• Catch issues early, fix them fast – Free trial


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


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


  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:58 - 69 Comments

    NBN media criticism highly politicised, says Budde

    budde

    news Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde has sharply criticised Australia’s media for not levelling the same “malice” and “vicious media attacks” at the Coalition’s National Broadband Network policy as it has with Labor’s NBN vision, despite the fact that the two policies share a great deal of similarity.

    In a new post published on his site this morning, Budde noted that the Coalition had historically taken a strongly antagonistic approach to Labor’s NBN project, in what the analyst described as a “kill the NBN at all cost” approach that was supported by “a great deal of malice by some of the media”. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott famously ordered Malcolm Turnbull to “demolish” the NBN upon appointing the MP Shadow Communications Minister in September 2010.

    However, Budde noted, the Coalition’s new rival NBN policy was very similar to Labor’s own. Under both policies, the most remote communities will be served by NBN Co’s satellite access, regional communities will be served by fixed wireless infrastructure, and fibre will be deployed throughout Australia’s larger population areas. The main difference between the two policies is that the Coalition is proposing, at least in the medium term, to serve most of Australia with fibre to the node rather than fibre to the home technology; although the Coalition’s policy document also leaves open the possibility of a long-term upgrade to fibre to the premises, similar to Labor’s vision.

    “What amazes me is that, with the Coalition now supporting the NBN, the attacks on the NBN by the abovementioned press have slowed down considerably,” wrote Budde. “We now have an NBN plan from the Coalition that has nothing to do with ‘kill at all cost’ – it is, in fact, very much in line with the government plan. So those vicious media attacks apparently had little or nothing to do with the positives or negatives of the NBN. They were made from a purely political perspective.”

    If those journalists are critical of the NBN for any other reason they should attack the Opposition’s version of the NBN as vigorously as they condemned the current government’s version … I haven’t come across any criticism by these media of the Coalition’s current NBN plan, despite the fact that it looks very similar to the one generated by the current government.”

    Communications Minister Stephen Conroy — the minister responsible for the NBN project — has repeatedly criticised newspapers such as the Financial Review and The Australian over the past several years for what he has claimed to be inaccuracies in the newspapers’ reporting of the NBN project. In some instances, the criticism appears to have been bourne out.

    For example, in a doorstop press conference this year, the Senator strongly attacked the AFR, referring to an article the newspaper had written regarding delays in NBN Co’s fibre rollout caused by contractor Syntheo. “We are on track to meet the corporate plan, no matter how much heavy breathing you or the Financial Review wants to do,” Conroy told an AFR reporter at the event.

    In late June last year, in another example, the newspaper published an article stating that there was “a real risk” that the NBN’s fibre infrastructure might be overtaken by technical breakthroughs in areas such as “wireless technology”. “One such breakthrough on the technological horizon is Data In Data Out wireless technology, which promises wireless speeds up to 1000 times faster than those offered today,” the newspaper claimed. However, the notion that wireless could serve as a replacement for fibre or other fixed network technologies is heavily disputed by the global technology community and is a view outside current mainstream thinking on the issue.

    The AFR also reported that take-up of the NBN in the areas where it is available so far has been “minuscule”. Unfortunately, this claim is also heavily disputed. In general, Australia-wide, NBN take-up rates have been strong. In fact, in communities such as Willunga in South Australia and Kiama in New South Wales, the take-up rate in the short time the NBN has been active in those areas has been north of 30 percent. This rate is expected to accelerate as Telstra’s competing copper cable is shut down in areas where the NBN has been rolled out, forcing Australians to migrate onto the NBN fibre.

    The publication of that article came a day after the AFR published another article on the NBN stating that two key NBN contractors weren’t bidding for the next round of NBN construction deals due to rollout delays in the network. However, after the publication of the article, NBN Co and the contractors publicly denied the AFR’s allegations as “patently untrue”.

    Over the past several years, there have been a number of misleading articles published by various other newspapers about the NBN. In December 2011, the Australian Press Council expressed concern about the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Federal Government’s National Broadband Network project, backing a local critic’s complaint that three articles in a short period of time had contained “inaccurate or misleading assertions” about the NBN. Similarly, in March last year, another News Ltd publication, The Australian, published a correction to a story after it inaccurately alleged that a school in South Australia would have to pay $200,000 to connect to the NBN; in fact, the school will receive NBN access as part of the normal rollout.

    However, accusations of media bias on the NBN issue have also been leveled from the Opposition. In November last year, for instance, Turnbull heavily criticised Australia’s specialist technology media for what he described as its “cheerleader” approach to the Government’s National Broadband Network, saying the nation was “let down by the so-called technology media” as it did not examine local events closely enough with reference to the global telecommunications sector.

    Turnbull’s comments represented only the most recent time that the former Liberal Leader has heavily criticised Australia’s technology media with respect to its NBN commentary. In August, for example, Turnbull said that “specialist technology journalists” were fanning a pro-NBN zealotry amongst tech-savvy citizens – those who wanted “the ultimate broadband”, regardless of more feasible alternatives.

    opinion/analysis
    So who’s right here? Has the media been pro-NBN, or anti-NBN? Which way does the bias slant? To be honest, there’s some truth coming from all sides, but also some obfuscation. Well, at least in my opinion. I am, after all, a member of the media; so I am one of the journalists being commented on by both sides ;)

    In my opinion, the mainstream media in the form of the daily national newspapers (the AFR and the Australian) have been blatantly anti-NBN for some time now. You need only look at the current asbestos scandal to see this. The asbestos issue has little to do with the NBN or NBN Co per se — it’s a historical issue relating to Telstra that has come to the fore again because of the NBN. We’ve only seen a handful of asbestos incidents over the past several years relating to Telstra’s handling of the issue, and Telstra does have a management plan in place for the material. The asbestos issue is very important, but it’s been going on for decades, and it’s not the grand national scandal that the mainstream media would like us to believe, a fact you would not be able to glean from the dozens of articles that the newspapers are printing on the issue at the moment.

    At times, it has seemed like the newspapers would go to any length to criticise the NBN; any tiny angle, any issue at all. And Budde’s completely right — any issue which applies to the Government’s NBN policy will likely apply to the Coalition’s rival plans. The policies are highly similar in many respects, despite all the debate. But we haven’t seen the same level of scrutiny attached to the Coalition’s plans as we have Labor’s. Perhaps that will happen if the Coalition takes power in September.

    However, it’s also true that some sections of Australia’s specialist technology media has a pro-Labor NBN bias. That’s because the technology media is generally inclined to prefer the best technology available in any given circumstance; that is, after all, part of our job — to rate technologies and tell readers which one is the best. It’s worth noting that the NBN has been delayed significantly, and it has been the mainstream media (the newspapers) which broke the truth about the delays, not the specialist technology media, which tends sometimes to exist in a bit of a utopian vision when it comes to technology.

