$94 billion not the worst Labor NBN case: Turnbull


news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has responded to the claim that the Coalition is misrepresenting its own estimates of the cost of Labor’s NBN policy, stating that the $94 billion figure being cited is not a ‘worst case scenario’, with the Coalition estimating that Labor’s NBN could actually cost more than $100 billion and take 20 years to deliver.

On Tuesday this week the Coalition published its long-awaited rival NBN policy. The policy promises Australians download speeds of between 25Mbps and 100Mbps by the end of 2016 and 50Mbps to 100Mbps by the end of 2019, at a projected reduced total cost of $29.5 billion. Unlike Labor’s NBN project, it will make extensive use of fibre to the node technology (where fibre is rolled out to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ and much of the existing copper network is maintained), but will also utilise fibre to the premise, satellite and fixed wireless solutions in some areas.

One of the key tenets of the Coalition’s statements over the past week has been the claim that Labor’s NBN project will cost dramatically more than Labor believes it will. Currrent projections place the cost of Labor’s NBN vision at around $40 billion. However, the Coalition has published a background briefing policy document (PDF) which claims the real cost could be up to $94 billion.

In the document, the $94 billion figure represents a case where multiple variables go wrong. The Coalition states that for the $94 billion figure to eventuate, a number of conditions must all be met simultaneously: NBN Co’s revenue must grow much slower than currently forecast, construction costs must be significantly higher than currently forecast, more households must pick wireless alternatives than is currently forecast, and the NBN must take 50 per cent longer to build (an extra five years) than currently forecast. In addition, the Coalition’s policy document also contains a range of other estimates for the cost of Labor’s NBN, starting at around $45 billion and ranging upwards.

However, despite the fact that the Coalition’s policy document contains a range of cases, over the past week senior Coalition figures such as Shadow Communications Minister Turnbull and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott have referred only to the $94 billion figure, stating that this is the figure that “will” eventuate under Labor’s NBN.

This has led to some independent commentators, such as the writer of this article, to allege the Coalition of consciously misrepresenting its own estimates about Labor’s NBN project. In addition, Labor figures such as Communications Minister Stephen Conroy have accused the Coalition of “lying” about the cost of Labor’s NBN and of “concocting” financial figures.

In a statement published on his website this morning, Turnbull responded to the allegations. “As for Labor’s plan, we modelled some very realistic assumptions of the NBN rollout so far against the fantasy figures in its corporate plan to show funding costs could easily skyrocket to $94 billion,” the Shadow Communications Minister wrote.

Turnbull then went through the series of assumptions which the Coalition has made, in order to come up with the $94 billion figure.

“The NBN has missed every rollout target it has set for itself. So is it so unrealistic to assume the rollout won’t be complete until 2025, four years late?” the Liberal MP asked. “We also modelled NBN revenues. NBN Co assumes it can increase broadband access revenues by 9.2 per cent a year in real terms, and in doing so increase the share of household income devoted to fixed-line telecoms by 60-70 per cent. Our more realistic assumption (shared by independent telecoms analysts) is that its share of the wallet will stay constant.”

“We modelled the percentage of wireless-only households rising to 25 per cent rather than the 16 per cent assumed by NBN Co – reflecting the fact last year the number of wireless broadband accounts in Australia for the first time exceeded the number of fixed broadband accounts. And we modelled that the cost of passing each house with fibre would be 40 per cent higher than the NBN had estimated, to bring it more in line with independent analysts’ forecasts and the on-the-ground experience of Telstra’s fibre rollout in South Brisbane.”

“Our assumptions that led to the $94bn cost are far from a “worst-case” scenario; in reality the final cost could easily exceed $100bn and the rollout take 20 years to complete.”

Turnbull said that according to Labor’s “delusionally optimistic forecasts”, the downside of its NBN approach was clear.

“The NBN’s corporate plan admits Labor intends to triple wholesale charges across the next decade,” he wrote. “That means the retail price for broadband will increase to at least $90 a month on average by 2021 for someone hooking up to the NBN. Given the Coalition’s more efficient and targeted investment, we have modelled that the average household will pay at most $66 a month – saving about $300 a year against Labor’s plan. If anything, this vastly understates the gap.”

However, in his defence of the Coalition’s financial estimates, again Turnbull did not go into the detail of the Coalition’s background briefing document. The document itself states, for example, that it is not yet clear whether the Coalition’s assumptions about wireless adoption compared to fixed broadband adoption will be accurate.

