion that since it was off-budget (much better term than “paying for imo) it was not funded by the government.

                        Although some aspects of the NBN are on budget; the interest payments on the government debt used to fund the NBN equity springs to mind.

                        Btw – I am pretty certain that I never once said paid for the NBN, I did say funded but that is in relation to the capital expenditure. If I did say payed then it was a typo. As I said above 3+ time it was never my intention to argue the accountacy principles classifying it as off budget, so that is why I (still) don’t know why you brought it up. But I feel that the accusation worked as it got you to read the posts and see we were arguing down different paths.

                      • GongGav
                        Posted 07/02/2013 at 9:43 am | Permalink |

                        @michael, so you consider the risk being taken through underwriting to be so great we should stop the project completely?

                        Again, and this is something you didnt address, there are two ways this is going to happen. One, we have an underwritten project, which pretty much just guarantees the investors outlay, and two, we dont.

                        The first one has a small risk, every project does. But its also got proven numbers behind it to show how its risk is minimised, and that if things go to plan there will be no cost to the Australian taxpayer.

                        If you want to be pedantic, there’s interest and other minor costs, but in the grand scheme of things, its minimal.

                        So lets look at option 2. There is no underwriting, there are no investors to pay back. Its all Government cost. $15b to build, plus another $15b to buy the copper lines from Telstra. $30b down the drain, never to be seen again.

                        So again, which is the better option? An underwritten $40b cost with a demonstrated and provable plan to repay the cost (and hence demonstrated the risk is negligible at best), or a budget cost of $30b with no plan to repay the cost?

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 07/02/2013 at 11:34 am | Permalink |

                        No “you” haven’t said taxpayer is paying from my memory Michael…

                        But what we are trying to do is eliminate FUD, because as you say and ***as I totally agree with you…*** the NBN is noy being paid for by incomes taxes, which 99% of people against the NBN keep saying even when clearly shown it isn’t. But it is of course underwritten by the government (which I and I’m guessing most if not all NBN supporter know) because it’s bleedin’ obvious. Big difference between government underwritten and income taxpayer funded, though.

                        As you said… ” it is not being “payed” for by the taxpayer in a pure sense but under-written.”

                        So to be pedantic for a moment, I think following your statement and after many frustrating comments, we can now agree the answer to my question is “NO”…

                        The NBN is not being funded by income taxes… (ok – with a disclaimer that it is Governmentally underwritten)!

                      • Michael
                        Posted 07/02/2013 at 6:12 pm | Permalink |

                        NBNAlex, Yes because people were claiming that it was not funded by government or worse funded by private investors. Private funds may pay back the loans through subscriptions etc but the equity comes from the govt.

                        Oh and, just as an aside if it is being underwritten by the government (and the business plan is solid) it can’t be directly paid for by the government (i.e from taxation revenue, income, company, capital gains etc)

                        GongGav, Get a hold of yourself, I just had a similar discussion with NBNAlex, I did not question the NBN itself, merely YOUR interpretation of its funding arrangements.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 07/02/2013 at 7:27 pm | Permalink |

                        You still carrying on Michael…well speaking of getting a hold of yourself , let’s revisit YOUR interpretation of NBN funding again, from above…

                        “The people who are claiming that the taxpayer pays for it are looking at the current source of equity and they are correct. All equity for the NBN has come from the taxpayer.”

                        “The taxpayer pays upfront and then is repayed by customers a very big difference to private investors paying for everything.”

                        Later…

                        “… it is not being “payed” for by the taxpayer in a pure sense but under-written.”

                        Let me condense, Michael says – ” The taxpayer PAYS upfront . But… it’s not being PAYED for by the taxpayer in a pure sense…

                        I look forward to a tale of epic proportions explaining why you are still right that the taxpayer does/doesn’t *sigh*

                        Why don’t you do as I did when it was pointed out I had I erred and just admit it, FFS?

                        You should have just left it amicably, where it was earlier today Michael, because now that I look back and find you have totally contradicted yourself after all… all that is left to say is LOL…

                      • Michael
                        Posted 07/02/2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink |

                        Oh well, 1 slip up in wording is not much compared to 10+ posts over 2 days.

                      • GongGav
                        Posted 08/02/2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink |

                        @michael, please dont give me the high road argument. You’ve gotten caught up in semantics that in the end mean nothing. OK, I may have worded things poorly originally, but I stand by the statement. For all intents and purposes, the Government contribution to the current NBN is negligible.

                        That doesnt mean there isnt a risk, and I fully agree there is some risk. I think its so minimal to be pointless, you seem to think otherwise.

                        But you still havent answered the question. Is $30b non-repaid debt better or worse than $40b repaid cost? Its going to be one or the other, which is better for the country?

                        My interpretation of the funding arrangements is that its the best possible option available. The cost is largely absorbed through 3rd parties, and is fully covered through the users. How can it be better than that? Really, how?

                        Put the Liberal plan along side that, and its just so laughable its tragic. Their option is to throw money at private enterprise, then try to spin that its cheaper? Only if you close one eye and squint real tight with the other could it ever possibly be seen as cheaper.

                        I’m all for picking apart the problems with the NBN. I just dont see the funding method as one of them. I think HFC should stay, I also think its a mistake retiring the copper lines just now. But I also think that this is infrastructure we’re going to go to anyway, and that its important enough for our future that it shouldnt be controlled by private entities.