    You can see further illustration of this trend in the way that much of the technology press still tends to be highly critical of the Coalition’s NBN policy, despite the fact that it shares most of its aspects with Labor’s policy. The “FTTN versus FTTP” debate is a continual one in the technology media and will not go away any time soon. You can also see this trend demonstrated in the extreme reaction which many in the technology sector displayed when I pointed out, as Budde has, that the Coalition’s NBN policy is very similar to Labor’s, and that it is indeed quite worthy.

    I like to think that commentators like Budde and I are pretty much in the middle of this policy debate — able to appreciate the merits of both sides, while not falling in love with either. However, ultimately, of course, I’m probably deluding myself — no journalist or commentator can be truly objective, and we all have our preferences (plus, normally a huge ego to boot). Real ethical behaviour only comes when those preferences are transparently disclosed and when we listen to the actual experts. We all learn as we go on.

    Image credit: BuddeComm

    submit to reddit

    69 Comments

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

    1. AJ
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink |

      Technology media being biased towards the Labor NBN is not really an issue as the people reading it are also generally biased towards the Labor NBN.

      The problem is that the Mainstream media which provides news to everyone should be more balanced as in general most people reading about the NBN there don’t have a good understanding of the project and its benefits. Most of the MSM portray the NBN as simply a cost to the government that has few tangible benefits let alone that it will turn a profit at the end of the day. Malcolm Turnbull has been quick to criticize any positive article and his response gets an equal footing with the original article yet for Conroy this is not the case for a start there are so many more articles as the MSM only publish negatives and what he says is rarely put in the media and if it is it is as an aside.

      But the problem of the MSM run very deep they see negative stories as news and positive ones as not worthy hundreds of government infrastructure projects are completed on or ahead of time and under or on budget yet they are NEVER EVER reported as they are not newsworthy.

      The MSM in this country give equal footing to climate change denier and anti vaccination nutters despite there being little evidence either is correct yet never publish a positive NBN story despite there being overwhelming evidence that there are in fact some positives that come from FttH NBN. So we have false balance for some and no balance for others.

    2. quink
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 1:35 pm | Permalink |

      A prime example being the delays in the wireless rollout. I think that one major reason we haven’t heard much about it is the asbestos things, sure.

      But just as important is that the coalition has now embraced fixed wireless too. If the opposition is in favour of something, the media just goes elsewhere for a feeding frenzy.

    3. AJ
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

      Have comment settings been changed?

    4. GENIII
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 1:45 pm | Permalink |

      All i can say is thanks Captain Obvious, i didn’t realise…..

      • Lionel
        Posted 06/06/2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink |

        LOL, saved me a post. I think it’s been obvious for years. Not just on the NBN but everything Labor has done has been rubbished by Murdoch/Fairfax and Abbott talked about like some messiah.

        • jasmcd
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 9:20 am | Permalink |

          +1, and trying to link this issue to being “pink batts all over again”. One one hand people call for a smaller government, on the other they call Labour to have more oversight and micromanage every project. It’s almost funny cause you know the LNP are never held to the same standard as what Labour is.

          • Zok
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink |

            Indeed, it is mind boggling how the same people can in one breath complain about “red tape” and “big government” and then blame the government when a private sub-contractor stuffs up somewhere, calling on more oversight and regulation…

    5. Kerry
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink |

      Renai

      For “tech-heads” to be in favour of best technology is not being pro-Labor but bias towards a better policy.

      As far as I’m concerned the only reason you see any merit at all in the Coalition’s policy is because of your Malcolm Turnbull-bias.

      Yes, sure we can give Turnbull kudos for dragging the Coalition kicking and screaming to the NBN table, but it still does not make the Coalition’s policy better than Labor’s.

      The cost differential to upgrade the system at a later date, rather than “getting it right” the first time, will make the Coalition’s policy a massive cost blowout in the longer term.

      Besides, every damn time it rains, the copper to my place (and the whole street) fails. It’s just not the ADSL2+ connection that’s terminated, any communication by landline ceases as well.

      How anyone with similar copper-wiring-to-the-premises can possibly think that a FTTN broadband would overcome these problems, they’ve got rocks in their head.

      FTTP for mine. And yes, I’m biased. I want a quality NBN not a half-baked one.

      • Sam
        Posted 06/06/2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink |

        Well said on all points. One thing I would add…..where is the focus on the claim that people like you will be able to get a fibre connection for $5000? Say you are 100 meters from the nearest node. You cannot dig up 100 meters of footpath, verge, etc for $5000. Ok so that leaves horizontal drilling from the node cabinet to your home. So they bring the drill rig out to the cabinet. They request all plans of what lies beneath the footpath etc. They drill the conduit through the ground. Now and then they hit some service that was incorrectly mapped. A common one will be severing other fibre conduits that have been previously drilled. This adds to the insurance costs and can cause multiple disruptions on a particular street. If the ground is not sand then there is no way they are going to drill that distance for $5000. In fact, given labour costs, equipment costs, approval costs, time spent planning to avoid underground fixtures, cost to acquire underground plans, material costs, billing and admin overhead, fibre installation and termination…..I doubt that you are going to get your service for $5000 even if the ground is made of fairy floss. This side of the LNP plan has received little media scrutiny and I find that to be concerning to say the least.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 06/06/2013 at 11:04 pm | Permalink |

          BT does not charge the full cost of providing the FOD, it is still subsidised. That will be the case also in Oz. In fact it will cost Telstra and the NBN far more to do one off mini remediations and run the fibre.
          Consider the cost of drilling.

          “The news comes amid claims delays in the NBN rollout are due to price gouging from contractors, with one major NBN Co contractor charging the government around $106 a metre for drilling, while offering to pay subcontractors a rate of around $38 a metre.”

          Prices can be up to $115/metre
          500 Meters @ $106 Plus the fibre run and connect

        • Posted 07/06/2013 at 7:40 am | Permalink |

          Sam you make areally good point I agree with. The cost for on-demand FTTP is an absolute pandora’s box of dollars. Turnbull has been quoted as saying “several thousand”. But multiplying this by the Whyalla factor, who knows what the true figure might be. Especially if you live at Whyalla. Oops, sorry, that place no longer exists.

      • Mike
        Posted 06/06/2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink |

        I agree with your comment except for this:-

        As far as I’m concerned the only reason you see any merit at all in the Coalition’s policy is because of your Malcolm Turnbull-bias.

        Unless you’re new here you would have seen many a time in then past where Renai has held Malcolm Turnbull to account for his comments quite unflinchingly.

        Up until the Liberals actually announced their NBN policy Renai was repeatedly calling them out on it and absolutely hammering them for their anti NBN claims in light of the fact that they had no policy.

