“Mostly false”:
Politifact disputes Labor’s $5k NBN fibre claim

198

false

news The Australian version of pioneering US fact-checking website Politifact has given a “mostly false” rating to Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s National Broadband Network policy will see Australians charged $5,000 for access to fibre broadband infrastructure, in one of the site’s first fact-checks on the Australian political arena after its launch this week.

The claim has been repeatedly made by a number of senior Labor politicians over the past month since the Coalition’s alternative NBN policy was unveiled in mid-April. Its basis is the fact that, as in the UK with BT’s own national fibre to the node rollout, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has held out the possibility that Australians connected to the Coalition’s proposed fibre to the node-based NBN infrastructure would be able to pay a fee to be able to have fibre extended all the way to their premises.

For example, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy told the ABC on April 8: “What you have here today is another classic effort by the Coalition to try and hide the facts of their own policy. Malcolm Turnbull wants to charge Australians up to $5,000 per home to connect to the National Broadband Network. That’s what he wants to do. He wants Australian kids to be able to miss out on the best possible educational opportunities because they can’t afford the $5,000 the Coalition will charge.”

Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has previously sharply criticised the Labor claims. It is true that the Coalition is envisaging that users will be able to pay a fee to have fibre extended all the way to their premises, but it is also likely that only a small percentage of end users comparatively will initially request this service, given the fact that the Coalition’s FTTN plan will deliver speeds of between 25Mbps and 100Mbps by the end of 2016 to most Australians by the end of 2016.

“Labor’s reference to paying for a connection is classic spin,” said Turnbull in a statement earlier this month. “While we anticipate that for the vast majority of consumers in the areas serviced by FTTN the speeds offered will be more than adequate – most at 50 mbps or more, none less than 25 mbps – there is the technical possibility to run fibre to one or more customers in an area served by a node. In the UK this product, known as “fibre on demand” is made available for a fee. For a customer living 500 metres from a node, for example, the charge is GBP1500 or about $2,250.”

“Note that under our policy schools, hospitals, universities and anywhere that fibre is commercially justifiable will be connected to fibre, including Greenfield estates and business districts. FTTN is primarily a solution for cost effective service in residential areas. There will be no fee payable to the NBN Co to have a connection made possible there either.”

Politifact is a pioneering US-based website which has won awards for its approach of fact-checking major political statements. It uses a scale to rate politicians’ statements, ranging from “true” to “mostly true”, “half true”, “mostly false”, “false”. There are also other ratings such as “flip flop”. The most extreme rating is given to politicians who make ridiculous claims which cannot be supported by evidence, which Politifact rates as “Pants on Fire!”.

In Australia, the Politifact name has been licensed to a new site launched this week by former Sydney Morning Herald editor-in-chief and Sydney University professor in media and politics Peter Fray, along with a number of other journalist figures.

In one of its first articles this week, Politifact Australia used a number of sources to judge the $5,000 claim, using one particular example given by Prime Minister Julia Gillard. It concluded the claim was “mostly false”, due to the fact that Gillard’s wording stated the cost was actually $5,000 per premise, and that it also implied that those who did not pay $5,000 would not be connected to the Coalition’s NBN broadband infrastructure at all. In fact, they will be.

Politifact’s analysis of the situation matches a similar fact-checking exercise conducted by Delimiter earlier this month, based on comments made by Turnbull about the situation. Delimiter’s article stated, in the opinion/analysis section:

“Turnbull’s right — Labor MPs are currently out there making a number of misleading statements about the Coalition’s NBN policy. The $5,000 claim for getting fibre connected to your premises is being made constantly now, and I can’t even be bothered counting or reporting the number of times it’s being made. Put into context, this claim can be justified, but when you consider the fact that most of the population will doubtless be content to remain on fibre to the node instead of paying to upgrade, and that many Labor MPs are not putting the claim into the necessary context, it constitutes a misleading allegation.”

opinion/analysis
I like Politifact’s “mostly false” rating on the $5,000 claim which Labor has been throwing around recently. As many Delimiter readers have pointed out recently, there is some basis to the claim, in that the BT experience does show that some Australians could pay several thousand dollars to have fibre rolled all the way to their premises under the Coalition’s FTTN policy. However, it’s also clear that the way Labor is making this claim is often devoid of context and insight into the situation — it’s become a sound bite which is mostly false.

I’m sure that hundreds of readers will now jump on to the Delimiter comments with a thousand arguments demonstrating how both Politifact and Delimiter have gotten this one wrong — after all, it’s not as if the people writing for these sites are technical experts; we’re just journalists with dozens of cumulative years fact-checking political statements. This is something I think I am going to have to get used to whenever I write any article which even mildly points out how the Coalition has gotten something right when it comes to the NBN. But perhaps that’s just the price for telling the truth that many people don’t want to hear; nobody ever said that journalism was an easy career. Just so we’re clear ahead of time: You insult me or claim I’m a Coalition stooge in the comments below this article, you get banned for a month. Keep it polite, people — I do like to promote open discussion on Delimiter, but my patience is limited ;)

If you are unaware, Delimiter has a comments policy: I recommend you read it before you consider commenting on this article.

198 COMMENTS

    • Just to clarify, this is a completely different situation, Adam. This individual would be covered by either wireless or satellite, and requires 1.3km of fibre extension. This is not similar to the $5,000 claim being discussed in this article at all.

      • Renai

        These are actual NBN cost for what turnbull describes as “NBN on demand”. Nobody in the media seems to pointing to this example where at most had quoted the cost being $150000

        I am 170m from an NBN cabinet atm. How much do you reckon it will cost?
        Roughtly 243m if you take into account the street path

        • Up in Cooroy in Queensland they have had fibre running through the streets for years and no domestic premises have hooked up to it because its too expensive.

        • “These are actual NBN cost for what turnbull describes as “NBN on demand”.”

          No, this is not what Turnbull refers to as fibre on demand. To get that, you need to be in a FTTN area — NOT in a wireless/satellite area. In wireless/satellite areas the cost of getting fibre becomes ridiculous — hence the $150k sum you referred to.

          I’m sorry, but try and make this point again in this thread, and I will ban you for a month. You’re not making any sense, mate. Fibre on demand is a FTTN extension — not for wireless or satellite areas.

          • So Turnbull draws a line in the sand and says, ‘that’s a wireless area”, and suddenly no one living there could reasonably expect fibre broadband? You have a lot of faith in Turnbull’s competence and honesty it seems. Personally I trust either his competence or motivations (Murdoch et al have huge power thanks to their control of media; threatened by faster Internet speeds up and down.)

        • For a normal PtoP fibre link that would cost a business about $60,000 – unfortunately the Libs have not provided any meaningful detail on how much fibre extensions system will really work (they dont know either it would seem).

      • I could provide you with a quote from 08/2011 from a local ISP to run a fibre connection 300 meters into our building for a 60/6Mb connection cost $5300. so I think that the Labour polies quoting $5k for 4 to 500mtr connection would probably be under what we will be charged.

    • And we will pay billions mainly to allow people to play online games and download movies?
      What a waste of time , money and material

      • Ian, I can do both now without the benefit of FTTP or FTTN. If that was the only perk of High-Speed Broadband why would the rest of the world, including the USA, China, New Zealand and Korea be spending like crazy to ensure faster internet access.

        Maybe if you open your eyes and look at the trends in data usage and what is going on around you, you will see that faster internet is not a necessity of life, but is forecast to be a necessity of any future digital economy.

        • You forgot to mention France where Mr Broadband has invested his own cash, its a shame he isnt willing to invest our countries cash in the same technology

      • And so my company
        * Can look up real time pricing and availability from supplier lists (which currently on the fasted ADSL available constantly crashes)
        * So our website updates take far less time (current upload takes about 1hr across 3 websites. 1/2 a day using max upload bandwidth).
        * So our applications in development will be viable (without trade secrets, one is to remotely monitor and report industrial machinery, the other is to video monitor real time mining faces and other areas).

        People seem to have this crazy notion that the NBN is just for homes and just for pirated movies. Well, I work for a large company that predominatly works in the mining sector and the NBN would change our company in at least 1/2 a dozen ways currently, and allow for about another 1/2 a dozen advances that we’re working on implementing.

        I’d love it if people stop thinking about the public joe blow end user and start thinking about how fantastic a NBN will be for business.

        • Just to balance the “You should get out more Ian…” you might need to do some lookups of the US internet usage figures. They are very revealing.

          Streaming is estimated to be runing between 50% and 75% of peak usage. Netflix alone now makes up between 30 and 40% of the peak internet traffic in the states and slightly less during non-peak periods. Add in the other similar operations (including lots of more dubious multi-media downloads), other non-streaming social media/app/games activity and you get the 50% to 75% figure.

          This is a country that hosts a lot of significant internationally served CIT enterprises and services which,I dare say, has a significantly higher ratio to any equivalent operations in Australia. So to crowd these enterprises into as little as 35% (most estimate 25% during peak) of internet usage is significant.

          Netflix is rumoured to be looking at Aus as a new market.

  1. It will be interesting to see what they say about most of Malcolm’s claims about his Broadband policy.

    I encourage Delimiter readers to submit some of the more ridiculous ones.

      • Will you be submitting any Renai?

        Glad to see that you are interested in both sides having their claims tested. Have the screams of Liberal bias been a bit loud in the last week? ;P

        • I can do my own fact-checking. And yes, I have been very disappointed at the number of Delimiter readers over the past several weeks who claim to have abandoned all faith in me, merely because I don’t agree with them that the Coalition’s NBN policy is not viable.