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 08/02/2013 at 11:39 am | Permalink |

                        “The interest from the public debt,

                        You know how when you borrow you have to pay interest?

                        That interest is on the budget….”

                        “As I said above, it is not being “payed” for by the taxpayer in a pure sense but under-written.”

                        Get it together man, your line of reasoning is all over the place.

          • Posted 11/02/2013 at 11:14 am | Permalink |

            @Michael, @Alain.

            You think you have an issue with how the NBN is being funded now.
            With Government Bonds and set up as an investment. Where it is off the books.

            Have you looked into how Abbott and Co want to fund their version?
            Sell off NBNCo, and PAY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES.!

            Yes this is what actually CAN be used to pay for hospitals and Roads.

      • NBNAccuracy
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink |

        I can’t believe the debate has been going so many years and yet these people post here without seeming to have any idea as to the state of discussion with falacies that have been debunked from about day 7

      • Harimau
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink |

        The taxpayer does not pay. The user of the network pays. At best, the taxpayer lends. When you buy a house, does the bank ultimately pay for the house, or are you paying for the house with your mortgage? Just think about it a little. A little.

        • Michael
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:01 pm | Permalink |

          Who ended up paying for all those houses in the US when something went wrong?

          • ungulate
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink |

            Ah yes, the GFC. The poster child of all that is wrong your philosophy, Michael :)

            • Michael
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:30 pm | Permalink |

              So the government “intervened” in a market to “solve a distortion” by increasing loans to poor people causing a financial meltdown is indicative of a failure in free market theory.

              But, I doubt that you could explain my economic beliefs to me, especially concerning the GFC, stage one and two and the major reasons leading to both of them.

              But this is not the place for an economic debate.

          • tinman_au
            Posted 06/02/2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink |

            Seriously, are you now comparing the NBN to US sub-prime lenders?? Sorry, but I find that pretty amusing :)

        • NBNAlex
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink |

          +1 Exactly

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:24 pm | Permalink |

        Anand
        If all you can think about is Porn, don’t judge others by yourself
        http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/452658/nbn_help_produce_a-grade_students_study_finds/
        This needs not only high capacity/speed to the educational institution, but also to the students homes to achieve the best results.

        Guess like the ego tripping delusional Conservatives you believe our future leaders, innovators, inventors can only come from a particular socioeconomic demographic.

        What hope has our Nation got when it will be led by a party and their supporters with the MSM cheer squad who are incapable of comprehending the funding and benefits and the fact that it is ESSENTIAL NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE built to provide the Nation for many decades.
        With that sort of intellectually challenged leadership I worry for our future.

    28. CMOTDibbler
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink |

      “I mean what a stupid thing these people are saying.”

      That is not saying the people are stupid. It is saying what was said was stupid. Smart people are quite capable of saying stupid things from time to time.

      The whole article is based on a misunderstanding of the English language.

      • djos
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:52 pm | Permalink |

        If you believe that I have a bridge for sale in a nice little town called Sydney….

        • CMOTDibbler
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink |

          When did you buy it?

          • djos
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink |

            It’s a family Heirloom, just dont get much use out of it after moving back to Adelaide.

            :-D

      • raymond
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:13 pm | Permalink |

        “That is not saying the people are stupid. It is saying what was said was stupid. Smart people are quite capable of saying stupid things from time to time.”

        well thats a stupid comment :)

        perhaps turnbull should point out these stupid statements and why they are actually stupid, you know, counter the argument, not just call it stupid?

    29. NBNAlex
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink |

      I am quasi-religious about fibre…

      As opposed to being an out and out “fully-converted investor in fibre”… like ????

    30. NPSF3000
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink |

      “The problem with this debate is that it is proceeding in some quarters as a quasi-religious debate. It is not.”

      +1

      Now if only someone would tell Turnbull that…

    31. Tim
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:06 pm | Permalink |

      It is all well and good to bag MT however here is the thing.

      Same a single MEDIA company promoting the NBN in a good way?

      Because the NBN will mess with MEDIA company profits they are not going to have there journalists do due diligence in making sure they get the CORRECT answers instead we get “SPIN ” and the non tech populace will believe this.

      This is the problem we have today. unless someone with half a brain in tech could get on TV, Radio, Etc to Actually tell the public the TRUTH then i am afraid Australia will always get screwed over.

      Also as for the whole not looking forward thing.
      Do I have to mention these?
      AusPOST
      Telephony in this country over 100 years old…. (and rotting away)
      Snowy Hydro Scheme
      CSIRO……………………………..

      As a politician you are supposed to be employed/elected for the benefit of the country. A government is not nor will it ever be 100% that same as running as Business.
      A Business is always about one thing only: PROFIT
      Governments are there to:
      1. Supposedly protect the people
      2. stop business doing something wrong or evil.
      3. improve existing essential services.

      Also any project that could possibly have ROI of 5-10% for government should be done as it is a investment in Australia’s future for both Business and the People.

      The 1 project that got canned but should of happened was the linking of waterways that was going to cost many BILLIONS of dollars however it would of increased our water supply and fixed alot of water issues for this country.

      • andyrob
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink |

        “The 1 project that got canned but should of happened was the linking of waterways that was going to cost many BILLIONS of dollars however it would of increased our water supply and fixed alot of water issues for this country.”