        Now that the Liberals have released that policy and Renai has given it a fair appraisal on the basis that it is better than the current situation (think win-win whether you get FTTN or FTTH) there have been a lot of unwarranted catcalls aimed at Renai.

        If you have a problem with party policy you should be writing to the appropriate party member expressing your disapproval and not levelling false accusations at others.

        • SMEmatt
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:19 pm | Permalink |

          But it’s not better than the current sitiuaton. The current situation is the Labor NBN is being built.

      • Kerry
        Posted 06/06/2013 at 9:04 pm | Permalink |

        Sam

        It would probably cost a lot more for me, given that I’m about 1.5km from the end of my street. Yet our street is like a small community and we’d have a get together about the cost of broadband, should the Coalition get into power at the next election.

        Which means, about 50% of the folk that live on my street wouldn’t be prepared to cough up for the NBN FTTP. So, I can forget all about fast broadband.

        Mike
        I’ve been a long-time observer until now. Since I’ve been reading this blog, Renai has constantly put forward Turnbull’s notion of NBN (since it’s been developed) as the next best thing.

        To me it’s an inferior product and the only reason Renai has promoted it is because he thinks Turnbull would be a better LOTO than Abbott.

        Since the LOTO is not going to change any time soon, then I think Renai should update his allegiance.

        Sorry, but I think Labor NBN policy is streets ahead of the Coalition’s.

        • Sam
          Posted 06/06/2013 at 10:29 pm | Permalink |

          I’m sorry to hear that Kerry. I used to be in the same boat. My old house in Hazelmere was a long, long way from the exchange and, as an added bonus, the conduits filled up with water every winter and cut of all communication until the Telstra guy finally pitched up to drain them out and slop on some fresh silastic around the cable ends.. Needless to say, ADSL was out of the question due to distance and corroded copper. I got fed up and moved closer to the city some years ago. I’m very fortunate now in that the NBN conduit is currently being laid on my street. So it looks like I’ll sneak it in before the election. So anyhow my stake in this debate is not about what I want for myself. It’s about what I think is fair for everyone and what I think is the best deal for our tax dollars. I’ve been working on IT projects for 20 years and I cannot see an upside to the LNP plan. I know I could never sell a client on a turkey like that.

        • Mike
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:19 am | Permalink |

          I’ve been a long-time observer until now. Since I’ve been reading this blog, Renai has constantly put forward Turnbull’s notion of NBN (since it’s been developed) as the next best thing.

          Well, it is the next best thing once you go past Labor’s policy of a FTTH NBN. It’s that or the status quo and I’ll take the former over the latter any day.

          The real risk we run is that the coalition could actually go back on their word and ditch the planned FTTN NBN policy altogether. It is after all an easy target because it’s expensive and in their vision, not necessary. It’s a policy, not an election promise and even if it was it would probably be considered non core (thanks JWH) at best.

        • Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:39 am | Permalink |

          “Renai has constantly put forward Turnbull’s notion of NBN (since it’s been developed) as the next best thing.”

          Um … what the fuck?

          http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/16/the-coalitions-policy-is-a-sensible-nbn-alternative/

          So, do I personally prefer the Coalition’s policy?

          No. I don’t. Fundamentally, it’s a worse policy than Labor’s. Its critics are right; it betrays a tragic loss of long-term vision for Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure. Fibre to the node is a dead-end technology which will, in several decades, be already fading into memory. By investing in fibre to the node, the Coalition isn’t skating to where the puck is going to be, nor even where it is now. It is looking backwards, not forwards, and by doing so it is throwing away the opportunity for Australia’s economy to transition from digging things up out of the ground to a more sustainable knowledge-based export economy — you know, the kind of economy which countries such as Germany and Japan already have.

          Then too, the economics of the Coalition’s policy are questionable. Its claim that Labor’s NBN vision will cost $94 billion is, even by research conducted by Turnbull’s own office, not backed by evidence, and as Turnbull himself has admitted, it is possible that the Coalition’s policy will even up costing as much as Labor’s in the long-run.

          Plus, there’s the simple fact that the Government has a decent deal with Telstra right now to shut down its copper network; and I wouldn’t trust Telstra for a single second not to bend a future Coalition Government over a barrel to charge it through the neck for re-negotiating its extensive contract with NBN Co. There’s no arguing with a company the size of Telstra, which has historically produced enough legal work to keep law firms like Mallesons in caviar for decades.

          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.

          I don’t know how many times I have to say that I prefer Labor’s NBN policy before you people get it …

          • Mike
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink |

            @Renai,

            I suspect it is a case of many people being unable to see the forest for the trees.

            To make it relevant to your analysis of the Liberal NBN policy and your position, you’ve gone so deep on the detail that people missed (and continue to miss) the fact that you don’t support it in comparison to the Labor NBN policy.

            It’s a sad world to live in when people fail to correctly infer your position based on your reasoned analysis and argument(s). TGIF eh? :)

          • PeterA
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:56 am | Permalink |

            To be fair; he did say “Next best thing” [ie ALP #1, LNP #2 would make the LNP NBN 'the next best thing' after the ALP one], maybe he actually meant that he believes your statement that the Coalition policy is #2 in a list of national broadband networks.

            Unfortunately; since there are only 2 NBN’s on the table; it is also on your preference list “last”.

        • Fibroid
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:02 am | Permalink |

          @Kerry

          “Which means, about 50% of the folk that live on my street wouldn’t be prepared to cough up for the NBN FTTP. So, I can forget all about fast broadband.”

          How do you know all the residences in your street would be so unhappy with the speed of a NBN Co FTTN connection that 50% would opt to pay for a (cost unknown) Fibre on Dmand connection and 50% could not afford a (cost unknown) Fibre on Demand connection but would have one if the (cost unknown) was less?

      • clownface
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink |

        Labor voting mums and dad all thought Turnbull would bring a certain quality of debate to Australian politics and all have lamented his poor performance. He will be the biggest loser in the history books. Abbott will be in there but words will fail the writers in his instance. Then there’s Hockey… Weakest Liberal Party ever,… just so lol. Investing in fibre overseas and then trying to tell Australians that there is nothing to see here: so much rolled gold!

    6. Tinman_au
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink |

      I think the big difference between the two media is the tech press “errors” in Malcolm’s eye are subjective/objective, while mainstream media’s have been actual factual errors that journalists should not be making.

      You just have to read Malcolms actual complaints to see that:

      Australia’s specialist technology media for what he described as its “cheerleader” approach to the Government’s National Broadband Network

      Turnbull said that “specialist technology journalists” were fanning a pro-NBN zealotry amongst tech-savvy citizens – those who wanted “the ultimate broadband”, regardless of more feasible alternatives.

      Notice neither of his complaints actually say the “specialist technology journalists” were factually wrong, his complaint is effectively that they didn’t support his inferior policy.