“None of the replacement assumptions described in the proceeding section are unreasonable,” the document notes. “In three of the four cases they arguably offer a significantly better representation of likely reality than NBN Co’s existing overly optimistic forecasts. A possible exception is the sharply higher rate of wireless‐only households, given it is too early to be certain next‐generation wireless will be the threat to fixed line broadband that some industry experts believe.”

In addition, other aspects of the Coalition’s analysis are not conclusive. For example, the background briefing document notes that NBN Co has disclosed that its early customers are showing “a greater tendency to choose or move to higher speed (and higher cost) plans than expected”. NBN Co announced in October 2012 that 44 percent of early adopters of the network were taking its highest speed plans at 100Mbps.

However, the Coalition’s document rejects this early evidence from NBN Co, stating that the claim that higher usage of Labor’s NBN would eventuate was “based on a relatively narrow base of evidence”, and that “a more realistic assumption” could be made about revenue growth.

In a further example, using a single source (a research report issued by Macquarie Bank’s equities division in January this year), the Coalition suggested in its document that the average capital expenditure cost for Labor’s fibre connections would be about $4,000. However, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy stated yesterday that the true cost was closer to $2,400, casting doubt upon the Coalition’s figures.

It is also not clear whether the Coalition’s claim that Australians will be paying “at least 90 a month” on average to access the NBN in the long-term are accurate. NBN retail plans are currently available starting at around $30 a month, and that NBN Co has given long-term price commitments to the competition regulator, the ACCC, to ensure broadband prices cannot balloon out.

Yesterday I made the somewhat audacious claim that Turnbull was “lying” — consciously misleading the public — with respect to the Coalition’s own estimates about the cost of Labor’s National Broadband Network policy. I made that claim after I had published an earlier article demonstrating that the Coalition’s own background briefing document does not conclusively show that the cost of Labor’s NBN policy will definitely be $94 billion. That is one possibility included in the document — but not the only possibility.

Turnbull is clearly aware now that the credibility of the $94 billion figure is in question and is attempting to provide further background to justify it. I applaud this attempt to respond to the debate on the issue. However, to my mind, his statements today have unfortunately only added to the issue of credibility around this already highly contested figure, and have raised questions about Turnbull’s knowledge of the Coalition’s own research.

For example, how does the Liberal MP account for the fact that the Coalition’s background briefing document clearly states that “it is too early to be certain next‐generation wireless will be the threat to fixed line broadband that some industry experts believe”, calling into question one of the Coalition’s four key assumptions which went into compiling the $43 billion figure?

Secondly, how does Turnbull account for the fact that that same background briefing document clearly acknowledges the higher than expected uptake of the highest-speed NBN fibre broadband plans? Why does the background briefing document dismiss that evidence as being based on “a relatively narrow base of evidence”, when it is in fact the only evidence which Australia’s NBN project currently has? It’s worth noting that survey data seeking the views of Australians on the issue of what speeds they would prefer to connect to the NBN also backs up this demand for higher-level speeds; a recent survey showed 85 percent of Australians wanted speeds of 50Mbps or higher.

Yesterday I had believed that Turnbull was highly aware of the contents of the Coalition’s background briefing document in these areas and was consciously misrepresenting the $94 billion figure. Today I still believe there is an element of that, but I am also starting to suspect that the Member for Wentworth hasn’t gone through the document with as fine tooth a comb as he probably should have. If you believe its assumptions and regard its short list of references as credible, the document clearly shows that the $94 billion figure is a possibility in terms of costing Labor’s NBN — but not the only possibility. And the document itself acknowledges the possible shortcomings of its analysis. It’s time senior Coalition figures such as Turnbull did too, instead of stating that the $94 billion cost “will” definitely come to pass.

One further question … where did Turnbull source the “more than $100 billion, 20 years” allegation from? I haven’t been able to find a basis for these figures in the Coalition’s background briefing document. These figures, also, need to be checked to see what their background rationale is.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull, Wikipedia user DAEaton (Creative Commons)


  1. $94b isn’t the absolute worst case that his background document suggests, but it certainly earns the title as a worst case.

    It’s near the far end of the bell curve, even the more conservative bell curve Turnbull is pushing.