        Agreed Tim. Not sure why water retention has never got a run. Not the NBN though, so a bit off subject. wait, mmmm if we had bulk water available in the bush, people might move there, it would help agriculture, oh and if the NBN was completed, BONUS.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 06/02/2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink |

          An obvious Policy the Lib/Nats should have gotten involved in especially in a hung parliament with rural independents and Greens that could be swung on side form that cause, demonstrating they are worthy of consideration to be our Government
          Pity the LNP are more interested in Power and Politics than actually doing what we elect and pay them for, look after the Nations best interest

      • Daniel
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:11 pm | Permalink |

        I agree, however, we still far from the actual election campaign period starts (august sometime I think).

        Thats when the real action starts, not this side show stuff.

        NBN is on quiet a few major social media platforms (including the largely growing Twitter).

        And it does have youtube channel (which has posted videos recently).

      • andyrob
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:51 pm | Permalink |

        “This is the problem we have today. unless someone with half a brain in tech could get on TV, Radio, Etc to Actually tell the public the TRUTH then i am afraid Australia will always get screwed over.”

        Ah, brilliant idea. Why don’t we all canvas Q&A, The Drum, Insight etc to get MT, SC and a raft of IT people (Renai we love you ;-) ) and maybe some general public onto a show/forum/debate.

        We could really show MT/LNP up for their intelligence and outright mistruths.

        I suspect that Conroy would show up with bells on but MT would be busy at a friends’ dogs birthday (any excuse).

    32. raymond
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink |

      “Well, in that case we’d be in very good company wouldn’t we because we’ve got most of Europe, most of North America in exactly the same situation”

      oh mr turnbull, do we have to be lemmings and follow everyone else, cant we do better than that?

      thats right people, the rest of the world, well the UK and parts of the US are going FTTN so it just has to be good enough to us to follow – who cares that well have to upgrade it in less than 10 years, thats not the point. cheaper and faster for an inferior product with a shorter lifespan, yep that’ll do us.

      and he wants his party to get elected? did they learn nothing from the last one? what happened to that report that pointed out that they screwed up the nbn issue and need to have something better for next time? i guess that was a waste of taxpayers money.

      • Richard
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:02 pm | Permalink |

        The U.S. worships guns too.

    33. Frank
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink |

      Well there are plenty of NBN zealots who worship the NBN all at the ready to stomp on anyone that says even the slightest thing negative about the NBN regardless of what the truth is.

      For some if NBN said the sky is green they would believe it without looking for themselves.

      • Murdoch
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink |

        “regardless of what the truth is”

        I would be interested if you explained what you think the “truth” is please.

        • Chris
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink |

          +1

        • chunk
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:39 pm | Permalink |

          +1 as well!

          waits with popcorn on the ready.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:30 pm | Permalink |

          Pretty Please

    34. Frank
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink |

      Looks like my point has been proved.

      • chunk
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink |

        Or could be a lot of people are sick of our antiquated comms and infrastructure and finally be heading the right direction in terms of technology. And possibly sick of the politicians attacking one another instead of thinking of our future.

        Our copper lines are rotting away we need something better and more robust and able to handle what the future will throw at it.

        Probably the reason why the NBN is actually a good thing.
        Or do you want to continue with rotting copper and piss poor telecommunications and internet infrastructure?

      • AJ
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:22 am | Permalink |

        You said nothing and no one stomped on you?????
        1) The sky is blue during the day unless overcast when above the clouds is likely blue based on my experience but I can not confirm that is always true from this vantage point. When the sun set the colour changes from blue through to red and then either dark blue or or black depending on the factors like the moon.
        This is my analysis of the sky if that is what you wanted I have never seen it green but it is theoretically possible for example the Aurora has green in it but I have not seen it. A change in chemical composition could cause a change in colour or a change in the light coming from the sun.

        I base my opinion on facts and experience that is all.

    35. Richard Ure
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:59 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull is getting away with murder by constantly saying “the NBN” when he is really talking about “a broadband network”. He must be drawn on the distinction in interviews every time he says it so the punters realise he is talking about a completely different approach.

      Otherwise there is no scope to even touch upon the no frills approach the Libs are threatening to deploy.
      How can something be “cheaper” when different things are being compared?

      • alain
        Posted 06/02/2013 at 9:55 am | Permalink |

        @Richard Ure

        ‘Turnbull is getting away with murder by constantly saying “the NBN” when he is really talking about “a broadband network”.’

        As far as I am aware the term ‘National Broadband Network’, is not copyrighted to the Australian Labor Party as it is used overseas as well.

        The Coalition can use it to describe their policy, they could also use ‘nation building, state of the art and bold and visionary’ as well.

        Your concern that the punters might confuse a Coalition NBN with Labor NBN is misplaced as I am sure most voters don’t know what the Labor NBN is all about anyway, other than it will cost a shed load of money.

        • tinman_au
          Posted 06/02/2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink |

          Indeed, the US also use the term/acronym NBN.

          And funnily enough, they are using the same method as the Liberals want to use (gift private companies public money to do the job the private companies should have been doing all along), but it’s been failing miserably, the companies take the money but don’t then bother rolling out to the 1/3rd of Americans that can’t get any broadband at all.

          I guess we just need to hope Tony/Malcolm are smarter than the yanks and our private companies…

      • tinman_au
        Posted 06/02/2013 at 11:26 am | Permalink |

        I guess it’s a matter of degree in some regard. While technically, the Liberals could call their system an “NBN”, I don’t really think of it that way due to it’s patchwork “lets just use all these other networks” nature.