      The MSM on the other hand seem to think they don’t just give opinion and report news, they create the news…and not in a good way (it’s not just the NBN they are doing this to, and it has some pretty disturbing ramifications).

    7. Gordon Drennan
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 6:17 pm | Permalink |

      So, Paul and Renai, you’ve just noticed two things.

      Firstly that experts, including expert journalists, no matter whether its cars or computer technology or food or clothing or whatever else, value “the latest and best” a lot more highly that everyone else, and think customers should be willing to spend lots of money for it. Compared to people who are spending their own money, or having someone else spend it, who mostly, unless they are well off, just want something that does the job “well enough” (like a Toyota, not a Ferrari) and value for money.

      And secondly that Australia’s mainstream media is predominately conservation. That 70% of it is owned by Rupert Murdoch who has single-handedly dragged this country’s politics – both sides of it – and media – his and the rest – to the right over the last generation.

      Congratulations, you have now understood two important things. Now you’ll be able to do your job better, and be more worth listening to.

      • Sam
        Posted 06/06/2013 at 7:08 pm | Permalink |

        The experts agree that the NBN is the way to go. Not because we want the “latest and greatest” and want to waste your money to get it. The NBN is simply the best deal. The LNP claims that 25 megabits per second is plenty of speed for the next twenty years. I’d invite you to ponder on the modem speed available in 1993 and ask if you’d still be happy with that today. With the NBN each street is dug up once. With the LNP plan it is dug up/drilled every time someone wants to pay for fibre. The copper network is in very poor condition. Spending money to maintain it is like pouring money into a rusted out car. Makes no sense. Taking the car analogy further; this is not a choice between a Ferrari and a Toyota. This is a choice between a brand new Toyota or a rusty 1974 Toyota that has a new engine. Which one do you think is going to provide years of trouble free motoring? Which one will break down a lot, cost a lot in maintenance and struggle to keep up in modern traffic?

        • Fibroid
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:53 am | Permalink |

          “The LNP claims that 25 megabits per second is plenty of speed for the next twenty years.’

          Where in the Coalition Policy document does it say 25 Mbps is plenty for the next 20 years?

          • Maude
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink |

            “We are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household” was what Tony Abbott stated at the policy launch. Clear and unequivocal.
            Nothing about ‘twenty years’ although he clearly meant for a long time.

            But was it one of “those carefully prepared, scripted remarks” which are ” the statements that need to be taken absolutely, as, as gospel truth” (Tony Abbott to Kerry O’Brien, on 7:30, May 18, 2010)?

            Hard to say, I guess, since we did not see his script. Does it really matter, or are we going to keep making excuses for our aspiring PM’s inability to say what he means, and mean what he says?

            • Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

              ““We are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household” was what Tony Abbott stated at the policy launch.”

              Yes … but they are also planning to upgrade FTTN to 50Mbps …

              • PeterA
                Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:57 am | Permalink |

                But you can’t upgrade 25 megabits copper VDSL2 to 50 megabits copper [???] using known technology.

              • Lachlan
                Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:36 pm | Permalink |

                Don’t over egg the custard Renai,
                The actual coalition policy would only require via the revised statement of expectations:
                “50 megabits per second by the end of 2019 in 90 percent of the fixed line footprint.”

                Which would leave about 1.2 million houses still on the 25 Mb link, not the over 50Mb that you are assuming the policy will provide.

                I know you have to be fair to the coalition policy to keep your sources within the coaltion, but be careful of being captured by their spin.

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink |

                  ‘Which would leave about 1.2 million houses still on the 25 Mb link, not the over 50Mb that you are assuming the policy will provide.’

                  Incorrect, the policy provides that all residences will have between 25-100Mbps by 2016, it’s not everyone will be on 25 Mbps then 90% of those residences will have a 50Mbps by 2019, the Coalition Policy refers to MINIMUM speeds.

                  So therefore stating that 1.2 millions houses will be on a 25 Mbps link between 2016 and 2019 is a guess.

                  ‘ but be careful of being captured by their spin.’

                  Indeed, but spin is not solely used by the Coalition is it?

                  • Lachlan
                    Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink |

                    I was showing the explicit limited expectations stated in the policy. 10% of the fixed rollout is 1.2 million addresses, with no legal requirement to actually exceed 25mb on those houses imposed on the FTTN co. I’m sure some of those will exceed that limited speed, as you state.

                    Without know the speed testing procedures, transient fault limits, and the state of the copper, ALL FTTN performance statements are really guesses. Mine just show was would be considered “success” by one policy.

                    And you seem to be a bit inaccurate with your speed gates, the coalition policy would allow upto 1000mb connections, over greenfeilds fiber and the limited brownfeilds FTTP rollout, just not via FTTN.

                    • Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink |

                      To be fair there is no “legal requirement” for either policy.

                      I think what you meant to say “no technical assurance” for the FTTN policy.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink |

                    If that is what the policy says then as an evidence based forum we should accept that that is what the Coalition will do, if elected, until the evidence suggests otherwise…

                    It also means they should be (as is the NBN) criticised 24/7 if they don’t do “exactly” as they have projected/claimed…and if we want to be just like the perpetual NBN detractors, we should never accept any reasoning for not reaching their projections, regardless of how obviously factual the reasons may be…

                    Isn’t it odd though, that pretty much all of those people who oppose the NBN, especially those who criticised every word NBNCo said/say and wrote/write (in fact they’d even take negativity to the nth, ridiculous, nitpicking degree) didn’t/don’t have the same level of scrutiny, pessimism and FUD towards the Coalition’s plan or the same level decency, common sense and optimism towards the current NBN as they do towards the Coalition (plan).

                    It’s also odd that the same people invent(ed) NBN only rules which don’t apply to anything else and especially don’t now apply to the Coalition’s “Goldilocks” policy :/ Such as…

                    1. We are “forced” onto FttP… but of course we weren’t forced onto copper and aren’t being forced onto FttN.
                    2. Governments should not be the comms business – but now, FttN is just fine.
                    3. My income taxpayers are paying for the NBN (which they aren’t anyway) – but $30B for a government funded FttN network is fine
                    4. $40B (ish) is a massive amount and wastage on FttP, but $30B (ish) for a smaller footprint, inferior quality FttN is perfect… and shh about future required upgrades or user pays (refer 2) costs
                    5. The latest gem (at another forum) is that NBN/FttP customers (from NBNCo workers connecting in their homes) are in grave danger to asbestos related problems BUT apparently they are only at risk from NBN workers not other tradesmen such as Builders, Roofers etc.

                    And even more hypocritical to accept and quote as gospel (and in fact at times, even elaborate and fluff up) everything the Coalition say and write. I’ve already witnessed one, stating the Coalition “will do” x,y,z) when the Coalition have not said that at all, they have indicated it as a preference, once negotiations with Telstra etc are finalised…

                    This all goes hand in hand with the fact, some MSM have been found to write biased articles :/

                    To condense it all… IMo the insincerity of the anti-NBN campaign has been pretty disgraceful and the detractors can say what they like… but the same level of out and out FUD is “not” coming from the pro-NBN people.