    How can we get an even worse case? I’ll drop the ARPU below the growth in economy, assume even more people will move to wireless, assume even Macquire was being optimistic in their CAPEX estimate, and finally add another few years to the rollout.

    There we go, it’ll cost in excess of $100b and take 20 years. Done.

    Does that make Turnbull original claim reasonable? Hell no. He just showed you can move further up the bell curve.

  2. It probably should be pointed out that Turnball is only talking about the initial rollout cost, not the outgoing maintenance and operations costs, of which FTTN will be higher.

  3. Will Lib/nats plan new rail lines be built to metre gauge a lot cheaper option but less useful .We need high speed fibre to the home . Perhaps Tony needs to do some work to understand broadband .

  4. I’m not sure of the exact figures but I would love to see Delimiter do a worst case scenario estimate for the LNP broadband plan using similar assumptions as those 4 detailed in the LNP background document. I think the total would come very close to being 90 odd billion.

    • Hear, hear!

      The whole point of putting a costing on a policy is to enable an apples-to-apples comparison.

    • Given that the LNP policy for FTTN is very close to the already finished Chorus FTTN rollout in New Zealand… why not just take the NZ figures and multiply them up for Australia?

      • An interesting discovery on the Chorus website… they state “VDSL2 can run from the local telephone exchange or cabinet but only over short distances (≈ 750m). It allows customers who are on very short lines (dependant on attenuation and copper line quality) a significantly faster broadband experience than ADSL2+.” from a company that is already connecting people so has real experience. So the density of nodes to ‘guarantee a minimum of 25Mbps’ is going to be extremely high.

    • Heres one… let’s do a “best case scenario” based on NBN Co’s current actual premises passed numbers.

      100,000 actually passed when they predicted over 320,000 in the second business plan and 1,268,000 in the original.

      Thats gotta change the numbers.

  5. But really.. who cares.
    Even if it’s $100bill and 20 years, that’s 20 years earlier and the same cost as the proposed Mel to Syd high speed railway link that has popped back up this week. And which of the two projects do you honestly think has the higher probability of increasing our national productivity rates and raising GDP?

    Take the worst case of 40 years and $100bill. That’s $5bil a year. We spend $130bill a year on social welfare. It’s peanuts really.

    • Why don’t you astroturfers go and play in some kid’s sandbox where you belong.

      It is too hard for me to find out whether you are paid by the terrified media mogul or some political twerp.

  6. With the latest news Turnbull has announced Labors NBN to put Australia ahead of America in total Dept, with overwhelming evidence to support his claim we now must face the task of finding a suitable buyer for Australia. Conroy will be tried and shot for his crimes against the Australian people.

    And in other news bingo at 7pm at the local pub.

    • Wow, in the months leading up to an election, an LNP member says that Labor’s plan will blow out. Who saw that coming?

      If you stop to think for just a moment, the evidence is far from overwhelming – in fact it is almost completely absent. Rather than ignoring what you don’t want to hear, why don’t you do a little more research into the merits and gritty details of both NBN proposals?

  7. The Coalition’s NBN Policy will cost more in the long term than labours plan. File cable requires less maintenance than continently patching up redundant coper lines. Short cutting Australia will cost cost jobs in the future.

  8. Malcolms Playbook

    When confronted by irrefutable evidence ………… LIE
    After initial lie is questioned ……………….. Tell a larger LIE

  9. Hasn’t anyone figured out though that the conditions for this supposed ‘worst case scenario’ if they ever did eventuate, would be also true for the coalition and their policy. Meaning their 30 billion would blow out to an almost identical percentage and arrive at around $70-80 billion.

    In fact I would suggest that the blow outs could be WORSE and more likely under the Liberal plan as the service is so pathetic Wireless actually might be a competitor to it!

    • Actually I did in an arguement with GT. One of the key points was because if their assumption of 3.3% growth of ARPU proves true they’re in a lot of risk of not actually making a strong ROI with the Coalition project either.

      • From the LNP Background Document:

        As can be seen, holding revenue per user constant as a share of GDP (equivalent to annual growth of 3.5 per cent in inflation‐adjusted terms) adds $8.3 billion to required funding for Labor’s NBN. This is the same revenue assumption used in modelling a Coalition NBN.

        NBN Co’s forecasts are very sensitive to FTTP costs, which dominate capex.  Assuming fibre capex of $3600/FTTP premise in established areas adds $12.9 billion to funding needs and capex. This emphasizes the need for NBN Co transparency on these costs. In modelling the Coalition NBN, FTTP costs to 2014 are also assumed to be $3600/premise.