        The Liberals use of the term is more like a “brand name” tying older technologies together, while the NBNCo one is an actual next generation network.

        But the average “mums and dads” in Australia probably wont see it that way, they’ll just be thinking of it more as an NB (National Broadband).

    36. MikeK
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:07 pm | Permalink |

      As a Minister of the Optic Church I prefer to be a quasi- religion than a quasi- Minister of Telecommunications, listen to me brothers and sisters dont partake of the FTTN apple or your head will spin 360 degrees and you will puck over everone and you will start yelling out fuck me fuck me fuck me and if the Coalition get elected they will.

      • Posted 11/02/2013 at 11:26 am | Permalink |

        thats very clever and very funny,
        Can i Use it.? LOL

    37. jasmcd
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:17 pm | Permalink |

      Hoping Labor see the writing on the wall and commission countless CBA’s and audits to put as much information out as possible showing the superiority of FTTH over the longer term, as well as the GBE model..

    38. Michael
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:33 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull is not trying to convince people like the average reader here, he is talking to the broader population, as a politician he knows where the larger number of votes is and in a democracy all you need is a majority to “win” the debate.

      Thank you for Smoking explains it so well;

      Joey Naylor: …so what happens when you’re wrong?
      Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I’m never wrong.
      Joey Naylor: But you can’t always be right…
      Nick Naylor: Well, if it’s your job to be right, then you’re never wrong.
      Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong?
      Nick Naylor: OK, let’s say that you’re defending chocolate, and I’m defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: ‘Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream’, you’d say…
      Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
      Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can’t win that argument… so, I’ll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
      Joey Naylor: It’s the best ice-cream, I wouldn’t order any other.
      Nick Naylor: Oh! So it’s all chocolate for you is it?
      Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
      Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
      Joey Naylor: But that’s not what we’re talking about
      Nick Naylor: Ah! But that’s what I’m talking about.
      Joey Naylor: …but you didn’t prove that vanilla was the best…
      Nick Naylor: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong I’m right.
      Joey Naylor: But you still didn’t convince me
      Nick Naylor: It’s that I’m not after you. I’m after them.
      [points into the crowd]

      • ungulate
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:32 pm | Permalink |

        Michael,

        Having the intelligence and skills to recognise and exploit ignorance in others is not what I would call a redeeming character trait.

        Rather its the sort of thing that rings alarm bells for me. So it is with the conservatives in general. If high-brow intellectual bullshit won’t win them over, tell them lies, exploit their prejudice. Engage in moral bankruptcy winning votes because, well, “we’re born to rule and of course we’re right”.

        And yes, I’m not talking to you Michael, but the people reading this :)

        • Michael
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink |

          Misogyny

    39. Steven
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull circa 1910: “This cult like obsession with the automobile will drive our country to ruin! Everyone knows that horses fulfill the needs of the population without the need to build expensive roads.”

    40. Louis
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink |

      Most people couldn’t say he is wrong though.

      • Steven
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:36 pm | Permalink |

        Ummm… nobody who knows what they’re talking about would say he’s right.

    41. Stephen H
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink |

      He’s claiming that people who think FTTH is better than FTTN are stupid? Doesn’t exactly manage to show himself in the best light with that claim, does he?

      I wonder – if a politician calls you stupid, and then expects you to vote for him, who’s the stupid one?

      Oh, and Malcolm Turnbull: F**K Y*U! (I’m figuring he’s too stupid to fill in the blanks).

      • nonny-moose
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:43 pm | Permalink |

        that was precisely my reaction – telling potential voters they are stupid isnt exactly the best way to bring them into your flock. im actually quite surprised that a man i would ordinarily think of as quite intelligent, even if i dont always agree with his politics, has lowered himself to namecalling to prove his point. and especially after he has complained about the tenor of the modern day Parliament! i think he is far better than this and am disappointed in him for it. hell of a way to start your election campaign, mate.

      • Posted 11/02/2013 at 11:35 am | Permalink |

        Stephen, what he is doing is getting the rest of the electorate to think that. people who support a FTTH network are stupid.

        like what has been said over and over again in this thread is “You only need a majority Vote toptake government”. if he can convince enough of the Flock he is right. then he has won. he doesnt have to be held accountable. he doesnt have to back up his claims. becouse the qualitly of our political debate has become more and more like “Primary school name calling”

    42. TimH
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink |

      Malcolm is nothing more than a petty hypocritical monkey brain, See I can use insults to prove my points as well!

      • Posted 11/02/2013 at 11:36 am | Permalink |

        Yes Tim, and like Abbott and Costello, you didnt even have to Say why he is a Monkey.

    43. Gene W
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:44 pm | Permalink |

      He said there was “no analysis” done, but didn’t the implementation study analyse the costs in detail?