              • Djos
                Posted 08/06/2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink |

                @Renai, MT’s promise of 25mbps to all by the end of 2016 is pure fantasy and by extension 50mbps to all by 2019 is also complete fantasy!

                There is actually 824 days (563 business days) between 1/10/2014 and 1/1/2017.
                So really all they need to do is 6M / 824 = 7281 connections (10657 if the workers get weekends off) per day to achieve the goal.

    8. Fat Pat
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink |

      They are so similar, cost, projected rollout and scope. The only difference is the speed. FTTH will deliver 40 times the speed (in December), yet you don’t point out that – it should be the killer reason to dump FTTN mate. It’s a 10 year plan, so the small delays we have experienced are immaterial to the whole plan, yet they seem to be the main focus.

      Why should we pay the same amount for a second-hand and second rate network, just because the LNP didn’t think of it first?

      We will have to live with the LNP folly for decades to come!

      • Kerry
        Posted 06/06/2013 at 9:25 pm | Permalink |

        Fat Pat

        To be fair Renai did say that he was probably a bit biased (or was that “delusional”?) towards Turnbull.

        As a photographer, for me it’s not the download speed, it’s the upload speed.

        I’d be really rapt if Renai pointed out to Turnbull the paltry upload speeds we get now and that a fibre to the street-corner cabinet will not help.

        I may be able to download my favourite program, but that doesn’t help my business.

        Tell Abbott and Co they’re dreaming if they’re going to try to convince me and my friends the benefits of an inferior scheme that in the end will only cost $10 billion (off budget) more for a communication system that does work, when we already provide tax-payer dollars to subsidise the energy industry by more than $30 billion.

        • Fibroid
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:47 am | Permalink |

          “I’d be really rapt if Renai pointed out to Turnbull the paltry upload speeds we get now and that a fibre to the street-corner cabinet will not help.’

          So no doubt you will be the first in the queue for Fibre on Demand then?

          • Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink |

            I think everyone here, include yourself Fibroid, will be getting FTTHoD if circumstances permit.

            Which is kinda the point. If a significant amount of people want FTTHoD, then the cost savings of doing a VDSL2+ with FTTHoD over a fully FTTH rollout are deminished, and even possibly non-existance.

            So, why doesn’t the Coalition, if they really want to have this arguement, instead of dictating what they are going to do and relying on the election to be the arbitator, promise to conduct an independent poll, or censous of sorts, anayslising short and medium term demand patterns of consumers when it comes to fixed line broadband, and using this to determine which is the more cost effective option.

            Or you know, we could go by the media polling results where around 2/3rds of those polled support the NBN and assume that everyone polled is intelligent enough to actually understand the differences they are getting.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:23 pm | Permalink |

              No I’m not interested in FoD, FTTN will be fine thanks.

              • Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:46 pm | Permalink |

                Good to know, sticking to your guns. I like that. Unlike Mr Turnbull you practice what you preach.

                However, I assume you read the rest of my post, can you categorically say that the popluation of Australians with your position represents less than the intersect between finacial cost of a fully FTTP rollout and FTTPoD only for those who want it?

                Now, let’s be clear, this isn’t cost to the government, because in both cases that cost will be zero, (liability will be non-zero) the figure we’re looking at is captial expenditure, or to be even more precise, TCO to the end user.

                Afterall, I just proved I can’t make blanket statements about Delimiter users, what makes you think you can make blanket statements of the demands of Australia?

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink |

                  @NK

                  ok let’s make a bet now, if FoD actually makes it into RSP’s plans alongside FTTH, FTTN and HFC demand will be so low at the residential level it should be renamed FoND – no demand.

                  Having said that if RSP’s can see themselves making a buck out of it by ordering it wholesale themselves and reselling it they will, but they are up against a few profit hurdles on that one.

                  The first one is they have to make it available to all access seekers at NBN Co ‘same as’ wholesale pricing, under ‘same as’ NBN Co ACCC conditions, quite a large disincentive to proceed I would have thought.

                  Then they have to target lucrative residential areas that are left over from the existing NBN FTTH rollout, and those that are planned to have NBN FTTH post September election, assuming the Coalition honour all existing FTTH NBN build contracts still being made in 2013 to completion.

                  ‘what makes you think you can make blanket statements of the demands of Australia?’

                  I don’t, but as I said I bet the overwhelming majority stick with FTTN and only take FTTH if it is connected up to them as a perceived ‘free connection’ like the Labor NBN, this may be a RSP FoD connection, with the only condition being a two year contract for example.

                  But being on contract for BB with a telco is nothing new, residences do it for fixed line BB and mobile plans every day of the week now, even at the end of contract they can change FTTH RSP’s because all access seekers (if you believe the Coalition Policy) can resell FoD FTTH at known wholesale pricing based on NBN Co FTTH pricing tables approved by the ACCC.

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

                    ok let’s make a bet now, if FoD actually makes it into RSP’s plans alongside FTTH, FTTN and HFC demand will be so low at the residential level it should be renamed FoND – no demand.

                    I accept.

                    You lost the bet.

                    But… but you stammer? Oh, alright, I’ll throw you a bone and explain why you lost a bet before even making it. You see, the problem is in your premise. It’s to do with competition, or precisely, lack there.

                    You see, if a customer has the option of FoD they obviously don’t have FTTH infrastructure. For plans less than about 200Mbps, which will be the majority, they also obviously don’t have HFC.

                    The fact is, with only 22% coverage on FTTH, and only 26% (sic?) coverage on HFC, even if we assume no overlap between the two technologies, the vast majority of the Australian population will only be able to choose between FTTN and FoD.

                    So the idea that there will be no demand is ludicrous, because for the vast majority if they want more speed than what FTTN can offer them, they have one option, FoD. I don’t know how they’ll pay for this, be it split evenly over the 2 year contract, or one lump sum, but believe me they will get some takers.

                    And that’s what you failed to understand, they only need a few percentage points. This is why I asked:

                    Can you categorically say that the population of Australians with your position represents less than the intersect between financial cost of a fully FTTP roll-out and FTTPoD only for those who want it?

                    Now, had you actually understood my point and, well, let’s be honest, if you actually understood the economics of the two options we probably wouldn’t be having this argument, you’ve demonstrated this often enough, but had you understood the economics of the network infrastructure you would understand the following is redundant:

                    I don’t, but as I said I bet the overwhelming majority stick with FTTN and only take FTTH if it is connected up to them as a perceived ‘free connection’ like the Labor NBN, this may be a RSP FoD connection, with the only condition being a two year contract for example.