        • Yes, I can read. Can you?

          I didn’t say the Coalition won’t make a ROI, just that’ll be a weak one. Their plan works with a weaker ROI, so that’s okay, but if this prediction proves true it brings into question the notion that Broadband drives economic growth, the very assumption which both policies use to justify such drastic intervention.

          If the Coalition really believe ARPU, which is linked to the perceived value of the service in customers eyes, is in such dire circumstances, why are they throwing $30b at the problem, because that is most definitely not a conservative response. The only reason I can think of is to secure votes.

      • And I should add:

        the fact that they employed the same assumptions to model their policy and arrive at the $29b figure just goes to show they are modelling a central case scenario, and not a worst case scenario.

        You might not like their central case scenario, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is the modelled scenario in “Coalition research”, and Malcolm has not “misrepresented” it or told any “lie about Coalition research”.

          • All four assumptions.

            Two (ARPU and FTTP cost) explicitly stated above.

            The third adjustment to lengthen the build period of Labor’s NBN is obviously inapplicable to Coalition model because they would have adopted a realistic build period in the first place.

            (It would be absurd to say “it takes X years to build our NBN” and then on a subsequent page add “we also add another Y years to our X estimate because the X stated on the prior page is unrealistic.) <—— I'm being this pedantic in stating the obvious to foreclose any attempt on your part to distort and spin more nonsense.

            As for the wireless assumption, show me evidence that their costing adopts a different assumption than the one they employed to model Labor policy.

          • No, it doesn’t work like that.

            I explained to you that the capital assumption cost for FTTP was skewed by selecting the higher of two reputable estimates, the fact they use this in their cost modelling is immaterial because they are reducing the roll-out scope of FTTP which directly affects the economics on scale and assumptions associated with that..

            The wireless assumption I broadly agreed with and the rollout timeframe they provided no evidence.

            So of the four, the one which you can apply to both equally is only ARPU, or, “Are users willing to put more money into Broadband for faster speeds?”

            From that it might be the central case scenario for their roll-out, or close enough to it, but it is not the central case scenario for the NBN project based upon the evidence they provided in the background document.

            Further, as I have stated before, I believe you are truly naive if you think Turnbull would openly admit that he was picking a worst case scenario with the NBN in order to make his plan look better.

        • Yes there is always an excuse to accept second best, especially when it is from “our” party eh Tosh, oops I mean God’s Truth?


  10. ” where did Turnbull source the “more than $100 billion, 20 years” allegation from? ”

    His ass?

  11. Q for M Turnball, Is the liberals going to replace all the copper lines in Australia. As that is what it will take for the liberal plans to just even work.
    Current last mile infrastructure has to be replaced as its well past its use by date by at least a decade.
    My own circumstance alone, I can not get 24mbit, yet I am only 750 metres from the exchange due to the failing copper. And YES with MY equipment/cabling I should be able to hit 24mbit.

  12. With Malcolm’s policy, Telstra will be free to compete with his ‘NoNBN’
    Where are the risks documented that Telstra will just overbuild with FTTP. Sorry Malcolm, your policy is a dud

    • Hmmm….this is a good point actually.

      I’ve read the policy, but the section on competition isn’t very clear. Do we know if the Coalition will remove the ban on other networks being built?

      If they do, you can kiss ANY hope of NBNCo. ever making a return., goodbye. Telstra will overbuild with FTTH faster than you can say “monopoly please” in the cities with their ducts payout being given to them even quicker.

      • MT has said many times that it was unfair that companies were unable to compete by building their own networks with the current NBN. The oppositions plan would Need this to continue to stand a chance at getting any customers or making money. Just one of the back flips in their plan.

    • Egats! How dreadful if consumers had two choices… wha… wha… what would we do with more than one choice?

      I’m sure if Telstra decides to roll up sleeves and overbuild FTTP, then Turnbull will shake their hand and thank them for a job well done. Some customers will no doubt stick with the cheaper FTTN, others will buy Telstra’s FTTP product (just like they already do buy Telstra’s FTTP product right now).

      The objective of the government is not to prove it can outdo all private operators. I hope you understand that.

      Australia is not a Socialist nation, and hopefully we keep the freedom that we have.