    44. ungulate
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink |

      If you want to see how Turnbull invests with his own money…

      http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2012/143

      If you want to see how Turnbull invests with taxpayer money…

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-20/turnbull-pumps-10m-into-rainmaking-gamble/731004

      and for a deeper look into that one..

      http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/09/09/malcolm-turnbull-the-rain-man-who-speaks-with-forked-tongue/

    45. Simpleton
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:21 pm | Permalink |

      “you know, the stuff they already have in Korea and Japan”

      Just because another country has it doesn’t mean it is applicable here. Ignoring the population density differences, why don’t we manufacture jet aircraft (we all know how well the heavily subsidized car industry is doing)? Why don’t we have nuclear power plants? Heck why don’t we have our own space program even Iran is getting in on it these days…

      But I’m sure I’m preaching to the deaf, every tech person thinks tax payer funded FTTH is the only option and as important as freeways and hospitals. Last time I checked Korea and Japan aren’t the center of the net, funny that considering the States have been historically and still are regardless of the topology of their networks. Also funny that most content I access will still be handicapped by this, as it mostly resides in countries that won’t be capable of delivering at the blistering fast speeds that FTTH supplies. But I guess I’ll have instant gratification loading up quality sites like this. :\

      • Goresh
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:55 pm | Permalink |

        “Heck why don’t we have our own space program”

        Actually we used too before a coalition government shut it down.

        Australia was actually the third country to launch a satellite into orbit from it’s own territory and the seventh overall when it launched Weapons Research Establishment Satellite (WRESAT) on 29 November 1967.

        Now we have to pay other countries to do that for us because the coalition governemnt of the time saw no future in the space industry.

        • Simpleton
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:21 am | Permalink |

          I was referring more to manned space flight, but anyway, even talking of payloads I’m sure it’s been a heck of a lot more cost effective to pay others to launch loads into space than having our own program.

          Not being entirely aware of any satellite launches here other than Anglo American ones, I decided to do a quick net search and unsurprisingly the fantastic event you allude to refers to a satellite launched by a U.S. redstone rocket. So I’m really not sure what your point was.

          • midspace
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:37 am | Permalink |

            More to the point, what was your point?
            The NBN is not funded by tax money.

            “flood levy anyone?” seen Bundaberg lately? There is a disaster zone in Queensland at the moment, and you want to debate funding on that?

            “manufacture jet aircraft ” Totally way off base, starting to talk about manufacturing industries. No relevance to building infrastructure.

            “as important as freeways”
            I hate freeways. We need proper public transport. To use your words, other counties…. oh wait, other CITIES in Australia have better train services and rail links than Melbourne. WTF can’t we?

            “Last time I checked Korea and Japan aren’t the center of the net, funny that considering the States have been historically and still are regardless of the topology of their networks”
            Funny, how we all speak English here, so we certainly think of the USA as a centre of development more so than Japan or Korea. If Japan won World War 2, you’d probably think differently.
            But wait, didn’t Japan and Korea get much help in the way of assistance from the US after WW2 and the Korean war? Isn’t much of their development influenced by the USA? Isn’t much of the industry and economics tied to the USA?

            “super profit tax? or mining tax?”
            Doubling up there. Trying to confuse the issue at hand are we?

            “Why don’t we have nuclear power plants?”
            We have one already. Or do you not understand why we don’t have more?
            Because the Light and Heavy water reactors that are in common use around the world, operate with potential hazards.

      • Goresh
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:00 am | Permalink |

        “FTTH is the only option and as important as freeways and hospitals.”

        Campbell Newman has shown us how important the coalition believes freeways and hospitals are hre in Queensland.

        Actually, I recall a certain Tony Abbott stripping a billion dollars from hospital funding when he was health minister, after going to the election with a promise of increased funding.

        In fact, Tony’s greatest achievment as a governemnt minister was to reduce the federal share of hospital funding from 50% to just under 40%.

        • Simpleton
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:40 am | Permalink |

          “reduce the federal share of hospital funding from 50% to just under 40%.”

          But then we could point to all the Labor state premiers at the time agreeing to reduce existing taxes in return for GST revenue. But surprise, surprise when they took GST and kept the existing tax revenue…

          Anyway I’m obviously on a different side of the fence to you, I don’t see government funding as a endless free for all. I see it as money collected from the populous and if they spend/waste it the only way to fix things is to either raise taxes or introduce new taxes (flood levy anyone? super profit tax? maybe carbon tax? or mining tax?). Or I guess they could just print more money, lowering the value of your savings. None of which sounds acceptable to me.

          • GongGav
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink |

            “I see it as money collected from the populous and if they spend/waste it the only way to fix things is to either raise taxes or introduce new taxes” — this is a point trying to be corrected by the pro-NBN side. We agree, money collected from the population SHOULDNT be wasted.

            But the money funding the NBN isnt being collected from the population, its being raised through secondary means. So its not funds being collected from the population that is at risk of being wasted.

          • ungulate
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink |

            Hmm.. you’ve definitely got some issues to work through there.. :)

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:35 am | Permalink |

        That is why all these Data Centres are being built in Aust, with the NBN and increasing international capacity ( Undersea fibres are being upgraded around the world to 100Gb, 400GB terminal equipment is available from China and is being used in research links such with CERN etc.

        With the NBN and good usea fibre we can be the Data hub in the Asia Pacific. Now we just need the faster server/drive transfer . SSD has a way to go but will do it, other technologies are developing and by the time the NBN is finished many of these developments will be mainstream and broadband will be catching up to the server farms.
        A Fortuitous serendipity

        • Simpleton
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:46 am | Permalink |

          “With the NBN and good usea fibre we can be the Data hub in the Asia Pacific.”

          If there is a need for such in Asia wouldn’t Korea and Japan be more likely candidates considering they are geographically located closer to the densely populated areas that would benefit from such infrastructure.

          Yet again, seems more about playing with the big boys than economics.