          • *splashes holy water on Renai* release him demon!
            I agree with Monsta, good to actually see the same site / journo with information on both sides of the story. It’s weird how people get so upset, it’s not like you’re twisting their arms to vote for a side, just stating the facts and with your opinion at the bottom of the article, all good here! :)

          • Personally, as both a devoted NBN and Delimiter supporter for quite some time and having read all of your articles/opinions Renai, I certainly know that you have aimed to be impartial in relation to the NBN :)

            In saying this, I do think it has become obvious that you are now more than ever, trying to keep any non-negotiable views (i.e. the pig-headed approach) from taking control of Delimiter’s comments. Especially lately, as you even admitted yourself, you are ‘getting tired of one-eyed NBN Fanbois’.

            As a consequence IMO again, it would appear you are ‘no longer’ willing to allow near the same level of criticism/scrutiny to be levelled at the Coalition’s plan, as you did with the NBN…!

            I think this is all my fellow Delimiter posters are trying to convey :)

          • “it would appear you are ‘no longer’ willing to allow near the same level of criticism/scrutiny to be levelled at the Coalition’s plan, as you did with the NBN”

            hey mate, as you’re claiming that I am biased, you are now banned from commenting on Delimiter for a month. For the record, I’ve published countless articles scrutinising the Coalition’s claims over the past several years; in fact, I think often Malcolm Turnbull counted me as his chief critic.

            I don’t want people with fixed views for either side commenting on Delimiter — there is no point to such a discussion. I want the discussion to be held between people of open minds who are prepared to examine the claims of every side on their merits.

          • No one said it was not viable.

            It is not the best plan and cost a huge amount for not a significant improvement in BB speed.

            There is now a tool to test any speed v any speed now http://howfastisthenbnreally.com.au/ so you can test the differant speeds in 2021 of 1000/400 v 50/10 or 100/25 if you want although I believe it is in the NBNCo plan to continue to improve GPON to 10-GPON when avaliable so could be 10 000/4 000 for new services in 2021.

          • Agree 100% AJ… it is certainly an improvement.

            However, that doesn’t change my opinion that it is still clearly, the second best/silver medal/consolation prize by a country mile…network.

            Which costs the best part of $30B :/

          • So what fact-checking have you engaged in to determine the true state of the copper network, other than claiming that Telstra have the info?

          • If Telstra had not been sold off by the Howard government, perhaps a FOI request could have gotten this information.
            Can’t do much about that now.

            Maybe someone in the organisation is willing to submit something to WikiLeaks, or DelimiterLeaks. :)

          • I didn’t think people were complaining the LNP broadband proposal wasn’t viable, just that it wasn’t worth the money in comparison to what you get for the NBNCo version. But then I may have just skim read the hundreds of responses you have gotten to this. Actually, I’m quite sure I just skim read ;)

            In other news: vi is the best text editor.

          • “I didn’t think people were complaining the LNP broadband proposal wasn’t viable”

            Mate I’ve had readers screaming this at me for weeks :)

          • Do you have different comments to the rest of us?

            It seems that the consensus of readers of Delimiter is that nobody has said it it not possible or viable but there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before we are willing to even consider jumping behind the Coalition’s plans.

            for example Can we even get a minimum speed of 50Mbps with vectoring in the real world not just a lab?
            What is the cost of plans if you pay to upgrade to FttH?
            What if it is not economically viable to get FttH inside the FttN footprint even if you want to pay? Will there be a guarantee?
            If you allow competition and someone overbuilds the FttN network in the most profitable areas with FttH how can NBNCo make a profit?

            I have heard this was mentioned in one of the documents but disregard if inaccurate will look for link to confirm.
            The Guaranteed speed is 50Mbps to 90% of FttN what if you are in the 10%?

            So to be honest Malcolm Turnbull just stating thing as fact is not enough especially since this is the guy who you have shown to be lying on multiple occasions and from a party that on this topic you have shown to be lying almost continuously.
            How can I trust these people who have been shown to be compulsive liars by yourself?

          • You ban people who make reasoned arguments that you’re biased? Interesting… Here’s a pertinent quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. You are biased, everyone is. But is you bias toward truth, or an appearance of “balance”?

  2. I agree with calling it mostly false and commend you on calling labor out on it Renai. It is disappointing to see political debate in Australia reduced to misleading soundbites rather than intelligent and factual debate on policy.

  3. I don’t think many if any people commenting here have said it will cost that much it is possible for it to on the high end the likely cost will be $2000-$4000 if they even let you upgrade at all.

    My biggest concern is not the cost but whether we will actually be able to upgrade and ongoing costs of fibre plans.

    • Having just ran through comments on the last few NBN articles there were few comments which say $5000 will be the number most like my own comment state a range in a previous comment it was “$1000-$5000” and almost all other had a range or $5000 was just a quote I only counted 2 that said it would cost $5000 or more.

      • Based on what I have read on Delimiter in the past weeks. My take was that the cost would likely be around the $2500-$3000 mark. With some extreme cases on either side.

        That is still an estimate tho, am hoping to see some REAL figures at some point from the Libs.

  4. It will be very interesting to see what type of articles this sight will continue to fact check.

    http://www.politifact.com.au/about/
    “PolitiFact Australia is a non-partisan, independent journalistic venture run by Peter Fray, the former editor-in-chief of the Sydney Morning Herald,”

    It will also be interesting to see how much time will be spent viewing on both sides of politics.
    it would have been nice to see this sight open 12 months ago.

    they have done an article regarding the $5,00 price tag for a fibre connection on the liberal version of NBN. i wonder if they will now do the $94 Billion price tag for a Completed Labor NBN. as this has been around for a while.

  5. Might as well forget the FTTP dream people, these Murdoch and LNP stooges have won. Was a nice dream but alas seems that all it was, (except for the lucky people that already have it) we now must wake up and realise that we are in-fact tied up and bent over a table with Tony, Mal and Rupert taking turns to sodomise us with their (FTTN) meat sticks… Such a shame.

    GENIII

  6. “However, it’s also clear that the way Labor is making this claim is often devoid of context and insight into the situation — it’s become a sound bite which is mostly false.”

    The first casualty of war, is truth. The NBN has become the political football, only slightly overshadowed by panic-stricken responses to boat arrivals.

    The problem with comparing the current averaged costs, is that one leverages a degree of scale. NBNco is deploying to multiple premises in any one street. That’s going to have an effect on costs as you are running the fibre cables in a batch job.

    Is a per-premise install cost going to be identical, if it’s done ad-hoc, over a random time period? Will NBNco 2.0 deploy fibre on a per-user basis, or wait for more than one service request for that street, first?

    Will we fit fibre hardware to nodes, or will they be VDSL only, requiring the fibre be spliced through?

    We don’t know, or at least I’ve not really seen any details. So as much as the figures are likely being distorted to some degree, the ad-hoc nature of Turnbull’s user-pays model means that it’s likely to cost more than the current per-premise estimate.

    Never mind that the current install cost is being amortised as part of fees, not as a big up-front cost.

    It’s hard to see how it’s possible for both to have the same final cost, if the input costs potentially end up being different?

    As usual, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. It’s likely to be more than the current average cost, how much more is the unknown.

  7. It’s about time that Australia political reporting has an independent reporting site for all the political crap that we as voters are subjected too from all sides!

    I think that it will take a bit of time for this site to earn its right for unquestioned synopsis of political commentary, and from a quick look at the site I think that it needs more examples.

    Thank you for the link and lets see if this group can make a goer of it.

    Reading the piece I’d have to agree that the comments could have been more precise and the chosen “mostly false” was pretty much appropriate. (I’ll let some one else argue that it should have been “half True”)

  8. If this claim is mostly false, and as I need the upload speeds only fibre can give, and that’s even before I start thinking about entertainment needs of my family:

    Assume that there is a BT style node box 500 meters from my house. How much will if cost to have contractors come out, drag 500 meters of fibre to the footpath, then trench in to the MDF?

    $100, $200, $5,000, $10,000?

    If you need to claim someting is mostly false – say having the fibre hooked up – then you need to actually state a figure. No?

  9. What frustrates me is that for the past 6 years the Liberals have thrown FUD after FUD at Labor’s NBN, with zero neutral fact checking seemingly done, outside a few websites like Delimiter. Certainly nothing approaching the size and respectibility (appologies Renai, hope you know what I mean) of Politifact. Every furphy or bit of misinformation The Turnbull has tossed out there has been lapped up without comment or criticism.

    Yet as soon as Labor has something they can throw back in the same manner, its microanalysed and put under the microscope like its the biggest news item of the last 6 years.

    While its misleading to imply that most/everyone will pay $5000, its not the worst white truth to be told on the subject across both parties. I’d love to see what they would come up with if they looked at some of The Turnbull’s classics of years past, and then list them alongside their interpretation of Labor comments of the same time periods.

    • “nothing approaching the size and respectibility”

      At this stage I would say that Delimiter is quite a bit larger than Politifact Australia. Of course, this will likely soon change ;)

      However in general I would not underestimate the impact Delimiter has when I am consistent about investigating something. Sure, I’m not the MSM, but the powers that be are very, very much paying attention, even to the reader comments.

      • “but the powers that be are very, very much paying attention, even to the reader comments.”

        Now all we need them to do is stop being children and answer direct questions when asked, I’m so sick of the diversionary answers to the simplest questions.

        And no more “Core’ and “Non-Core” promises!!

          • Here’s some.

            If, under the Liberal FttN plan, I opt to upgrade to fibre, I understand I can pay for fibre to be run the full length to my property. Whether the cost is $500 or $5000 is irrelevant.

            Who owns that fibre line once its run? Do I own it, having paid for the service to be installed, or do I lease it from the installer? If I own it, what happens if I move properties? Can I take it with me, or would I be required to pay for it to be installed a second time wherever I move?

            How about the fact its on public land. Do I pay rent to the local council for using public land? Could they even be able to charge a fee? What about Telstra, who’s pipes are being used? What about the State Government, can they do similar?

            There are little details on who has rights to what under a FttH connection with the Liberals. Most of us would be paying a healthy amount of money for the connection, yet its not clear if we own the infrastructure ourselves, or what happens when other’s interests (local councils for example) get involved.

            Last question – If we dont own it outright, why SHOULD we pay for it?

          • You won’t own it, as this isn’t the case with current telephone cable, nor power lines or transformers (however for power you will be somewhat re-imbursed if someone else uses the pole/transformer within 10years…less each year of course).

            There was an interview where TA (or MT, can’t remember) indicated it would be unlikely that you would get a similar re-imbursement on any fibre you had intalled that someone else used.

            If they were to do re-imbursements they would obviously have to employ more lawyers and GiS/Admin staff to look after it all.

            Source: I work in the power industry…don’t quote me on the 10 years though, it could be 15, but I believe it is one of those.

          • Thats my thought as well. So my thinking is going to be along the lines of having to pay anywhere up to $5000 (I know, ‘mostly false’) for something I wont own. Even allowing for lower costs over time (<= early adopter), I will still be paying $1000 or so for the same thing – something I wont own.

            Which means I am paying for infrastructure. Isnt that why we pay taxes?

            Then have the honor of paying a higher fee to my ISP to access what I've already paid a premium for.

            Remind me again why this plan has ever been considered viable?

          • Think of it this way. If you’re a SOHO business which requires huge amounts of upload speeds, you’ll be able to justify the cost because it should help you increase productivity right?

            If you’re a home user, then it’s a hobby (TV/net/gaming etc) rather than a professional requirement. You’ll still have to justify the costs but you won’t offset it with income.

            But ultimately most people will have a choice… That’s better than no choice, and if they don’t want it and are happy on 25 or 50 Mbit? Yay.

          • Think of it this way. At some point our basic net needs are going to dictate that FttN speeds arent fast enough. I expect this to be some time around 2019. At that point, they are expecting us as individuals to pay for the infrastructure needed for ALL our needs.

            Public infrastructure is something our taxes are meant to cover.

            I couldnt care less about SOHO’s, or anyone that has the need now, I’m looking at the common persons expected needs by the end of the decade.

            Or to put it another way. They’re putting a new highway in where you live. As they pass your house, they knock on the door and hand you the bill for that bit of road connecting you to the hwy. Payable before you’re allowed to drive on it.

            Tell me where thats the right thing to do.

            In regards FttN/H, its also intended to replace our phone lines. Not a hobby, a basic utility. Which the UN also considers net access to be. So we’re paying directly for our basic utilitys to be provided to us at the basic speeds that will be needed in the near future.

            That goes beyond a hobbyists needs.

          • I’d like to know the true impact of the much higher OPEX on our monthly broadband bills – my estimations are between $15-$20 per month for FTTN!

          • I know that, under Labor’s NBN, it wouldn’t cost me anything to get connected to the network. As I will be in a FTTN area, I would like to know how much it is going to cost to get fibre pulled through to the house, bearing in mind our house is about 70m from the road in a rural residential area. Of course, I would much prefer to pay nothing and may have to delay getting connected to fibre even though FTTN will be woefully inadequate in a few years’ time. I think the figure of ‘up to $5000’ is actually quite conservative. I would not be surprised if people in areas such as ours will be paying more than that because of the distance to the nearest node.

          • And most premises are on average further than 500m from the node. So you’ll need to add that distance to your estimate.

            Those who remember trying to be one of the first with ADSL will remember that nodes are usually more than 500m. I don’t think I have ever lived closer than 2kms to a node and I live in suburban Melbourne. So if its about $2,250 for 500m based on the BT model, then I will most likely be expecting to pay a lot more than $5000.

            So I agree that Gillard’s comments are “Mostly False”, because I think for most people it will be a lot more. And ironically this was what the NBN was meant to be about, providing better broadband access for everyone without prejudice of location. The only people who will be able to afford the connection will those who live close to the node or the extremely wealthy. So why completely hijack the NBN and change its name to FBFMM (Faster Broadband For Malcolm’s Mates)?

          • An ADSL “node” is generally the exchange. VDSL2+ needs to be a lot closer for the speeds Malcolm wants to get.

          • @ Renai

            What answers are you after? I can normally get questions answered.

            My statement was more in general as I find it painful to watch any of our “esteemed” politicians on TV when asked a direct question, answers are generally evasive or deflected entirely.

            I’d just like to see a direct answer to a direct question, like regular people do; this is why most people don’t trust politicians!

          • One of my pet hates too. I especially hate the trick they use when asked a direct question about XYZ, and they answer “Well, maybe, but….” and go of on a tangent unrelated to the question.

            For a great example of this, check back on the Delimiter archives when Renai asked the Adobe boss about Adobe CS pricing, he answered every question with “Adobe Creative Cloud is the way of the future”).

      • Yeah, fair point :) Was more refering to the original Politifact than Politifact Australia. Not sure I can get my point across without offending, which is most certainly not the intent, but by merely being associated with the parent site Politifact Australia has considerable respect, ad until proven otherwise has to be taken for a truly neutral site.

        I know you think yourself the same (as do I for the record), but I suspect that plenty of sites out there poo-poo your opinions and think of them as biased, one way or the other. Would have been interesting to have a counter ticking over the number of times you’ve been accused of bias across both sides :)

        Point is, as a new player, they are neutral, but have instant respect thanks to the US parent site. And go about their business in such a way that they should remain that way. A quick look at their stories shows they get to the real facts of a situation, and explain away where the claims come from.

        Good example is the claim that public servant numbers have gone up 20k since 2007. Depending on what you look at, you can just as easily say they went up 10k or 13k, its a matter of how you count the numbers. In the end, 20k is an ok claim, but simply saying they went up 20k doesnt fill in the facts that our military contributed a fair chunk of that number, and its just as fair to count them separately.

        The NBN has had a good number of similar claims, that needed to be scratched and broken down into reality. And you’ve done a good job doing that, but more sites doing the same can only be a good thing.

  10. Not much fact at Politifact, they really need to have a look at the last few years of the coalitions spiels.
    Who owns Politifact? I’m not interested in sites when I don’t know who the owners are!
    Has it also been set up by News imitating a site that’s attempting to prevent what went wrong in the US election campaign?

  11. I have multiple strands of Fibre from multiple carriers in the street but run an ADSL2 connection tha supports 4 users streaming videos all day long, everyone is able to dowload whatever they like faster than they can watch or listen. My mobile phone on LTE is getting download speeds of 64Mbps. Who needs fibre when you can have mobility and still be ablbe to download crap via ADSL faster that I want or like for that matter.

    My question to everyone here is: Who would hire or write a letter of comendation for Stephen Conroy for his next position in the communications field. I have a funny feeling that he will be wearing red underwear on his head durring the interview process. Go get e`m Cable Guy; you so funny!

    • @James

      How long do you think you’ll continue to get 64Mbps on LTE?

      By all means, continue to believe wireless is the answer to all your woes.

      I’m not going to go into detail about why RF will surpass fixed line communications.

    • It has been shown Many many times why Wireless is not the answer and the biggest one is cost it costs $99 a month for 15GB with Telstra on the NBN for $99 you get 1TB 500GB peak and 500GB off peak at 100/40. even if you only take half that it is still 34x more data and more speed.

      This is without considering contention when everyone moves to LTE

    • Actually saying this a few months back would have gotten you banned or at the very least a stern talking to from Renai.

    • “I have multiple strands of Fibre from multiple carriers in the street but run an ADSL2 connection tha supports 4 users streaming videos all day long, everyone is able to dowload whatever they like faster than they can watch or listen. My mobile phone on LTE is getting download speeds of 64Mbps. Who needs fibre when you can have mobility and still be ablbe to download crap via ADSL faster that I want or like for that matter.”

      hi James,

      I’ve tested the current 4G networks in Australia, and I very much doubt you are consistently getting 64Mbps. I would be very surprised if you could maintain even 40Mbps consistently. 20Mbps over LTE is probably reasonable on a consistent basis. As for the rest of your comment, your technical literacy in this comment does not really support the idea that you know what you are talking about with bandwidth demands and fibre connections.

      Renai

    • I get 8 mbps with full signal on LTE James.
      Oh wait; I am in the city; and its during business hours.

  12. Forget the price I prefer to buy the Ferrari “NBN” that Labor is trying to sell no the The Great Wall ute that Liberal are trying to flog!

  13. I used to visit this site daily, but this will be my last visit. The complete backflip that Renai has done now proclaiming how great the Coalitions plan is and going on about how Labor is now resorting to spreading FUD.

    I’d be surprised if you hadn’t received a check in the mail from Turnbull to pay you to spruik his “nearly as expensive network” that is leagues ahead technologically.

    I guess the ABC is the only news outlet that we can trust now for an unbiased view of the NBN.

    • I’ve lost count to the amount of times Renai has said “On almost any measure, Labor’s policy is a better one than the Coalition’s. It has technical, economic, financial and industry structure advantages, to say nothing of the end benefit to Australian residents and businesses. It’s a winner and I prefer it vastly over the Coalition’s much more modest vision.”
      Both sides of the story must be told! What do you want, everyone to sit back and pretend Labor isn’t lying too? My god man they’re politicians!

      • “What do you want, everyone to sit back and pretend Labor isn’t lying too?”

        I never cease to be amazed at how people often cheer me on when I fact-check one side of politics, but then turn around and damn me for fact-checking the other side.

        • After going through all comments in this thread to this point there has been no comment saying the Labor statement is true the first comment is strange I will give you but quite the opposite where is the danming?

      • It’s almost like he didn’t read the article; OR the last paragraph that said you’re sick of being accused of being paid by the liberals.

        le sigh.

    • @Stephen

      I don’t blame Renai for getting annoyed really. You say you visited the site daily, but you obviously were not reading what he was writing.

      There are plenty of facts FTTP is better than FTTN and even facts that FTTN isn’t crap. Heck, there are even facts AND reasons NBNCo should be held to account for the roll out slipping and what they are doing to address it.

      People should stick to the facts and reasons, not play the man, ignore issues and make stuff up like Julia did in this case.

  14. Hopefully Politifact checks Turnbull’s claim that Labor’s plan “will cost $94bn”.

  15. “It concluded the claim was “mostly false”, due to the fact that Gillard’s wording stated the cost was actually $5,000 per premise, and that it also implied that those who did not pay $5,000 would not be connected to the Coalition’s NBN broadband infrastructure at all.”
    This is really the crux of it, and highlights the problems with Politifact. When you boil everything down to a rating like ‘mostly false’ you lose a lot of the detail, in this case detail such as the $5000 figure itself not actually being incorrect.

    Your article is also woefully inaccurate I’m afraid Renai, the Politifact rating is not on the usual Labor claim of ‘up to $5000 for fibre’, it is on a specific statement from Gillard that it would cost exactly $5000 to get connected.

  16. Ban Hammers out in force today =P

    I’d say something witty but as its monday I’m all out! xD

      • Perhaps when you wield the Banhammer you should replace your profile pic with something a little… fiercer?

      • Personally I am glad to see the Ban Hammers.

        I do kind of wish you had started a few months ago. I notice certain posters who used to constantly frustrate and conflate issues, have evaporated of late.

        That said I can’t get over the number of people who still come here with an agenda and accuse you of Bias.
        You have consistently stated that the Labor plan is the Technically Superior option. Just as you have consistently stated that the Liberal plan is a perfectly viable 2nd choice.

        I have disagreed on your interpretation on some of the facts, but never have I believed you are attempting to mislead us on purpose or with any sort of political agenda.

        For that I am thankful and it is the main reason I still read Delimiter

      • Soon there will be “Delimiter Banned” T-shirts appearing on Ebay. You simply have to offer proof that Renai has wielded that hammer against you.

  17. Politifact looks to be a welcome and much needed addition to the political media landscape in Australia. Too many untruths and half-truths are being flung around by too many politicians, with mainstream media rarely holding them to account.

    Having said that, there is also an inaccuracy in your article’s opening paragraph, Renai:

    Politifact has given a “mostly false” rating to Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s National Broadband Network policy will see Australians charged up to $5,000

    This, in itself, is mostly false. ;) The “up to” quote has been confirmed as correct by Politifact; it is the unqualified quote by Julia Gillard, without the “up to” part, that is being debunked. Might sound like nitpicking, but that’s really a crucial factoid in this case.

    • Actually Politifact also took note of the fact that Labor’s statements in this area, including Gillard’s also imply that the up to $5,000 cost would apply to everyone who wanted any form of NBN connection. The “mostly false” rating is a bit more complex than just the lack of the “up to” modifier.

      TLDR; I’m not an idiot.

      • All true, and I agree with their reasoning completely. And your article is spot on, as well — except for the unnecessary inclusion of the “up to” in the quote, which partially contradicts Politifact’s article. But that should be easily fixed!

  18. The weren’t calling Labor out on it, they were calling Julia out specifically.

    I gloat…er…note they used the reasoning I used in your previous article on it Renai.

    ” By our count, five cabinet ministers had put a $5000-per-household price tag on the Coalition’s policy. Ministers Mark Butler, Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek and Gary Gray issued statements that substituted the names of their respective electorates and claimed, “The Liberals will make people in [electorate] pay $5000… for NBN quality broadband”.

    But in each, the claim was followed by a sentence which qualified the figure as being, in reality, “up to $5000″ – a pretty important distinction, and one the Prime Minister didn’t make in Tasmania.”

    BT actually have higher price install tiers beyond 1.5Km, but they are all POA (price on application) without a set price quoted.

    Where Julia went wrong was dropping the provisos of “[Fibre] NBN quality broadband” and “up to”.

    • “Where Julia went wrong was dropping the provisos of “[Fibre] NBN quality broadband” and “up to”.”

      Technically, this is correct. However, there’s also a bigger issue here, and this plays into the difference between technical correctness and disingenuousness. Gillard could have said something like:

      “Every Australian who wants to connect to the all-fibre NBN will need to pay up to $5,000.”

      She would have been factually correct. However, repeated enough, that statement would also leave a misleading impression in the minds of Australians — the impression that the Coalition’s NBN will cost $5,000 for individual premises. It’s this kind of issue — statements being made by politicians without context — that also helps contribute towards “mostly false” ratings. A lack of context is also a form of inaccuracy, in my mind.

      • Yep.

        The 5 ministers got it right and you’d think Julia would have learned by now she gets judged by what she says, not what she meant to say…

      • With all this discussion about the precise difference between claims of “up to”, I can’t help but be reminded of the quality of my current Internet connection.

        Advertised as providing “up to” 20Meg, but instead only occasionally reaching the lofty heights of 6. Or 1 if it’s rainy.

        I’m not certain, but it could be that whenever people hear the words “up to” followed by a numeric claim in the context of broadband, we’re automatically conditioned to divide the number by three?

        ;)

      • Where is the context lost though Renai? The media need to take the blame for that most of the time from what I see. I have read articles that selectively quote ministers and its not until you read the whole transcript of what was siad that the real meaning becomes apparent. Its the reporting that people read, and its the reporting that is subsequently reported on by other media outlets, often resulting in an article being base on chinese whispers.
        Dont get me wrong, ministers are bad for phrasing things badly, typically because they dont fully understand the topic they are talking about, but its the media that actually provides a version of what was said to the public.

        • Murdoch Whispers, I like it :)

          “Dont get me wrong, ministers are bad for phrasing things badly, typically because they dont fully understand the topic they are talking about, but its the media that actually provides a version of what was said to the public.”

          Ironically, that’s where the whole “sound byte/bite” thing came from. Originally, they were meant to “keep the message on track” and be hard to misconstrue, but now they try to use them too much, and convey too much through them as well.

  19. There is no doubt that the claim by Gillard is disingenuous. Had she said it could be up to, it might have been more acceptable. After all, in the absence of real costs, we can all left to speculate but it is another thing to make a definite statement.

    I think Politifact is going to be extremely busy with both sides of politics. Unfortunately, most politicians feel they can never admit being wrong or having a worse policy. This is why they will bend the truth as often as they need to.

    My problem, however, is with the rating. Being partly or mostly false or partly or mostly true is like being partly or mostly pregnant. Surely, something is either true or false. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of opinion as in the case of the glass being half full or half empty.

    • I think “mostly true” and “mostly false” are reasonable levels of assessment of a political policy. The problem with simply having “true” and “false” is too absolute and therefore any minor nuance missed in the policy is grounds for making the claim false.

      To use an appropriately pedantic but topical example, if I had fibre installed for $4,900 then the Coalition could claim that Labor was “exaggerating” and therefore the claim is false in the absolute sense whilst in essence their claim would have been “mostly true”.

      • “I think “mostly true” and “mostly false” are reasonable levels of assessment of a political policy.”

        This is exactly why the level of political discourse is so poor. Suggesting that different rules apply to politics leaves the door open for not answering questions directly, lying, misrepresentions and exaggerations. Arguing the extent to which something is not entirely false allows for the sort of rationalisation that makes people argue until the cows come home.

        To take your example, if you were in a Quiz show and your answer was about the cost of a product and you said $5000. The answer would false and $4000 would be true. if on the other hand, the answer was up to $5000, then $4000 would correct since it is within the up to $5000.

        Lastly, an exaggeration is different to a lie. It begin with the truth but makes worse or better than it really is. The greater the exaggeration the further it gets from the truth.

  20. So what are you saying Renai? Are you saying that Labor’s statement is “mostly false” because it does not qualify the comment by saying everyone will be connected to copper, but if you want something better – being fibre – then you will be required to pay up to $5000?

    If that’s not what you are saying, what $ price did Politfact put on the cost of getting a fibre line installed on the Coalition’s FTTN NBN?

    • It always perplexes me when people go to the trouble of commenting something without putting in an effort to read the original article, with a link to it nicely provided by Renai…

      Politfact have given quite a thorough analysis of this topic, Kevmeister. As myself and a few others above have suggested, Renai’s wording and quotes leave some room for misinterpretation, but Politifact’s original article is very precise and unambiguous, and 100% correct.

      • It always perplexes me when people feel the need to berate someone for not reading the original article. I’m guessing that tomorrow night, Zok, if you’re interested in the Federal Budget, you’re going to go and read the budget papers released at 7pm, right? Because it would be “perplexing” for you to rely on a simplified interpretation of those documents by a journalist – it’s not like you can believe *them*, can you?

        Sarcasm aside – and having now read the Politifact article – the point is that Gillard has given the impression that *everyone* will have to pay $5000 to get connected to the NBN by omitting to spell out that the $5000 was only for people who wanted an upgrade to fibre from copper, *and* she omitted to say “up to $5000”.

        BUT, the actual dollar figure itself is not in dispute – it was drawn from the BT figures and were the same figures that the Coalition chose to base some of their policy on.

        That was the point of differentiation I was seeking.

        All of which just goes to show that you need to understand what particular “fact” or part thereof that Politifact is in fact checking.

  21. There seems to be an absence of anyone checking facts with construction companies. I wonder what people in those forms would say about the NBN and some of the costs? Probably they won’t talk, but they are surely at the heart of this and establishing “truthful” costs.

  22. OK you bunch of pedants, I have removed the words “up to” from the first paragraph of this story, seeing as o many of you complained about it. Anything else?

    • As a “fibre fundamentalist” I won’t be happy until all positive comments about the Libs BB policy have been expunged from Delimiter!

      ;-)

    • People are pedants for criticising factually incorrect information in an article apparently intended to criticise factually misleading political claims? Mate, I’m honestly not trying to have a go at you but that is a bit harsh and inconsistent.

      • hey mate,

        it’s two words in one paragraph in a 1,100 word article! The overall meaning is clear. I didn’t have to remove those two words from the intro, but I did to keep people happy. And you’re still complaining! I also explained my reasoning in posts to other readers — there are other aspects of Politifact’s judgment which apply just as well to the other Labor MPs who have included the “up to” phrasing in their own statements, such as the issue of implying every residence will need up to $5k to connect to the NBN.

        You’ve now complained about this three times on this same article. I’m a bit tired of being bitched at, and three times is too much, to my mind, so I’ve placed you on a pre-moderate list. Your comments will still appear, but I will need to check them first.

        Cheers,

        Renai

  23. I think some of the vitriol (regarding the labelling you a liberal supporter etc) is one of learned behaviour.

    What I mean by that is; say some guy comes in and punches your friend in the face. You’ll be surprised, maybe a little angry, but given everything else it is mostly surprising.

    Now; imagine that guy has been punching your friend in the face once a month for 3 years. You aren’t surprised anymore; but you can be damned sure you are angry. Now; imagine that your friend goes and punches that guy in the face.

    That is where we are; we have become so used to (I’ll go so far as saying) hating the coalition position on broadband, due to their ongoing campaign of lies and mis-truths, that we (almost?) hate them for it. And find it difficult to take them and their policy seriously (regardless of how well formed it is).

    I suspect things will calm down (very) slowly starting now. Both parties will resort to the usual half-truths, and mis-information that is the only thing a politician is capable of saying on a tech subject. Fact is, NONE of them are willing or (critically) able to provide the necesary context for any comment more complex than has already been said.

    Once we are all used to seeing outright lies from both sides again; I am sure the debate will stop targeting you Renai.

    • I really like the use of the term “half-truth” (can’t help thinking of Witches and McBeth from High School days each time I hear that term).

      That’s what Gillard did. Stated the true potential cost, but didn’t state the scope of who would have to pay.

    • “That is where we are; we have become so used to (I’ll go so far as saying) hating the coalition position on broadband, due to their ongoing campaign of lies and mis-truths, that we (almost?) hate them for it. And find it difficult to take them and their policy seriously (regardless of how well formed it is).”

      Nailed it. Its hard to let go of the seething rage I have built up towards the Liberals for their constant lies and misleading attacks on Labor’s NBN over the last few years. I still strongly believe that the Coalition’s network is flawed and a waste of time and money in comparison too. However emotions aside, if we’re going to pull up the LNP on every inaccurate comment made, its only fair to hold Labor to the same standards. There’s no doubt Gillard exaggerated with this one, but in comparison to claims made by the other side (i.e. Turnbull claiming Labor’s network will cost 100 billion) it’s rather tame.

  24. The biggest issue here is people don’t take the time to be informed. The entire political situation regarding NBN is TL;DR.

    So we have Labor distilling a bunch of facts down into a sound-byte (which, ironically, seems to be the only thing MSM bothers to publish these days) which is missing context.

    That’s the problem, they are almost always devoid of context. Same can be said for any number of Turnbull’s statements — short, pithy, and stereotypically devoid of context.

    Instead of this being a discussion around technical hurdles, very valid concerns over how the FTTN will be constructed, equally valid concerns around the current NBN deployment schedule, it’s contextless competition over who can cram the most schadenfreude in their pithy come back.

    We’re not the UK, so pricing there for a fibre connection is at best a relative example. What we can pretty safely assume quite that a user-pays price isn’t going to be any less than a current NBN connection $value.

    So it’s going to be a few $k.

    Did Gillard word the response poorly? Probably. Is the figure wrong? Possibly. Is this another example of the media machine eating it’s own tail? Sure. But be careful not to just write the whole thing off as an irrelevant argument based on a misquote.

    Whether it’s $2k or $5k doesn’t really change the fact that it’s still an up-front cost, that will create yet another connectivity divide.

    Which for me is a hell of alot more relevant, and no amount of creative commentary from Turnbull, over zealous ministerial comments from Labor, or dopey misquotes in MSM changes that.

    • “Whether it’s $2k or $5k doesn’t really change the fact that it’s still an up-front cost, that will create yet another connectivity divide.”

      The problem is not that there might be an upfront cost. The problem is that that cost will not be incurred by everyone, only by those who need to or are prepared to pay it. Her statement, however, implies that the current NBN is free, whereas the LNP version will cost $5000. Obviously, this will only be interpreted that way by those who are uniformed.

      This, unfortunately, is often the aim of politicians from both sides and it is to mislead the uninformed.

      This is not to say the the LNP policy does not cause a connectivity divide, but there are better and more truthful ways to make the point.

      • Technically it’s a cost for everyone, because by default there will be a connection fee. Yes, you can decide to not take up the offer (or as will be the case in many instances, not necessarily afford the up-front cost) but it’s not really a cost you can opt-out-of thing.

        If RSPs are able to internally amortise cost on-behalf of the consumer and pass the fee over 6-12 months, then that might be a good start – but we cannot assume that is a likely outcome. $2-3k per consumer, even if we’re kind on the final likely connect fee, is still a fair hit.

        Either you pay to get faster, or you don’t pay and don’t get it. Agree that the PM’s comments can be miss-read.

    • “We’re not the UK, so pricing there for a fibre connection is at best a relative example.”

      Indeed were not.

      Did you know that Openreach (BT’s infrastructure division) used 85,000 FTTN nodes to cover the UK though? I’ve seen Steve Jenkin say he would need between 70k and 154k and thought he was over reacting on the high side, but now I’m not so sure…the UK ain’t all that big…

      • The UK isn’t as big as Australia, sure, but it *is* a lot more densely populated. I don’t recall offhand what the limit is on the number of premises you can connect to a Semi-Indestructible Fibre Node Cabinet, but I’m not at all surprised by the UK needing of the order of 85k of them.

        • UK and Australia have vastly different topology design decisions, which is why it’s a little incongruous to claim costs and models there, have much (if any) real bearing here.

          Turnbull quotes it, simply because it’s an example of FTTN deployment.

          The key difference is line length and density of population. Australia has become heavily suburbanised, as such areas are spread over vast areas. The UK by comparison has vast numbers of people in (relatively) compressed areas. Thus the issue there will be having enough node saturation to carry the numbers of consumers.

          Here, it’s all about line length as population densities are far, far less.

          That’s a little off-topic, however. But, it does have relevance in the fact that as a comparative for pricing an Australian FTTN install, it’s a poor example.

          Numbers being tossed around based on the UK, will miss that there will be vastly different cost inputs, here. That, and as there are some figures missing from the Liberal Policy, it’s difficult to actually peg a reasonable number, assumptive or otherwise.

          Add to that, that any fee to an end consumer will be a cost passed on to the consumer in the form of a retail-based connection charge. Again, it’s going to be at least as much as the estimated per-user cost to the NBNco at present, unless similar economies of scale and efficiencies are hit, it will be more.

      • The big issue with this cost is what are the maximum lengths for the copper under the Libs plan? I think certainly much longer than BT’s, which if I’m correct are short enough to qualify as FTTC not FTTN? This is going to hugely impact the project cost, the speeds and the cost of getting FTTH installed.

        In Turnbull’s mention of micronodes he sounded very unclear about distances to the node.

  25. Hi Renai, every post by you regarding the NBN gets hit way beyond anything else you put up. This is your golden era. Don’t p*ss on your commenters mate, right now like it or not they’re helping to pay your wages. When people don’t care if they are banned anymore…….

    • Firstly, many of our articles do very well, not just NBN articles. We get a lot of comments on NBN articles, but we always have quite a few non-NBN articles in our most popular dozen or so posts of the month. Our enterprise IT articles, for instance, get much less comments, but the comment quality is usually higher, and often the articles get passed around inside IT departments, meaning they do pretty well. Same with our reviews — they tend to do very well over time, whereas NBN articles usually drop off quickly as they’re typically news/analysis pieces.

      Secondly, I’m not the sort of journalist who cares a lot about traffic — I have more than enough for my purposes. I care more about having a quality audience and a quality discussion that I enjoy. Ultimately, as hard as it may be to believe, Delimiter as a whole is largely written for my own enjoyment and information — it’s a happy coincidence that y’all seem to enjoy reading it to the extent that you do :)

      • “…much less comments… “

        Far fewer comments, a lot fewer comments, significantly fewer comments… You can’t have a fraction of a comment, either there’s a comment or there isn’t, regardless of the length. So fewer, never less.

        • Seriously? Has the audience of delimiter come to these sorts of comments. I never minded when people would help find slightly incorrect wording within an arcticle but this is just in spite.

          How about some serious contribution?

          Like:
          At $5000 a connection, FTTP would cost $106.95 Billion (93% of population). This is very close to the $93 Billion that is being thrown around by the LNP.

          If ALP can bring the average down to $2500 a connection, it will cost $53.47 Billion. I can not remember how much the ALP has stated it will cost per connection but I think it was $2000-$2500. This seems to me that without seeing more detailed information, the NBN can rollout at that current cost to the Government (not the tax payer).

          The cost of running FTTP is so much cheaper to do when you are rolling it out on this scale. The cost of running fiber to a single house I think would be more than double what it costs per house split amongst a suburb.

          As many have stated, FTTN is doable, but in 20 years, what will the cost be when we have to run fibre to the house? Tear me down on all my figures, I don’t pretend to run the finances of the country but if the average wage increased 4.8% from Nov 2011 to Nov 2012, then in 20 years it will cost 96% more in labor costs to complete FTTP. That means the current $53.47 Billion at $2500 a connection will cost 104.8 Billion.

          Again, very basic maths has been used, but to me it would seem cheaper in the long term to deploy FTTP now then in 20 years, if the cost will almost double, and any maintenance, power costs, contract payments, etc will all have been wasted.

          See:
          http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6302.0main+features3Nov%202012
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-23/australia-to-top-23-million-today/4644974

          http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fttp%20cost%20per%20home&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffoi.accc.gov.au%2Fsites%2Ffoi.accc.gov.au%2Ffiles%2Frepository%2FACCC%2520FOI%2520Request%252023-2013%2520-%2520Document%25208.pdf&ei=umSRUZT9JO-QiAeRxICQDA&usg=AFQjCNHC5ymCfcn-wTwLB7smtXauGoIOsw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.aGc

          “FTTH is cost effective in densely populated areas. A number of FTTH operations are
          already profitable.22 In less densely populated areas FTTH roll out requiies
          Government subsidisation. The cost of FTTH deployments are reduced as penetration
          rates increase.”

          “The roll out of FTTH has mainly been seen in new developments, however there has been
          some developments of FTTH in brownfields. These brownfield developments are largely
          goveniment led initiatives and include:

          ‘ Bright WA – project has been judged as not very successful as it cost $35 million to
          connect approximately 350 customers. The cost per home connected has been
          estimated at AU$2200

          Tasmania – Tasmanian Collaborative Optical Leading Test bed (TasCOLT) a pilot project which was deployed aerially using infrastructure owned by state owned utility
          Aurora Energy. The costs per property passed has been estimated at AU$1,800. jr”

          • “Seriously? Has the audience of delimiter come to these sorts of comments. I never minded when people would help find slightly incorrect wording within an arcticle but this is just in spite.”

            What a spurious conclusion. Renai is a professional journalist, correct grammar should be the bare minimum to expect from his writing. My comment was in no way spiteful or nasty – I merely corrected an error. Lots of people have difficulty with less vs fewer, partly because they were never taught how to use them. The attitude you are demonstrating here is precisely why Australian education is failing so badly and our literacy rates are so poor – fat too many people for far too long have dismissed grammar and even spelling as relatively unimportant concerns compared with ‘the creative process’. The reality is without good grounding in childhood most people will never pick up these essential skills later in life.

            Anyway, I digress (tremendously) – if you had read my comments on other articles you would have noticed that the quality of my comments was rather higher than the average – I am not just a sniping, trolling pedant. But if you choose to decry and attack those who take the time to attempt to correct errors and educate the uninformed, nothing I nor anyone else can say will change that. You might want to consider why it is you have such a virulent knee-jerk reaction to someone making a valid grammatical correction, though… If I had been nasty or rude about it, that would be a completely different matter.

          • “knee-jerk reaction” is how I would scribe your original comment. As I said, I think it is fair to correct and educate a writer when they have made a mistake within an article. But I won’t hold someone to the fire if they are responding to comments about an article and make a mistake. I think the fact he is responding, and to so many comments is something to commend. This line of conversation just detracts from the more important debate over Australia’s present and future telecommunications needs.

          • “Renai is a professional journalist, correct grammar should be the bare minimum to expect from his writing.”

            Mate. I’ve written some 4,580 articles on Delimiter, generating millions of words of copy. I think you could cut me just a little slack for the odd grammatical error or typo. I think the percentage of errors is less than 0.001 percent or something ;)

          • Sorry Ren, I’m not trying to be a prick. I ignore typo’s and mistaken words in your articles because they are clearly just missed in your editing – its not like you have someone on staff to go over your copy every day.

            Certain errors, however, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding for their use. Using less instead of fewer isn’t a typo, using is instead of are isn’t just missed in the read through, mixing tenses isn’t usually an occasional error – such mistakes usually demonstrate that the person is unsure how to use them correctly. Which is why I pointed it out in this case – most people under 40 don’t know how to use fewer, so you’d be in good company.

      • “NBN articles usually drop off quickly”

        From an external perspective, one of the reason’s you get a drop off is because…

        “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.”

        But come Monday, it doesn’t reopen. So we move on, and read something else.

        • Or, after taking the time to slowly put together a lengthy, linked and referenced reply to a topic because we only get 5mins at a time to write bits and pieces here and there, we find that we can’t post it and we’ve just wasted our time. After this has happened a few times we’re much less likely to bother engaging in anything but short, simplified comments, a situation I would suggest must be leading to a deterioration in the quality of discussion.

  26. “but the comment quality is usually higher”

    Just indulge and imagine for a moment how different the debate on the NBN would be had the current NBN had bipartisan support.

    • It would be entirely different we would be looking at what is possible on the nbn and how awesome it will be for the economy. Not to mention how we are leading the world and driving innovation I’m internet technologies. :-(

      • Wouldn’t it be nice to have Turnbull saying the NBN is a wonderful idea, however, these are some of the areas we can do much better than Labor and greatly improve its delivery and running?

        • Indeed, it is such a shame that politics in recent years has become so adversarial and hostile, with opposing everything and anything for the opposition’s sake. Instead of providing constructive criticism (and there are surely many areas where NBN can improve and be more efficient, without changing the technical aspects of fibre to the premises system)… Same goes for other policy areas, from education to climate change.

          As much as I respect Turnbull’s intellect (and especially so compared to his party leader!) I simply cannot just forget his iPad-waving, wireless-is-the-future stunts from not too long ago, or his forceful arguments on how governments have no business in providing telecom infrastructure at all, or how a cost-benefit analysis needs to be performed before picking a particular technology, or how NZ approach is the way to go (where they are replacing FTTN with FTTP)… all of that seems to now be water under the bridge.

          We are now expected to be happy with going backwards, with switching from FTTP to FTTN… And what for? So that some people may (may, could, possibly… there are no guarantees!) get a FTTN connection between a few months and a bit over a year before they would have gotten FTTP? Or so that our monthly plans may end up $5 cheaper? (As long as you don’t won’t a speed greater than 50Mbps! Or upload speed > 20Mbps…)

          Yes, FTTN NBN is a much better policy compared to cancelling the NBN altogether, or switching it to a wireless-only solution, or any other possibilities previously (but not seriously) floated by the opposition. However, in our democratic, two-party system, where we have a realistic choice of two policies (one of which is being implemented at the moment), having a second-best policy means having the worst policy.

      • For example the eHealth aspect. what will be needed in the “patients” premises, what is possible, what is available , what is desireable, what parameters can be monitored or evaluated and assessed, how, what if the “paient” has no computer expertise. ??
        Scope for R&D new products and patents

  27. Actually, they rated it mostly false because they:
    A/ Applied it to the entire coalition not just FTTP extension which they concede may well cost more than $5000
    B/ Because the cost of connection is not exactly $5,000.

  28. Politifact seemed fair enough with their explanation. Gillard sloppily left out the qualifiers.They even mentioned that fibre on demand could cost substantially more than $5k. Even BT have PoA for the longer lengths and the UK is not Australia: our fixed footprint extends over a massive area plus the Coalition are planning on having a guaranteed minimum of 25mbps downstream so uptake of FttPOD in Australia could be lower than the UK.

    I’ll wait to see how Politifact go over the next few weeks but it’s a little depressing to see that they’ve opened with an article fact-checking, in the context of this FUD-filled debate, a relatively minor misrepresentation from Labor. From lies about wireless to the ridiculous $94 billion claim a few weeks ago, the Coalition have been ruining this debate for years with constant deceptions and half-truths. This error from Gillard is not even in the same ballpark as the $94 billion fabrication. And neither, by the way, is a (in my view, accurate) claim on Twitter from Kevin Rudd that “much” of his community would see no upgrade under the Coalition.

    • So wait, we get more fact-checking on the NBN debate, and all you people do is bitch and moan. Surely, if you welcome fact-checking, you welcome fact-checking on both sides.

      • I do welcome it. My point is that it’s a bit early to be bringing out the confetti and streamers. I will be waiting with interest to see some of the Coalition’s lies (on the NBN) exposed.

  29. If it will cost $3600 according to the coalition to connect us with fiber as part of a mass Rollout to everyone (with all the economies of scale that will bring) how is $5000 for a single connection unreasonable?

  30. Renai,
    To Quote
    “because many people refuse to admit the Coalition’s NBN policy is viable. ”

    http://www.dictionarygeek.com/?url=http://www.wordnik.com/words/&word=viable
    adj. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable

    I beg to differ that your statement that the Coalitions plan is “viable” given the lack of detail of critical information lacking in the Liberal parties alternative network proposal, to with

    Where is the OPEX for copper line maintenance.
    Mini nodes aren’t budgeted for.
    Cost to purchase last mile copper from Telstra
    No stated R.O.I.
    Failing to apply the same worst case scenarios that were applied to the N.B.N.

    Furthermore

    Inability to guarantee either D/L or U/L speeds
    Exceedingly high costs either to the taxpayer or users to upgrade compared to the N.B.N.

    No, the Coalitions alternative isn’t viable, possible yes, but at what cost??

    Mike

    • It hasn’t been proven viable. It needs a CBA.
      But it hasn’t been proven to be not viable either.
      It remains to be seen (not that I want to see it) what the outcome will be.

  31. Coalition says FTTN network will deliver 50 mbps to users and this will be “adequate”. I currently get 80 – 95 mbps on Telstra’s HFC network now and would gladly take more if it was offered. Please explain why I would want better technology and infrastructure (fibre) that will deliver slower speeds. Just because some idiot in Canberra says so? Its amazing how short sighted some people are when it comes to doing the right thing for the country. FTTH is the future, so spend the money now and do the job right or we risk being left in the Dark Ages for another 20 yrs.

  32. I note that Politifact has not taken into consideration that the BT prices are quote exVAT.
    The current rate of VAT in the UK is 20%.
    5000AUD total cost = +/- 3244GBP, which is equivalent to 2700GBP ex VAT

    Now BT have said that they have, in addition to the distance-based variable fee, the following:
    One-off connection fee: 92GBP (ex VAT)
    Additional flat fee per connection: 500GBP (ex VAT)
    It’s unclear to me if the annual line rental of 496GBP (ex VAT) is being included as part of the overall connection fee, so let’s look at this both ways.

    Take off the 92+500 fees off the 2700GBP total, and the 5000AUD total that’s being quoted sets the value of the remaining distance-based variable component at 2108GBP (ex VAT). That puts it somewhere between band E (1800GBP ex VAT) and band F (2500GBP ex VAT), so has an underlying assumption of distance from the nearest node of between the 800m lower limit of band E, and the upper limit of 1500m of band F.

    Is that distance unreasonable?

    BT state that 55% of UK premises will be within 600m (ie band C), and the remaining 45% mostly within 2km. However, the relative density of urban+suburban premises in UK and Australia is not the same – new UK homes are on average about 1/3 the size of those in Australia.

    It seems to me that with a much more spaced out population in Australia, one of 2 things will happen.
    1. If placed at the same distance as in the UK, each nodes will service less customers (with a consequent higher cost/customer), or
    2. If placed to cover the same number of customers, then surely nodes must be further apart.

    And again, it makes me wonder if Ms Gillard quoting a price that compares to one in the UK for a installation distance of around 800-1500m from premesis to the node is all that unreasonable?

    • I intended to include this in my post above:
      If that 496GBP ‘annual line rental’ IS included in the total connection fee in the UK which is being used as a comparison, then (2700-92-500-496) comes to just 1612GBP ex VAT for the distance-based variable component.

      That would put it somewhere between band D (1400GBP ex VAT) and band E (1800GBP ex VAT), so has an underlying assumption of distance from the nearest node of between the 600m lower limit of band D, and the upper limit of 1000m of band E.

      By way of comparison, the length of my street block is a little over 500m.

  33. Perhaps a march for NBN is needed, a large public demonstration, perhaps a March to Point Piper and Forestville.

    • That mass march will take place on September 14th, to voting booths all over Australia.

      :)

      • Unfortunately we don’t get to vote on individual issues. Which is a shame.

        I’d love to see a vote called on how to do the NBN. FTTP or FTTN or Not at all. I think most of Australia would agree that if we are going to do it, then we should spend the money and do it right.

  34. Any figures are speculative, as the LNP has not released any set figures on the costs.

    Labor’s figures of $5,000 may or may not be accurate. Politifact’s claims, are just it trying to gain support for people looking at its site since it only just launched this week.
    Can you say “look at me! Look at me! I’m new, and shiny! Look at me!”

    Using figures from the UK is only guesswork. Distance to the node will vary, considering speeds in the UK are to be up to 70Mbps, while the LNP plan is a poultry 25Mbps. How far do you think the node will be in comparison? MUCH further. Then consider the costs of labour here in Australia compared to the UK. And then upteen other factors such as supplies, and equipment.

    Whatever figures you THINK you can come up with in another country, WON’T match reality here in Australia. Pure and simple.

    Wait until the LNP do their CBA on their FTTN rollout, and then have your party or demonstration, whichever you will.

    • The article is about MIMO transmission at a frequency of 28GHz.
      28GHz is blocked by, well, everything. The Wireless transmission at these frequencies is good for two things :
      (1) Within a single room
      (2) Point to point links with line of sight between the antennas.

      • Exactly, 28GHZ it useless for anything other than PtoP Line of sight Wireless links – in this frequency range these services are known as Microwave links!

          • SSSH!! Don’t point out that this isn’t for the samsung galaxy S5!

            (since; Samsung only make mobile phones right?)

            I mean; that’s what the 5 stands for right? 5G?

    • Look out, look out! Science can do amazing things under lab conditions.

      Wireless is claimed as the holy grail and will save us all. It is, indeed, incredibly useful. It’s also incredibly unsuitable as a base load service, such as fixed line. That isn’t likely to change any time soon.

  35. I think more than a few commentators here are getting over excited at the prospect of fibre on demand especially the conjectured cost in their zeal to paint a rosy picture of the ‘well we might as well have a Labor like FTTH rollout in the first place’ type of argument.

    First of all let’s not get tangled up in conjecture and crystal ball gazing of how it is going to be in Australia based on the Openreach model of FTTPoD in the UK.
    The Openreach costing model is based on the wholesale company split off from British Telecom, their aim of course like any private company is to maintain profits for its BT investors, the Coalition Fibre on demand model is based on ownership by the Government owned NBN Co, with a 50% discount for those that qualify.
    If you look at at the broad rules in place in the Coalition plan on qualification it would not be too hard for anyone to to get 50% off their FoD order.

    There is also a tacit implication in any discussion on Fibre on Demand that the majority of residences that actually do get FTTN will want FTTH virtually straight away, where in fact the real world scenario will be that the vast majority of residences will be happy with FTTN, especially if they have got off ADSL2+ or slower much sooner than waiting for FTTH and a almost immeasurable minority will order Fibre on demand, even with the 50% off.

    It is important to remember if you care to read the Coalition Policy on the Fibre on demand product that it is subject to a detailed feasibility study post a election win, the outcome of which in discussions with the Coalition NBN Co, RSP’s and the ACCC is that it may not be viable at all.

    Now we get back to the Labor rounded up $5k claim in order to scare the voters off Coalition Policy, that’s a wasted political negative because unfortunately or fortunately depending on which side of the fence you sit the overwhelming majority of voters couldn’t give a stuff even if it is half or even much less, because they won’t be ordering it anyway.

    • Fibroid, by your above reasoning the argument made is basically
      1.) Cost of Fibre on Demand is not yet known so there is no point arguing about it.
      2.) Fibre on Demand may be unfeasible and therefore may not provided anyway.

      I’ve got to say that they are not big selling points for the Liberal Plan.

      • There is more to the argument than just that, the point about Fibre on demand is how many residences on FTTN require FTTH so bad that they will be in the order queue for the product as soon as it is available.

        The UK Openreach model was only officially released at the end of last month so UK RSP’s are still getting their act together on how they will market it so it will be quite a few months yet to get any reliable indicators on demand from the experience there.

        This is an interesting article on what UK RSP’s think of it so far, which is in the main positive.

        http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/05/uk-isps-offer-mixed-support-for-330mbps-fibre-on-demand-broadband.html

        I tend to agree with the summary at the end that it will also apply here if it gets off the ground.

        “In any case the proof will be in the pudding but it’s perhaps fair to say, as Entanet points out, that FTTPoD will probably end up being a “niche, low-volume product“. It will surely afford BT some bragging rights in the battle to broadband-up the nation but very few are actually expected to adopt it.”

        .

        • I can agree that in a user pays (upfront) system for FTTP, demand won’t be particularly high. The wow factor with the LBN speeds will legitimately take several years to wear off for the general public anyway.

    • @ Fibroid…
      I think more than a few commentators here are getting over excited at the prospect of fibre on demand especially the conjectured cost in their zeal to paint a rosy picture of the ‘well we might as well have a Labor like FTTH rollout in the first place’ type of argument.

      I think most commenter’s are concerned that there are too many ifs with the FoD as there are too many unknowns with the requirements and ambiguous phrases in the policy document.

      First of all let’s not get tangled up in conjecture and crystal ball gazing of how it is going to be in Australia based on the Openreach model of FTTPoD in the UK.

      Conjecture is all people have to use as a comparison to the existing roll out and this is what the concern is, if there was more information there would less conjecture!

      If you look at at the broad rules in place in the Coalition plan on qualification it would not be too hard for anyone to to get 50% off their FoD order.

      The current rules in place are that 93% of the households will get Fibre, which is a 100% discount on the competing policy irrespective of any rules for government subsidy for business, which effectively allows business to “be anywhere” and start at any time without waiting for infrastructure to be installed (minus the delay for the NBN to be completed).

      There is also a tacit implication in any discussion on Fibre on Demand that the majority of residences that actually do get FTTN will want FTTH virtually straight away, where in fact the real world scenario will be that the vast majority of residences will be happy with FTTN, especially if they have got off ADSL2+ or slower much sooner than waiting for FTTH and a almost immeasurable minority will order Fibre on demand, even with the 50% off.

      For my own personal wants, I want stability of supply, as my particular circumstances are due to improperly maintained copper that provides drop outs in wet weather and a constantly noisy line in any conditions over the 600mtr connection to my RIM, there will be no minimum 25 unless the infrastructure is replaced and since its doubtful that it’ll be “financially viable” to upgrade to fibre as mentioned in the policy documents, I will get no improvement unless they install new copper (how stupid would that be?). In my case its not about getting it installed quicker as FTTN as whilst this “might” be true, FTTH gives me what I need which is stability over the long term.

      Have you ever had to make the choice on where you connect to the internet for an online exam based upon the weather? I and my Wife do this every time we have a test for University as most do not allow re-connection after dropouts. Thankfully my inlaws are close enough to visit to perform these tests as Work does not allow access to these sites, so I cannot use their internet connection.

      It is important to remember if you care to read the Coalition Policy on the Fibre on demand product that it is subject to a detailed feasibility study post a election win, the outcome of which in discussions with the Coalition NBN Co, RSP’s and the ACCC is that it may not be viable at all.

      Being a moderately intelligent person, I thought that a feasibility study on FTTN was done in 2009ish by the current Government and the industry expert panel back then advised that FTTN was not viable due to not being the incumbent owing the Copper network, which I read as the liberal policy writers failing to learn from the past, or not doing their homework.

      Now we get back to the Labor rounded up $5k claim in order to scare the voters off Coalition Policy, that’s a wasted political negative because unfortunately or fortunately depending on which side of the fence you sit the overwhelming majority of voters couldn’t give a stuff even if it is half or even much less, because they won’t be ordering it anyway.

      I think that you will find that there are more voters than you think who would use the speed and stability of the FTTH network, they might not be able to convey what they “would want and use it for” just the same as most people would have been able to adequately convey in a business acceptable sense the change from 56k Dial Up to ADSL except “it’ll be faster” so I’ll be able to do more.

      Back then the thought of always on Internet was an unknown in a domestic sense and the 1st ADSL plans disconnected users just the same as Dial Up. Now over a decade later not only are we consuming more data per household than ever before, we are also creating more data to share with others as the increase in Blogging, You Tube, facebook et al are proving. All this and more from the ubiquity of the always on Internet.
      Imagine the possibilities of not only always on Internet but a stable internet where businesses know that their customers will be able to manage multiple concurrent streams of information reliably. Like many others when I first connected to the Internet there was not really much to do, today there is so much to do, and there are so many business opportunities that if this is what we can do, what’s next?

      Who is going to be the next internet billionaire, and can that person be from Australia as there is definitely the money to be made.

      If you just look at this site, it was not possible until the advent of ADSL speeds, and Renai has said that he could do more with more speed today, which is why he is so excited about FTTN as the thing he needs is more speed sooner, I hope he gets it, I just hope that he gets it via fibre as I want to see how far he can go with a better service at both his end and mine.

    • FIBROID.
      several factors.
      1) it tends to be in the last mile that much remediation is required, as not necessary for FTTN and very expensive and slow process that will be avoided untill the first Turkey orders a Fibre service. As so many pipes are full that One Fibre to One premises will necessitate remediation from node to premises which as a one off will be far more expensive than being part of a bulk job lot. For a 800 meter run what will the cost be and who pays it, plus the actual fibre install and fitout on top. Plus from active node max service is 330Mb, so no 500/200 or 1000/400 options available unless they fit out the cabinet with GPON nodes as will as FTTN
      For just ONE service.

      You may be surprised how many will apply , for a quote if nothing else.

      2) What are Commercial rates for running installing Fibre, I believe in the order of $30/meter – so for a 500-800 meter run what is the cost as a one off?

      • 30 dollars per meter sounds nice.

        Charge my work 10k for fibre installs 3 years ago. And that was maybe 30 meters?

        Though the numbers will be VERY different in a volume rollout. But considering the cost will be 2k+ I don’t expect my savings from the “volume” component.

  36. While we’re all nitpicking and fact checking, here’s an interesting use of the term “fact” in the article :

    “…given the fact that the Coalition’s FTTN plan will deliver speeds of between 25Mbps and 100Mbps by the end of 2016 to most Australians by the end of 2016.”

    Can dubious projections really qualify as “facts” ? Perhaps “will” could be replaced with “is to” ?

    • While I agree that the ALP should be careful with their phrasing (as I said previously with regards to other Labor politicians making similarly inaccurate statements), David is completely correct here – the assertion by the LNP for rollout time frames and projected (even ‘promised’) speeds does not inherently make them fact. It is fact that they have promised such things, it is fact that they have asserted they will happen, but it is far from fact that they will deliver. I would say that it is closer to piped ream wishing, given the number of quite obvious problems with their plans that they categorically refuse to discuss, instead simply asserting that it has all been taken into consideration and we should take it on trust that they will deliver. Even though there are no legal penalties for their failure to deliver… No real penalties at all – they don’t even lose face when they are caught out in a lie – sorry, ‘deliberate misrepresentation of the facts’.

  37. It’s a shame they will only fact check politicians, it means the LNP’s media wing (NewsLtd) is still free to do all their lying for them.

        • That must be your ABC, cause it ain’t mine! You must have forgotten how the ABC journos threated action if Scott was put in charge!
          And by the way, to get any of the Murdoch press, you pay voluntarily! You are forced to pay for the ABC and SBS! My two cen….I mean 8 cents!

          • “That must be your ABC, cause it ain’t mine! You must have forgotten how the ABC journos threated (sic) action if Scott was put in charge!”

            yeah, right, it had nothing to do with the negotiating the new wage agreement that was one of the first things he did:

            “The main reaction from staff today has been: Mark who?” said one ABC executive who preferred not to be named. “But I don’t think people are too concerned.”

            I also note that one of the challenges the mention for him is:

            “Fend off claims he is not independent of Liberal Party”

            http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/scott-of-the-abc-a-family-affair-of-service/2006/05/22/1148150189178.html?page=fullpage

          • For some reason my 1st reply was deleted????
            Thanks for,
            1.Correcting my spelling of “threatened”. Poor form by me.
            2.Reminding me of Fairfax…friends of the conservatives,NOT!

            Mark Scott, the “evil right winger” installed by Howard, has pretty much done nothing different with the way the ABC is run. ALL hosts are left aligned, some married to partners who are on the ALP payroll. Now this “evil right winger” is suggesting that shows on the ABC should mirror Jon Stewart’s cut and paste (though at times very funny, I don’t deny that) effort.

            “yeah, right, it had nothing to do with the negotiating the new wage agreement that was one of the first things he did:”
            Unions were demanding a 16% pay rise followed by another 5% for the next two years, uh yeah, I can understand why he fought againt that!

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/guerilla-tactics-in-abc-pay-dispute/story-e6frg996-1111112214704

          • “Mark Scott, the “evil right winger” installed by Howard, has pretty much done nothing different with the way the ABC is run. ALL hosts are left aligned, some married to partners who are on the ALP payroll. Now this “evil right winger” is suggesting that shows on the ABC should mirror Jon Stewart’s cut and paste (though at times very funny, I don’t deny that) effort. ”

            I never said he was evil, I only pointed out he worked with the Liberal party and was appointed by them. Personally I think he’s done a good job, and makes an effort to not let whatever his political view are filter down through the organisation (unlike some other examples you’ve sited).

            And by “all” hosts? you mean like Sarah Henderson (formerly Vic 7:30 report host) who went on to run as the Liberal candidate for Corangamite?

            You may “see” bias, but really, there isn’t any: http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/25/speaking-of-media-independence-how-does-aunty-fare/

            And your original claim was the ABC staff called a strike because of Mark Scott being put in charge of the ABC, that simply was not the case.

            And as this is starting to drift off-topic, this is where I’m going to leave it…

          • Woo Sarah! Yeah……….18 years ago!!!! Not a current presenter is she?

            Crikey……lol

  38. gillard says it “will” instead of “up to” and its classified as “mostly wrong”

    yet abbot says public sector payroll has gone up (but you have to include defence and all reservists) and its classified as “mostly true”

    i would have thought that gillards statement would be comparable to abbotts, in terms of “truth” or “fact”. both contain the use of edge cases to make their point, yet they result in opposite results.

    seems odd to get such disparate results from a “fact” checking site.

    • Yeah, I thought that one was a bit odd too…they also stretched things a bit on the Chris Evans “penalty rates” stuff.

      I don’t think they are inclined towards one side of the fence or the other though (there’s no way a right leaning group would ever give a Greenie like Rhiannon a “mostly true”), but I’m reserving judgement until I have a bigger sample size.

  39. What a crock of sh$t! Under a liberal government the average person will not be able to afford to connect fibre unless they already have it in there street. $2000 – $5000 is a no go except for the rich of society. LNP = we do nothing, sit on the money so when the next election comes around we can pat ourselves on the back. Yeah what a great choice to govern us into the future. What could of been, sad.

    • “so when the next election comes around we can pat ourselves on the back”
      And offer all sort of bribes that will structurally distort future budgets

  40. Yay! Go Renai, politics just got angry again- no, I’m not talking about confected, pathetic, scripted anger I’m talking for shizzle where we just may get some neurons firing: critical mass like! We may even get both sides talking about applications…!??!

  41. I put up CommentLuv on my primary blog the various other week and its outstanding to see the web traffic increase – certainly recommend it for blog writers aiming to increase their
    user comments

    Here is my blog post … seo4q.com

  42. We appreciate you almost every other amazing posting. Exactly where altogether different could any individual obtain that kind of data in that ideal method of producing? I’ve a powerpoint presentation in a few days, with this particular on the search for these facts.

Comments are closed.