      • Tel: What will then happen is that the money the Australian Government has put into their new version of NBNco will be lost as the company is not profitable. Thus, when those bonds raised to fund NBNco mature, the taxpayer will be liable for repaying them. Especially as NBNco is currently not allowed to increase its wholesale prices until 2015, and then only by half inflation. So they can’t raise their prices to cover the costs.

        Meanwhile Telstra will jack their prices up to cover those missing few customers that remain on FTTN, continuing to gouge their customers than either can’t get decent FTTN speeds or require the speeds FTTP brings.

        It’s also be great if the media would stop using Average Revenue Per Customer as if it’s a retail or even a wholesale price and that lower ARPU is better. Lower ARPU means less profitable. It means that the network doesn’t have the high end users like businesses paying for 1000/400 for about $200-300 wholesale (while still saving a mint compared to Telstra prices) to increase the average revenue.

  13. FUD me up Scotty!!!……or is that Malky???

    Malcolm Turnbull….you are now unequivocally a disgrace.

    People will not forget your hatchet job on Australia’s telecommunications future.

    One can only hope your joke doesn’t become a reality.

  14. Once you calculate TCO including Telstra compensation, copper remediation, copper maintenance, electricity connection and costs for the nodes, town planning for the nodes etc, the BEST case scenario for FTTN comes in around $70 billion by the time it is complete.

    Any of the contingencies that would push up FTTP costs and roll out times can be applied to FTTN so I can’t see how FTTN could be a cheaper TCO under ANY scenario.

    • Has anyone seen the proposed specification for one of these nodes? What do they do for backup power? Is all the equipment inside industrial temperature rated or do they actively cool the boxes? Power and cooling (or if there is no cooling, additional equipment cost) will make a big difference to the initial and ongoing costs of their system.

    • I just had a look at NZ FTTN cabinets… http://lit.powerware.com/ll_download_bylitcode.asp?doc_id=8233
      These are cooled with a bunch of DC fans (IMHO an huge point of failure for the system- fans don’t last long ‘in the wild’). They claim 1300W internal power consumption will only cause a 10 degree ambient temp rise inside the cabinet. Well, if the outside air temp is already 45 degrees (as it will be in many places these things are installed – ambient heat from roads will increase the air temp near many of these installations) the internal temp will reach 55 degrees… battery life will be seriously reduced if these temperatures are maintained. All equipment will need to be industrial temp rated to offer any chance of decent service life. Way too much to go wrong for my liking.
      PS – I design roadside communications electronic products and have to deal with all these issues regularly.

  15. MT is making such wild claims due to the word “cap” being missing from ALP’s NBN pricing. MT is therefore stating his plan is capped at $30 billion, and if there are any cost blow outs then people will miss out on any telecommunications upgrade unless they pay. MT has ignored that the government will not be paying for the entire fibre NBN only 2/3 of it (based on original cost projections), the rest made by issuing NBN bonds

  16. Irrespective of the merits of both plans the following will apply.
    I’ve no doubt Labour NBN will be double + the price and triple + the time.
    but so will the Coalitions NBN if not more.
    After all they are politions.

    • Ivan I think we could all agree thats a very accurate prediction. But in the end there are only two choices for either government

      1 – do absolutely nothing
      2 – Spend big on a massive infrastructure project

      Number one isnt an option leaving only number 2. So just ask yourself after spending a a bucket load of money – what would you rather have? An outdated completely inadequate patchwork mess or a future proof state of the art fiber network that will see us well served for the next 30-40 years?

  17. “The NBN’s corporate plan admits Labor intends to triple wholesale charges across the next decade,” he wrote. “That means the retail price for broadband will increase to at least $90 a month on average by 2021 for someone hooking up to the NBN. ”

    Is this not a lie?
    Firstly, it’s ARPU that they plan to increase, not wholesale charges in general. They plan to sell additional sevices, not jack-up the prices of existing ones.
    Secondly, the conclusion does not directly result from the premise as was stated. Largely because of the false implication that retailers will only sell ‘broadband’.
    In addition, he’s mixing his examples in using a minimum average of $90 and then referring to a single person hooking up to the NBN. He’s misleadingly implying a $90 minimum monthly cost for ‘someone’ to connect.
    I’d also wager that the word ‘admits’ is deliberately used to add connotations of guilt. It sickens me.