                    Because the vast majority don’t have to sign up to FoD for this tipping point to occur, in fact it can be a minority. This is why Verzion and other companies that rollout FTTP can actually make a profit with less than a quarter of premises passed actually signed up.

              • clownface
                Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink |

                Lol, pants on fire !!

              • Alex
                Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink |

                So being forced onto FttN is ok, but forced onto FttP is not ;)

          • Alex
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink |

            @ Fibroid…

            Why do you believe it is ok for a government to supply FttN but not FttP?

            Previously (as your past self) you were actually saying the NBN was a big bad government monopoly. But since the opposition announced a somewhat similar approach, that no longer seems to be an issue… odd.

    9. Abel Adamski
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink |

      Renai.
      As you would be aware I am no spring chicken. I actually have a copy of the Melbourne Herald Sun with the ecstatic headline proclaiming Hewsons election win and better times ahead. They put it to bed as the trend was looking that way, but the worm turned and Keating won. New edition was on the streets ASAP.

      I observed the media generally supportive of Labor prior to the MRRT and the Miners campaign ( beat up on the Pink Batts – not the complete disaster when taken in context), but what turned the tide to vitriol and destroy Labor was actually the decision to do FTTP NBN. Readily tracked from that time. FTTN supportive, FTTP vitriolically anti.
      FTTP has 3 fibres and 4 data ports – not feasible with FTTN, NBN will be providing Multicasting and can be scaled for 4K or even 8K high quality streams.
      This provides a platform for competitive Pay/Subscription services, not about the movies, Series, Discovery or even Game of Thrones. It is Sport that is the Killer , that attracts and keeps the paying customer. A monopoly has no real bidding competition to have the Sporting Rights, FTTP Multicasting opens the field and provides competitive bidding pressure, even the codes doing their own subscription channels.
      The very lucrative Pay TV subsidises the rest of the business and pays their wages and perks

      IMO if Labor had obediently followed the wishes of the Media instead of acting for Australia’s best long term interest, there would not have been a hung Government, we would have Rudd as PM and a poular Labor Government for at least another term and a crappy FTTN broadband

      • Maude
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 12:26 am | Permalink |

        Spot on, Abel.
        The NBN demolition instruction seems to date from September 2010 when it became apparent that the Labor minority government was going to press ahead with their popular (with the voters) FttP policy. Its lack of popularity with Murdoch and the FTA TV stations is understandable because it threatens their lucrative business model.
        I can imagine Murdoch saying to Abbott “you guarantee you’ll stop the FttP rollout and I’ll run the media campaign”, because that is exactly what has come to pass.

        Labor’s NBN and the Lib’s ‘NBN’ are as different as cheese and chalk.
        Labor’s NBN is Disruptive (technological) Innovation because it will (would) go on to disrupt the existing market models in ways the market does not expect. The Lib’s ‘NBN’ is Sustaining Innovation because it doesn’t create new markets but only evolve existing ones.

        Quite simply, Labor will give us an entirely new and immensely superior internet experience via new technology, whereas the Libs say they will give us better speed by moving the telephone exchange closer.

    10. Mr.B
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 9:37 pm | Permalink |

      So where is the AFR’s attack on thew coalition’s broadband policy?

      The AFR continue with FUD against the current ALP NBN rollout, yet that same FUD used against FTTP can be equally used against FTTN – yet they never mention that…

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 12:22 am | Permalink |

        Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember some Murdoch Lieutenants taking senior roles in other Media organisations

    11. Orbit
      Posted 06/06/2013 at 10:53 pm | Permalink |

      I think, media is also in a business and they are doing anything to achieve their commercial value. One thing is clear that NBNCo is not managing their commercial issue by awarding the contract to the primes only, they should consider other available entities in the market to give better value for the money.

      Everyone is just trying to blame, but not trying to identify the problem. There is not enough $$ allowance provided to the bottom contractors to maintain these safety. Most of the margin is captured by the prime contractors and i think, they should be included in this blame.

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:00 am | Permalink |

        “I think, media is also in a business and they are doing anything to achieve their commercial value”

        And where do we draw the line.?
        If an elected Democratic Government refuses to do what the media Barons/Corporations tell them to do , it is OK to Destroy that Government and Political Party and in the process Democracy. We have fought wars against evil countries that would destroy Democracy, yet permit the insidious destruction of that democracy for profit by those within our business organisations.
        This Government may not be the best, too weak and focus group/poll driven in many ways, but they are maintaining the fight to serve Australia’s best long term interest to the bitter end, rather than sell out their integrity and self respect like our incoming puppet government.

        We wonder why people choose to hand over all they value to con artists, yet Australia will be making just that choice Sept 14

        I note that Bullies, Predators, abusers and worse ALWAYS blame their victims in just the same way our government is being blamed for refusing to be a puppet government

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/carl-bernstein-ailes-petraeus_n_2342212.html
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency

    12. Posted 07/06/2013 at 7:26 am | Permalink |

      You make the claim a couple of times in this piece that the two competing policies are very similar. That is a bit disingenuous of you, with respect. It’s like pointing to two men walking in to a crowded room. Dressed very similarly, except that one fellow is not wearing any trousers. But apart from that, they are “very similar”.

      It’s the fibre right to the premises that makes FTTP very UNSIMILAR to FTTN. Your’s is a case of faux-balance.

      Turnbull is trying to put this faux-balance scam over on the public. Now even the “balanced” media are getting behind him.

      • Fibroid
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink |

        “You make the claim a couple of times in this piece that the two competing policies are very similar. ”

        It’s not just Renai it was Budde as well, the similarity is based on this statement:

        “the Coalition’s new rival NBN policy was very similar to Labor’s own. Under both policies, the most remote communities will be served by NBN Co’s satellite access, regional communities will be served by fixed wireless infrastructure, and fibre will be deployed throughout Australia’s larger population areas. The main difference between the two policies is that the Coalition is proposing, at least in the medium term, to serve most of Australia with fibre to the node rather than fibre to the home technology; although the Coalition’s policy document also leaves open the possibility of a long-term upgrade to fibre to the premises, similar to Labor’s vision.”

        Labor is perceived as being a FTTH sooner plan and the Coalition later, but you have to factor in also that FTTN is faster to deploy, so many will be off ADSL or slower than in the circumstance of waiting for the much documented delayed Labor FTTH rollout.

        • Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink |

          Labor is perceived as being a FTTH sooner plan and the Coalition later, but you have to factor in also that FTTN is faster to deploy, so many will be off ADSL or slower than in the circumstance of waiting for the much documented delayed Labor FTTH rollout.

          And many people here do factor that in and consider the difference to be not worth the potentional cost and time savings, especially considering that many of the problems that plague ADSL will still plague VDSL customers such as water ingress cutting performance, and that demand is such that the VDSL customers will have to be upgraded anyway relatively soon after it is completed.