          • ferretzor
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:17 am | Permalink |

            Last I read, economists were saying that the NBN would add a couple of % to Australias GDP.

            You have to take this with a grain of salt though, they are economists after all.

          • tinman_au
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:32 pm | Permalink |

            All your arguments seem to boil down to “It’s all too hard for us, we should just buy it off other people/countries”…

            • Abel Adamski
              Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink |

              tinman_au
              Don’t be hard on him, that is the conservative mindset, they are incapable of thinking any other way

      • Nich
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink |

        “Why don’t we have nuclear power plants?”

        You’re right. Why don’t we? I’d be happy if we sunk NBN-scale funds into nuclear power generating capacity.

      • ungulate
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:30 pm | Permalink |

        “But I’m sure I’m preaching to the deaf, every tech person thinks tax payer funded FTTH is the only option and as important as freeways and hospitals.”

        You’re preaching to the deaf because you can’t get your facts straight.

        The NBN does not compete with freeways and hospitals. Its not funded from tax.

        Even Abbott, who has tried his hardest to convince people like you that it is ordinary spending, has given up on that particular bit of deception.

    46. Goresh
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:48 pm | Permalink |

      “When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”
      – Addison Whithecomb

      Please take note Mr Turnbull.

    47. aNTHONY b truth
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:26 am | Permalink |

      That’s right you see what i been saying about the Liberal Party! They want to short change Average Australian’s with crappy Fiber 2 the node which is not future proof and much slower then Fiber to the Home,
      So Don’t vote Liberal Otherwise this Country will go thru the tubes and then some patriot will have the task of Assassinating/ Bombing this Tony Abbott scumbag after he has cut off welfare,Abolished workers rights to unfair dismissal,made tax cuts to suit the rich and then give themselves undeserving pay rises!

      • kentlfc
        Posted 02/02/2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink |

        This guy should be reported to police or banned at the least !

      • Posted 11/02/2013 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

        Apart from the threat to Abbott directly,
        Everything else he said had merit.

    48. Stupid is as stupid does
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink |

      The only religious element to this whole NBN discussion is the Coalition’s fanatical efforts to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

    49. KingForce
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:50 pm | Permalink |

      Most people here didn’t even bother listening to the interview. ABC interviewer, Sabra Lane asks if an alternative to a government funded fibre rollout to 93% of homes is a “second or even third tiered” solution.

      Of course there are sensible alternatives. This is Turnbull’s point, that we should look dispassionately at the problem and not resort to hyperbole. It’s not a choice between Labour’s government owned monopoly building 93% FTTH for $35 billion or the Coaliton’s seemingly zero solution. Yet this is how some supporters paint the debate.

      For example, from Gillard:

      “It makes clear the choice at the next election, it’ll be a very simple choice, one between broadband or no broadband, we are delivering broadband, Mr Abbott is committed to demolishing the NBN.”
      http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/transcript-joint-press-conference-canberra-21

      If Turnbull is saying some people are saying stupid things then, perhaps, those people should refrain from making stupid comments.

      • midspace
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink |

        “…Turnbull is saying some people are saying stupid things then…”
        I think he’s talking about Abbott.

      • midspace
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:08 pm | Permalink |

        MALCOLM TURNBULL: “Sabra, what I can say to you is that the international experience is that fibre to the node costs between a third and a quarter of fibre to the premises and it takes about a third to a quarter of the time to construct. Now…”

        Well, here is the stupid part. These figures, are based on a full implementation.
        Building a FTTN network out of an existing POTS, compared to building a FTTP.

        Problem is, we will be well past the one quarter mark with the NBN build by the time election is finished and any new party gets into control of government.
        Those time savings will already be gone. Unless you factor out the areas already getting FTTP, which will reduce the overall coverage of the FTTN network.

        This will be the point MT gets excited and jumps up and down around this time next year, and finally gives us an estimate on how much it’ll cost to build a FTTN network, giving us some ridiculous small figure and saying “wow, look how much cheaper than the Labor’s NBN it is!”, when in actuality, this cost only covers the remaining population not already with FTTP running outside.

        • midspace
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:09 pm | Permalink |

          Sorry KingForce. Was not supposed to be a reply to you.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink |

          ” These figures, are based on a full implementation.
          Building a FTTN network out of an existing POTS, compared to building a FTTP.”

          Not only that, but being done by incumbents who own the pits, ducts, conduits, copper. Also the exchange facilities and no break power systems and backhaul and transits and operational systems. Plus that infrastructure has been properly maintained

          So of course it will be cheaper.

          Then the reason why they went the cheaper FTTN solution
          Most face strict regulatory regimes that demands open access at mandated prices, their cheap and nasty upgrade gives them a better ROI and profit in that scenario as the same mandated wholesale prices on FTTH are bad economics for them

    50. TechinBris
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:43 pm | Permalink |

      Technology has absolutely nothing to do with the whole NBN debate. It is all about the control of the flow of information and the protections of financial returns to the Market. Those that control the flow of the information will control the Public. Goebbels taught us all how that is done. Funny that I am seeing all those rules applied ad-infinitum across our media over the last few years with an almost holy fervour.