    It seems to me that MT is relying on a narrative of ‘broadband only’ because it fits better with assertion that FTTH is unnecessary. It allows him to ignore benefitial externalities. It allows him to restrict modelling of NBN Co’s revenues to the current broadband market. And it allows him ignore upload speeds and other technical considerations beyond the headline download bandwidth. Considerations that are subtle enough to confuse your average citizen.

    There is a saying ascribed to Einstein “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

  18. There is need of a CBA done on Malcolm’s Broadband Policy in the light of the “false” costings on the NBN.

    The whole document is a sham.

  19. Gordon,

    The targets are that, assumptions, they do not include and will never include the condition of external factors.

    FTTN will have the same issue.

    • @ Daniel

      FTTN will have the same issue.

      Exactly if Turnbull reckons the Labor NBN will cost upwards of $94bn so will the coalitions crappier version.

      The only difference being that with Labor at least you will get 100/40 with MT’s version you get a tin can and piece of string at 25/1 if you are lucky. It that doesn’t suit you for another 5K or so you can get some fiber for yourself.

      BTW Renai you really need to update your turdbull pic collection. I mean pictures with Brendan Nelson – come on…

  20. Sadly, neither party has a workable plan. The LNP’s plan is cheap and I mean that with respect to its quality, not its price.

    Labour’s NBN on the other hand is a fine ideal as an end point, but has a high risk of blowing its budget and being delivered late. That is something that could be been seen before it started, was seen before it started (although those who saw it tended to be shot down as being just anti-NBN rather than having the questions addressed), and has now come to fruition. Put simply, there are not enough qualified optical fibre installers in this country to undertake such a mammoth task simply because we have never undertaken a job of this size before and didn’t need them. We could train more, but what do they do when the project is over? Although NBN Co has engaged external contractors, it doesn’t automatically follow that those contractors have the staff. They are often too blinded by the number on the cheque. The result is contractor after contractor failing to meet deadlines, costs escalating as they try to train additional staff once the reality hits, find ways to inject the cost onto the inevitable scope creep, and the whole thing drags out as the costs escalate. This sort of thing happens time and time again, and it is surprising that no one bothers to take it into account. It’s not nice, but it is reality.

    FTTN is a short term technology. Short term technologies do have one big advantage – they are great for fixing short term problems.

    Australia has two problems. We need a FTTP network long term. We also have a lot of people who are still stuck on dial-up or near dial-up speeds today. Decent Internet is becoming a basic requirement like water and electricity. Can these people really afford to wait a decade for the gold-plated FTTP solution to eventually roll by?

    I believe the situation must be treated as two distinct problems. We need to have FTTP as a long term goal but also focus our attention on those who are out in the wilderness today, both literally and metaphorically. If someone has access to HFC, that will have to do for the time being – we’ll get to you later. If you are in a new estate or your copper is no good, you get FTTP. To be fair, I must acknowledge that this is part of the LNP policy. If you have good copper but no broadband because of a PGS, long distance to the exchange, or some other reason, put in FTTN as a short term fix. Sure the box of electronics will eventually get junked when the FTTP rolls through later, but what is the normal life expectancy of electronic equipment anyway? Anyone who needs FTTP right now could have it, but they will have to pay for it.

    This would get broadband to more people quicker than the existing NBN. It would delay universal (well 93%) FTTP a bit, but attempting to do FTTP in one go is hardly running to schedule anyway. Cost is an interesting one. Yes, you have to throw away the nodes themselves, but what is the cost impact of employing people with a skill set that is in short supply? If you want an answer from experience, ask the mining industry. When FTTP does roll out, it can be done at a pace that better matches the skills available. You are not employing in a ‘seller’s market’. It also has the advantage that when they come to install the NTD in your house, they will be more accepting of putting it somewhere convenient to you rather than in the middle of your lounge room wall just because it is opposite the PCD outside.

  21. It’s not about assuming nothing can go wrong with FttP, it’s about comparing like for like. If you’re going to assume worst case for FttP you have to do the same for FttN, not do what Turnbull is doing and spread the $94 billion as fact while pretending his own policy will go perfectly including the crazy assumption that Telstra will hand over their copper network for free.

  22. Hey everyone, it’s gotten a little feral on here over the weekend, so I’m closing the NBN threads for now. I’ll re-open new NBN threads on Monday after everyone’s had a bit of a chance to calm down. If you want to continue to debate this stuff right now, there’s always the forums.


    Editor + Publisher, Delimiter

Comments are closed.