          • Fibroid
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink |

            What percentage of brownfield residences that are targeted for Fibre to the Node (which is a unknown figure) suffer water ingress to the degree that the much shortened copper link between them and a FTTN cabinet won’t fix it and the ONLY solution for them is to run fibre all the way to the residence?

            • Brendan
              Posted 07/06/2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink |

              What sort of reverse logic is that?

              Almost all line faults are by default on the line. Between exchange and premises.

              Just because that line may be shortened (by a to-be-determined amount) doesn’t magically cure all water ingress points. Most of which are where the copper is terminated within pits.

              Pits that are generally near the premises. So, quite a high percentage.

              You can’t “win” an argument comparing copper to fibre. You might get somewhere on cost, but as that’s now near-parity, there’s not much to win there.

              Budde has a point. All the anti-nbnco NBN folks suddenly shifted gears and are now anti-fibre, because Uncle Malcom has decided to continue using NBNco. Problem is, the technology is a better solution.

              Up until that point people were still carrying the Telstra flag – even Malcolm suggested the conversations would be simple. I don’t think so, Jim.

              This is the thing; if we were saving a considerable cost (it’s an investment with return, not a loss) and had a reasonable expectation that FTTN could be done in less time (there’s no way you’re going to save time changing the fundamental deployment methodology in the short term) then sure, maybe.

              But that’s not the case. There are very few absolutes in the Liberal policy. Apart from claiming we don’t need it, when demand has only ever driven the market to faster speeds (which makes a mockery of the statement) there’s very little advantage at this point.

              The debate has always been FTTN is cheaper, faster to deploy and will be just as good. The reality is already proving to be different. You can’t cork that genie.

              • Fibroid
                Posted 07/06/2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink |

                ‘Almost all line faults are by default on the line. Between exchange and premises.’

                umm, yeah I know.

                ‘Just because that line may be shortened (by a to-be-determined amount) doesn’t magically cure all water ingress points. Most of which are where the copper is terminated within pits.’

                I didn’t say it would necessarily cure all water ingress points, no doubt there are some links that are so bad that FTTH is the only option but as a percentage of the whole does that mean therefore a FTTN rollout for everyone else is not feasible?

                ‘You can’t “win” an argument comparing copper to fibre. You might get somewhere on cost, but as that’s now near-parity, there’s not much to win there.’

                It’s not a argument about copper vs fibre, it’s a argument about water ingress as a percentage of the whole that is so bad in brownfield copper areas that it is a deal stopper for ANY FTTN rollout.

                ‘This is the thing; if we were saving a considerable cost (it’s an investment with return, not a loss) and had a reasonable expectation that FTTN could be done in less time (there’s no way you’re going to save time changing the fundamental deployment methodology in the short term) then sure, maybe.’

                Overseas deployments of FTTN vs FTTH show that (a) FTTN is cheaper and (b) FTTN it is faster to deploy, I have not seen any evidence why Australia is unique in the world and here it won’t be the case.

                ‘The debate has always been FTTN is cheaper, faster to deploy and will be just as good. The reality is already proving to be different.’

                I don’t know what ‘reality’ you are referring to , it’s certainly not here as it has not been deployed in Australia yet.

                • Posted 10/06/2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

                  I think I already had this arguement with you, or was it someone else who happened to bark up the same redicilous premise?

                  Let’s put this out here line faults due to water ingress are random.

                  There is no evidence that the copper that is retained in a shorterned loop for FTTN is significantly less susceptiable to water ingress issues than the copper that is going to be replaced.

                  Let me add a few notes: there have been claims by Turnbull on Twitter saying that there have been historically less faults on the last few hundred metres, but he failed to quanitify that, plus it makes sense considering that up to the piller from the exchange there is likely to be a bundle of cables, meaning that a fault on that side of the copper is likely to more houses, meaning that there will be more reported faults.

                  The fact there is less copper means there will be less faults than there are currently. This is a given.

                  Right, notes out of the way:

                  So please stop asking questions that you are well aware no one, and I mean no one, can actually answer, and then when someone doesn’t give you the exact answer you want, you call foul and then try and point out, once again, that FTTN is cheaper.

                  We know that Fibroid. No one has ever argued that. We have attempted to use evidence, like the smaller gauge of copper used here, and the power maintaince here resulting in water ingress, and the fact that NBNCo doesn’t own the copper that despite this, we don’t think there is actually going to be a cost or time saving big enough or long enough to justify the rollout.

                  You do understand what a CBA is? Weighing the options against each other and trying to determine which one will give you the most benefit for the least cost, which is affordable, and which is paractical? Now, I’m not going to claim anyone here has the resources to do a multi-million dollar CBA, but the evidence we have collected, seems to indicate that the CBA is current in favour of the current NBN model.

    13. Fibroid
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink |

      ” But we haven’t seen the same level of scrutiny attached to the Coalition’s plans as we have Labor’s. Perhaps that will happen if the Coalition takes power in September.”

      Renai, that summarises it succinctly as to what it is all about.

      Media criticism of the Labor NBN didn’t really get a high profile until after the first Business plan was released and the rollout started and they had some figures to hold the NBN Co to account for, it then rapidly gained momentum when roll out targets were missed requiring a revised Business plan last year which has already been amended two months ago and the take up (as a average) was lukewarm.

      I don’t recall much media criticism of the Labor NBN Policy when it was just a document waiting to be implemented, which is the stage we are at with the Coalition policy.

      The Coalition NBN Policy is canny, because although it indicates a general direction (FTTN vs FTTH) there are so many caveats planted in there what we actually see implemented after the election may only bear a passing resemblance to that document.

      No doubt the media will have something more to criticise the Coalition on when they have more meat to base it on, as in a rollout that is falling behind targets, over budget, protracted NBN Co/Telstra/ACCC/RSP negotiations etc etc.

      • Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink |

        Media criticism of the Labor NBN didn’t really get a high profile until after the first Business plan was released and the rollout started and they had some figures to hold the NBN Co to account for, it then rapidly gained momentum when roll out targets were missed requiring a revised Business plan last year which has already been amended two months ago and the take up (as a average) was lukewarm.

        I don’t know what media you were following, but there was a lot of media critism for them not having a business plan or doing a CBA well before we had any figures to hold NBNCo to account for. So much so that they rushed to release one in 2010. Is your memory seriously that selective, or have only recently entered into the NBN debate?

        The critisim of the Coalition Plan, such as it is, is postively tame, mainly because the only media figures who are bothing to question the viablity of the Coalition Plan are technology journalists.

        The Coalition NBN Policy is canny, because although it indicates a general direction (FTTN vs FTTH) there are so many caveats planted in there what we actually see implemented after the election may only bear a passing resemblance to that document.