      A lot of time and effort by the Market to own all avenues of the communications markets in Australia finally came to fruition under the Howard régime. Now comes along the Labor Party and negates that nice little outcome. If you were a person who had invested a lot of time and money into placing yourself in the control of the Media of a country so you could influence the policy outcomes of that nation, would not yourself go to war with those who dare undo your work? Well it has happened and the Public don’t even realise it or if they do, dare not mention it under pain of being labelled a Conspiracy Theorist. Guess what, conspiracy is more common than not in many forms and shapes. We’ve all been part of one.

      The debate has more to do with psychology than technology. The technology side of the debate was closed long ago. It is all about obfuscation of the desires of some very rich and powerful people now to bring about an outcome that any sane informed adult would recoil at. Hence, misinform and repeat it till the people accept it as the truth it isn’t. Old and worn method, but as it has shown, it works so bloody well, why change it. The message will always be simple and clear against a complex reality. People don’t like comfortable view of the world being challenged or made more confusing, so will generally desire to accept the simple answer, even if incorrect.

      So the debate is purely psychological happiness of those with a lot of Money. The Liberals have always foremost shaped their policies around the best outcomes for those avid supporters. Labor general did the same with their backers, until recently. But that is another topic.

    51. tinman_au
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink |

      Dear Malcolm,

      it seems an apt time to inject some insightful and wise words from Monty Python.

      “I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.”

      Now, please continue with Monty Pythons Flying Liberal Circus where you continue to insult and berate 2/3rds of the population, I guess some Liberal bright spark spindoc says it’s a winner for you guys!!

    52. Asmodai
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:52 pm | Permalink |

      @DJOS

      “Nothing like a narro minded simpleton to show just how retarded the LNP mindset really is! :-p”

      Ironic…

      I find it refreshing for a politician to offer an honest opinion rather than the usual butt kissing lip service we see out of Canberra. And after years of being personally pilloried on Whirlpool by people who don’t understand realism or a lack of trust in a politician’s word (BB promise was made prior to the 2007 election.. 5 years ago… take that to a bank… =), I can only /boggle at how the technical community has suddenly developed the most incredible butthurt that Malcolm, who was never going to win most of their votes anyway, dispenses with false civility and calls a spade a spade…

      http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/090/6/9/CRY_SOME_MORE_by_Digicaek.png

      In fact, I’m surprised Renai isn’t more sympathetic after his recent brush with the mob/pitchforks for daring to not be 100% supportive of NBNco, specifically it’s information release methodology… X D

      • djos
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink |

        Im sorry but Malcolm has been either flat out lying or misconstruing the truth about the NBN from day one!

        end of story!

        • midspace
          Posted 04/02/2013 at 11:38 am | Permalink |

          And there is the issue. No matter how many words politicians say, or how many promises they may make, many of them turn out to be lies in the end, or they flat out change their mind.

          What we have right at this instant, is a working broadband policy, which is been rolled out right now by people who understand the technology (not politicians), and we as voters/consumers/average Australians understand exactly what we are getting. There may be doubts about the final cost, and the when it will be finished, but we know what it is and what it will do for us as individuals.

          Malcolm and his party, have only offered us vague information, assurances, and many other words. None of which mean jack, even if he wrote them all down on paper and signed it. Political parties change their mind all the time, and no doubt the LNP will continue to change their mind through the election campaign, and well after it’s finished.

          We need no more crap from the likes of Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott.

          I just got a LNP flyer on the weekend, which had basically the same 3 or 4 themes repeated throughout it a multitude of times.
          There was a good one where Abbott promises to reduce Carbon emissions by… get this, planting more trees.
          Mr Rhodes Scholar Abbott doesn’t seem to understand the difference between net and gross, or intends to trick those who don’t understand the difference. Trees don’t reduce emissions. They only absorb it after the fact. Carbon is still been emitted, and trees take time to grow. And you don’t have to be in government to plant trees Mr Abbott.

    53. kentlfc
      Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:31 pm | Permalink |

      Carbon Emissions????? The black stuff or Carbon Dioxide, a colourless, odourless trace gas that is essential for all plants on Earth? And is responsible for virtually zero rise in temperature.

      One thing I’m guessing on Abbott lying is that if he wins the next election, his government will scrap ALL emissions trading scams……..I mean schemes!

      • Steven
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

        I love the way you make all those claims without bothering with a petty thing called “facts”…

      • tinman_au
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:09 pm | Permalink |

        It’s been known since the 19th century that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, it’s not “new” science.

        What do you think happens to that infra-red radiation once it’s absorbed by the CO2? Hmm?

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink |

        And again…

        Watch it this time kentlfc, because politicians are all the same…

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TybjcDUkU0c

    54. kentlfc
      Posted 05/02/2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink |

      Ah now I see the problem! You guys are getting your Tonys mixed up!

      Tony Winsor the guy that lied to his electorate and told them all he was a conservative…but them sold his #ss to the ALP just so he could get his full pension. And sold his property of to mining interests while at the same time fighting…..ah mining interests. Got the NBN into New England area, where promptly, was it 3 people + some signed up! LOL

      Yeah what a guy!

      @Steven
      Ah maybe you haven’t seen the facts as they stand at the moment where Global Warmi…….I mean Climate Change Alarmists have now conceded that the world has not heated up as they predicted it would!
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#more-77599

      The Earth has been colder before and it’s been hotter before.

      • Steven
        Posted 05/02/2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink |

        LOL, just keep telling yourself that random blogs are a better source of information than those that scientists use.

      • tinman_au
        Posted 05/02/2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink |

        “Told” them he was a conservative??

        Pray tell, is being “a conservative” like being in the army? Do you all have to march in line and follow the same regulations while in uniform? I thought a lot of conservatives, you know, valued freedom, of thought and action?

        From what I’ve seen of him he’s a few notches right of centre (which still makes him conservative), and no where near the wacky end of the spectrum like Tony’s crew.

        As to the climate link, I refer you to http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

        Have a read, it’s interesting stuff…and you never know, you may learn something…

        • kentlfc
          Posted 06/02/2013 at 10:15 am | Permalink |

          the wacky end of the spectrum like Tony’s crew.

          As opposed to the ALP wacky opposite end of the spectrum? A country run by the Green Party with a “former” commi as our PM! (Yes I said it! A commi! Check her history, “oh I just did a bit of typing for them”! Total BS, she was there for years.)

          And sorry I can’t read that site you suggested as Steven said random blogs are no good. Even if scientists DO contribute to them!

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 05/02/2013 at 7:01 pm | Permalink |

        LOOK AGAIN…

        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/31/stupid-quasi-religious-turnbull-slams-fibre-fans/#comment-573581

    55. kentlfc
      Posted 05/02/2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink |

      was it 3 people + some at the Univesity signed up! LOL

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 14/02/2013 at 11:36 am | Permalink |

        You are going to learn a hard lesson, reality is a bitch. Enjoy the journey




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content


  • Six smart secrets for nurturing customer relationships
    [ad] Today, we are experiencing a world where behind every app, every device, and every connection, is a customer. Your customers will demand you to be where they and managing customer relationship is the key to your business’s growth. The question is where do you start? Click here to download six free whitepapers to help you connect with your customers in a whole new way.
  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Hills dumped $18m ERP/CRM rollout for Salesforce.com hills

      According to a blog post published by Salesforce.com today, one of Ted Pretty’s first moves upon taking up managing director role at iconic Australian brand Hills in 2012 was to halt an expensive traditional business software project and call Salesforce.com instead.

    • Dropbox opens Sydney office koalabox

      Cloud computing storage player Dropbox has announced it is opening an office in Sydney, as competition in the local enterprise cloud storage market accelerates.

    • Heartbleed, internal outages: CBA’s horror 24 hours commbankatm

      The Commonwealth Bank’s IT division has suffered something of a nightmare 24 hours, with a catastrophic internal IT outage taking down multiple systems and resulting in physical branches being offline, and the bank separately suffering public opprobrium stemming from contradictory statements it made with respect to potential vulnerabilities stemming from the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug.

    • Android in the enterprise: Three Aussie examples from Samsung androidapple

      Forget iOS and Windows. Today we present three decently sized deployments of Android in the Australian market on Samsung’s hardware, which the Korean vendor has dug up from its archives over the past several years for us after a little prompting :)

    • Businesslink cancelled Office 365 rollout cancelled

      Microsoft has been on a bit of a tear recently in Australia with its cloud-based Office 365 platform, signing up major customers such as the Queensland Government, Qantas, V8 Supercars and rental chain Mr Rental. And it’s not hard to see why, with the platform’s hybrid cloud/traditional deployment model giving customers substantial options. However, as iTNews reported last week, it hasn’t been all plain sailing for Redmond in this arena.

    • Qld Govt inks $26.5m deal for Office 365 walker

      The Queensland State Government yesterday announced it had signed a $26.5 million deal with Microsoft which will gain the state access to Microsoft’s Office 365 software and services platform. However, with the deal not covering operating system licences and not being mandatory for departments and agencies, it remains unclear what its impact will be.

    • Hospital IT booking system ‘putting lives at risk’ doctor

      A new IT booking platform at the Austin Hospital and Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Melbourne is reportedly placing the welfare of patients with serious conditions at risk.

    • Bailey quits Macquarie for non-profit COO role marc-bailey

      Long-time Macquarie University chief information officer Marc Bailey has left the educational institution to join non-profit group Intersect, which focuses on applying advanced ICT technologies to the practice of research.

    • Finally some action on Windows Azure in Australia ballmer-cloud

      Remember when software giant Microsoft made a big deal back in May 2013 about how it was going to launch two new Australian datacentres for its Windows Azure cloud computing service? At the time it seemed as though the company’s plans were quite advanced and that we’d be seeing Australia-based Azure in short order. Well, almost a year has come and gone since that time and Microsoft has so far failed to deliver. The latest blip of news on the cloud front from the company comes in an article published by The Australian newspaper this morning.

    • IBM inks cloud ERP deal with Coca-Cola Amatil coke1

      Global technology giant IBM this morning revealed it had signed a five-year, multi-million-dollar deal with Coca-Cola Amatil which will see the beverage company’s revamped enterprise resource planning operations hosted out of an IBM datacentre located in Sydney.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Apr 15, 2014 16:24 - 0 Comments

    Hills dumped $18m ERP/CRM rollout for Salesforce.com

    More In Enterprise IT


    News, Telecommunications - Apr 16, 2014 11:46 - 38 Comments

    CBN FTTN test shows speeds of 105Mbps

    More In Telecommunications


    Industry, News - Apr 15, 2014 15:54 - 3 Comments

    Hackett takes 40 percent UltraServe stake

    More In Industry


    Analysis, Digital Rights - Apr 14, 2014 9:40 - 7 Comments

    NAB’s Bitcoin ban a symptom of the digital currency threat

    More In Digital Rights