        Which is exactly the reason we’re asking for more critisim of the project. When the NBN 2.0 policy was released they had a very specific idea of the technology, policy, and cost of the project that hasn’t deviated much from the initial plan. It’s still 93% FTTH, 4% wireless, and 3% sat with open-access provisions and cherry picking laws, and it will still broadly cost around $40 billion in CAPEX. The Coalition plan is on the other hand has so many variables that is has more holes that swiss cheese.

        Further, with a fully costed, in the process of being implempleted, and having experienced and worked through the majority of teething problems policy that is the NBN. We don’t want a “general direction” from the Coalition, we want a fully costed, timeframed policy for the very reason that they can change it on a whim in it’s current form by removing, say, the promise for FTTHoD because it proves not to be commerically viable in Australia. You’re reintroducing the market uncertainy that has plagued telecommications providers since NBN 1.0 that only, just recently, stablished. Why? To save around $10 billion you’re going to have to spend anyway at most 5 years after completion?

        No doubt the media will have something more to criticise the Coalition on when they have more meat to base it on, as in a rollout that is falling behind targets, over budget, protracted NBN Co/Telstra/ACCC/RSP negotiations etc etc.

        Well yes, the media loves critising goverment projects, full stop, but if you think that they will critise it to the level that they actually look for NBN related stories to such as degree that the publish an article damning the NBN even when the subject matter has nothing to do with the NBN, such as a contriversal move by a contractor on a another project where the contractor in question just happened to be doing contract work for the NBN? I don’t think so.

      • Graham
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:12 am | Permalink |

        “No doubt the media will have something more to criticise the Coalition on when they have more meat to base it on”

        I highly doubt that. There is more than enough detail now available on the Coalition’s FTTN to determine that it’s a lemon, which is why it has had strips torn off it in the technical press. Yet those criticisms do not make it into the MSM, while headlines regarding so-called “NBN asbestos” bombard us.

        The MSM has decided what Australia wants, and that it happens to favour Murdoch’s interests. What happens after the election will merely be a continuation of the same policy.

        • Fibroid
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink |

          Sorry I don’t agree with that, all the media can do at the moment with a Labor vs Coalition critique is get bogged down into a technical debate of FTTN vs FTTH, for the average punter the FTTN vs FTTN debate looks like ‘my fibre is bigger than yours discussion’ – yeah whatever, just give me a faster ADSL replacement ASAP.

          There are too many unknowns in the Coalition policy to get a firm grip on, just for starters two biggies are:

          1. Telstra playing ball on a FTTN rollout? – unknown.

          2. ACCC approving FTTN wholesale alongside FTTH wholesale alongside HFC wholesale alongside FoD wholesale from the NBN Co and/or other companies without giving the top two telco’s Telstra and SingTel but mainly Telstra even more market dominance? – unknown.

          I bet the Coalition stalls on rollout targets as well, it knows what happened when the Labor NBN Co did it and the media got hold of those missed targets.

    14. jerry
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink |

      The coalition plan is costing what $30 billion dollars but what is it worth? NBN would have to rent the copper from telstra so more ongoing cost. The service is of lesser quality so extra revenue nbn makes from higher plans would be lost and the coalition wants to allow telstra and other telcos to compete using cable or other technologies letting them cherry pick prime locations which would significantly devalue the network. Whatever saving are made would be lost as the value of the network would be significantly less.

      Australias telecommunication network needs to be updated. The advantage of the nbn is it creates an independant wholesaler that lets companies compete on a level playing field.and an asset that would return a reasonable income for someone whether that is the government or private investors. Remember labor spent $50 million dollars to solve this issue and found that FTTN was not a feasable option. Ok it may have been because Telstra wouldn’t play ball but it forced the goverment to make a hard choice that will benefit Australia in the long run.

    15. clownface
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink |

      NEWSCORPMININGCONGLOMERATE wants this country to remain the worlds quarry. Upload speed might make the Australian economy more robust and year 11 economics never taught that economies were meant to be robust.

    16. Sam
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink |

      A thought occurred to me……the Labor plan was always to sell off the NBN sometime after it was built. So what is the LNP plan in this regard? Do they complete the FTTN rollout and then declare that the network is complete and sell it off? Will private companies then invest in upgrading to FTTH or (more likely) does the national network stagnate as it did under Telstra. Once in private hands would we find that any Govt. subsidies for FoD dry up and the full cost is charged to the consumer making it unaffordable for ordinary people. Would we, in the future, have to buy back the network again in order to upgrade it?

    17. Hector
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink |

      Lets face it, its being criticized in the Murdoch media, obsessively. Someone (a) wants to keep his pay TV monopoly (at our expense) and (b) wants to buy the NBN at special ‘mates rates’ after the election from Tony. If that happens, its bye bye to whats left of our democracy for good.

    18. Hector
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink |

      A certain foreign criminal called Rupert wants to stop the NBN competing with him. He might even get it given to him, like Foxtel was. Are we going to stop this criminal before its too late?

    19. Maude
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink |

      In his address to the IPA at its 70th Anniversary Dinner Tony Abbott listed the LNP policies which correlated with the IPA’s 75 item wish list. Item 69 in that list states the Abbott Government should: ‘Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built”
      (See http://ipa.org.au/publications/2080/be-like-gough-75-radical-ideas-to-transform-australia for a horrifying read)

      Tony told the assembled conservatives: “we will stop throwing good money after bad on the NBN.” Was he just being coy?
      (see http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/Speeches/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9135/Address-to-Institute-of-Public-Affairs-70th-Anniversary-Dinner-Melbourne.aspx)

      Rupert Murdoch, and his father before him, have been long-term directors of the IPA. You could say they have extremely important people in the organisation. How much money they have donated to it remains a closely guarded secret, but you know the IPA reflects Rupert’s views on many things. Regarding the NBN, we can be certain he wants it stopped and sold off. Tony Abbott will do this because privatisation will ‘release much-needed funds’ (or whatever form of words they use to justify doing what Rupert wants).

      Rupert Murdoch chose to give up his Australian Citizenship and became a US citizen in 1985 so he could buy up their media. Ronald Reagan fast tracked his citizenship. His homes are in New York City and Beverley Hills California. He’s not an Australian anymore and he doesn’t even live here. If we had the same rules governing media ownership as the US he wouldn’t be able to own what he does here.

      He threatens our democracy in many ways, not least by spreading lies which are so blatant that his papers have been forced to publish retractions by that almost toothless watchdog – The Australian Press Council. The lies about the NBN have been particularly blatant; – understandable since the NBN threatens his FoxTel profits.

      I’d support a campaign to send him back home and blacklist him as an undesirable alien.

      • Djos
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink |

        +29Billion!




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds — AustralianSuper, CBus, HESTA and more — is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, as was revealed in November, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well, and the Financial Review last week reported that Superpartners is actually close to turfing it altogether and going back to the drawing board.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights