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

  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Friday, June 7, 2013 13:15 - 165 Comments

    Politifact backs Turnbull: Labor’s NBN not “free”

    truth-next-exit

    news The Australian version of pioneering US fact-checking website Politifact has given a “mostly true” rating to statement by Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that connecting to Labor’s NBN infrastructure will not be “free”, as various Labor politicians have claimed.

    Over the past several months since the Coalition released its alternative NBN policy in April, both sides of politics have ramped up their use of promotional brochures and media statements to push their view that their policy is the better one. One of the prevailing claims which has been made by Labor party politicians is the statement that connecting to Labor’s version of the NBN will be “free” to residents and businesses, while substantial costs will accrue to Australians connecting to the Coalition’s NBN infrastructure.

    For example, in a letter issued by Adelaide MP Kate Ellis, Ellis claims that “a standard fibre connection is free for households”, whereas “a standard fibre connection will cost up to $5,000″.

    Politifact has already fact-checked Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s NBN policy will see Australians charged $5,000 for access to fibre, finding the claim “mostly false”. However, the Coalition has also strenuously objected to Labor’s use of the word “free”, when applied to the cost of connecting to Labor’s infrastructure.

    For example, in late May, the Australian newspaper first reported that Turnbull had written to Rod Sims, chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, complaining that connecting to Labor’s NBN was “not free”, as to access the NBN, consumers must enter into an agreement to buy services from an ISP — such as Telstra or iiNet. Under both NBN policies, ultimately NBN Co will cover the cost of connecting the physical infrastructure to premises, be it fibre to the node or fibre to the home infrastructure, or even satellite or wireless access.

    In the letter, which you can download in PDF format here, Turnbull alleged that the Australian Government, through its ministers, had contravened the Competition and Consumer Act, which prohibits organisations from making misleading or deceptive conduct.

    “These statements include variants of the flagrant falsehood that ‘connection to the NBN is free’,” wrote Turnbull. “This claim is made by the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, on her official Facebook page. Similar claims have been made by a number of other ministers, including the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Mr Garrett.”

    “Connection to the NBN is not free. To be connected — and indeed to be able to physically attach a device to the NBN, given NBN Co’s publicly articulated construction strategies of ‘build-drop; and ‘demand-drop’ — a consumer must enter into an agreement with a Retail Serivce Provider for the latter to provide service. This, without exception, entails financial commitments that typically include initial fees and/or monthly service charges incurred over a contractually specified period.”

    macklin-small

    Turnbull particularly drew the ACCC’s attention to a claim contained in a brochure delivered by Macklin to residents (click image right for the full image), which includes the claim: “The NBN will deliver superfast, affordable and reliable broadband Internet to every home with a free connection.”

    “This assertion, not even qualified by any caveat that such a connection must be a ‘standard connection’, is demonstrably false,” wrote Turnbull. “… We request that the Commission take appropriate action including requiring correction of the misleading statements and an undertaking that they will not be repeated.”

    In its finding published this week, Politifact rated Turnbull’s statement mostly true, noting that “regardless of who wins government, consumers will need to pay to contract a retail service provider” for the privilege of connecting to the NBN. “Turnbull says ‘connection to the NBN is not free’,” Politifact wrote. “On being told they need to pay an RSP to get online, many consumers would probably agree.”

    opinion/analysis
    Upon initially reading Politifact’s analysis of Turnbull’s comments and the way Labor is promoting the NBN, I felt as though the fact-checking organisation had gone a little far in supporting Turnbull. It’s a fine point, after all, as to whether the Labor MPs are claiming that the physical act of connecting NBN infrastructure to premises is “free”, or whether they are also claiming that access to the NBN is free. Politifact noted in its analysis that Turnbull was somewhat conflating the two ideas, and I agree this is a bit of an issue.

    But that was before I saw the precise brochures which Turnbull is complaining about.

    If you look at what Jenny Macklin has sent to her constituents, for example, you would have to agree that Turnbull has a very valid point. Not only does Macklin baldly state (in bold font) that “Connection to the NBN is free”, but the MP also goes so far as to state that “NBN users will not pay line rental for their household phone line”.

    This is, flatly, horseshit. Accessing the NBN is not free, and although some ISPs don’t have line rental fees on their telephone line services over the NBN, customers are still paying for those telephone lines through the cost of their broadband connection, which again, is not free.

    There’s also a wider point to be made here. Labor is acting in many instances (and I’m talking here about the mass of Labor MPs rather than informed commentators such as Communications Minister Stephen Conroy) as though its version of the NBN is the only one to contain key policy outcomes such as faster broadband infrastructure being connected to every residence. But many of the outcomes from Labor’s NBN also apply to the Coalition’s version. Many aspects of the two policies are distinctly similar.

    With this in mind, I’m forced to agree with Politifact here: Connecting to the NBN is not “free”, and Turnbull is mostly correct in his assertion that Labor MPs are misrepresenting the situation.

    Do I expect the ACCC to do anything about the situation raised by Turnbull in his strongly worded letter? No. It’s not the regulator’s role to correct or fact-check political statements, and I have no doubt that the ACCC wouldn’t touch this situation with a barge pole. It would set a dangerous precedent if Sims was to take an activist role and get in-between warring political camps, after all.

    Of course, none of this is to say that the Coalition hasn’t regularly come up with its own particular brand of horseshit when it comes to NBN statements. Turnbull’s comments are usually nuanced enough to be considered factual, but the same can’t be said for MPs like Christopher Pyne or Joe Hockey, who have less of a grasp of the details of the NBN. What goes around, comes around. The Coalition has plenty of form misleading the public about the NBN as well.

    submit to reddit

    165 Comments

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

    1. Bruce H
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:22 pm | Permalink |

      These guys checking any of the crap MT is spinning?

      • Goresh
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink |

        No, the political agenda of the so called politifacts is painfully obvious.

        If you actually read the text explaining how they came to the conclusion that “Australians charged $5,000 for access to fibre” was mostly false was that it was based simply on the fact that the connection fee will not be $5000 but could in fact be less than this or in fact much more than this.
        It was rated mostly false because there would in fact be a range of prices depending on the individual circumstances. They did not in any way dispute that it would be expensive,m only that since it was no a fixed fee, the cost would not be exactly $5000 so even if it averaged this price, it would be mostly false.

    2. Steve
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:22 pm | Permalink |

      I’m dont agree with you. For me at least, there is a very clear and obvious difference between “connection” costs, and “service subscription” costs. This distinction is also common in other utilities, e.g. you pay an access or supply charge for gas and electricity, and then pay a per unit consumption charge for what you consume.

      I think it is perfectly true for the ALP to say that “connecting” to the NBN is free. Further, I think it is true enough to say that landline rental costs are avoided. Obviously there is a lot of nuance that isn’t getting covered in a brochure, but the claims are certainly not wrong or false, more of a ‘more information required’.

      • Charles
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink |

        I agree Steve, I think Renai and Politifact are drawing a pretty long bow here. I don’t think anyone would suggest that you can use an NBN service month after month without paying any monthly fee, and I don’t know anyone who would interpret it that way.

        • Marcus
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink |

          +1

          • Glenn
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink |

            +2

            • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
              Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:43 pm | Permalink |

              +3

        • Richard
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:25 pm | Permalink |

          me 3

          • Dave
            Posted 09/06/2013 at 11:19 am | Permalink |

            Haha, how was that parking lot?

      • Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink |

        The problem is while technically true that physically connecting the NBN is free, it won’t be done unless you are signing up for an RSP NBN service.

        So Turnbull is correct, though I’ll agree it is a bit of a pedantic point he’s raising, and is a real deflection from the debate on whether FTTP or FTTN is better long term.

        • PeterA
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:43 pm | Permalink |

          The problem is while technically true that physically connecting the NBN is free, it won’t be done unless you are signing up for an RSP NBN service.
          So Turnbull is correct, though I’ll agree it is a bit of a pedantic point he’s raising, and is a real deflection from the debate on whether FTTP or FTTN is better long term.

          If you don’t sign up for a service what is the NBN connection Fee?
          Why would you pay this fee?
          How much is the NBN Connection fee ?

          Turnbull: “Connecting to the NBN is not free”
          ALP Flyers: “There is no line rental fee on the NBN”
          ALP Flyers: “Your NBN Connection is free”

          Neither statement is true. It is a false dichotomy to call either one or the other “true”. They are all lies.

          Turnbulls is mostly lying.
          Flyer 1 is pants on fire OR more context required.
          Flyer 2 is pants on fire OR more context required.

          • Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:49 pm | Permalink |

            If you don’t sign up for a service what is the NBN connection Fee?

            If you don’t sign up for an NBN service then (at this stage at least) they won’t come around and connect you to the NBN.

            Why would you pay this fee?

            What fee?

            How much is the NBN Connection fee ?

            The NBN connection free is zero, I didn’t dispute this.

            What Turnbull is mostly correct, the physical connection is free, but you won’t get one unless you agree to pay a subscription cost the RSP. It’s pedantic, as I said, and diverts away from what should be the real debate of FTTP vs FTTN.

            • clownface
              Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink |

              Australia is pedantic: we are a bunch of followers!

            • CMOTDibbler
              Posted 08/06/2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink |

              “If you don’t sign up for an NBN service then (at this stage at least) they won’t come around and connect you to the NBN.”

              Actually, with ‘build drop’ they will. Your house will be connected to the NBN and a PCD installed whether you take a service or not.

        • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:48 pm | Permalink |

          Yes Tezz , TB is full of BS

      • Tel
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink |

        The infrastructure gets paid for one way or another, so either the taxpayer covers the cost, or the subscribers cover the cost, or worst case the government defaults on debt (like Greece) and the bond holders pay. Regardless of which way we go, someone pays.

        Once you have decided that the subscribers should pay, then they either pay upfront, or they pay a premium on their monthly connection fees to cover the cost of the equipment they are using. The difference is a matter of billing and payment convenience, nothing more than that. Trying to convince people they get something for nothing is just downright dishonest.

    3. Ian
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink |

      When I moved into my previous apartment, I had to pay over $300 for Telstra to connect a phone service so I could get ADSL. This took weeks, and I had to make an appointment with Telstra and take half a day off work for it to happen.

      When I moved into my current apartment on NBN fibre, I paid no connection fees and had a working connection in under 24 hours.

      You can quibble about details and semantics, but at the end of the day that’s a huge difference.

      • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:01 am | Permalink |

        Yay thats how it should be! Thanks for the info Ian.,

    4. Josh Lukins
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink |

      The way I see it:

      The Connection to the NBN is free

      The Service of using the NBN (accessing the internet through an RSP) is not free

      Technically I don’t pay for having electricity to my house*. I pay to use the electricity.

      *I am aware that there is a connection fee to access the electricity, but if I choose not to have electricity I don’t have to pay.

      • Tel
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 8:26 pm | Permalink |

        Actually when the houses are built, a lot of the local infrastructure must (by law) be built and paid for by the developer who adds it onto the cost of the houses. Thus, if you purchased that house then yes you did pay for the electricity (that won’t stop them charging you a second time when you decide to connect, which you will do).

        If you rent the house then the owner is passing that cost onto you in the rent, so you pay for it that way too.

    5. AJ
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink |

      “NBN users will not pay line rental for their household phone line”

      How exactly is this false for a telephone service on the PSTN network you have to pay line rental for the phone of ~$30 a month on the NBN you do not this is generally a saving for the user has a $50 broadband plan costs $50 not $50 plus $30 line rental.

      It could have been stated better like this “NBN users will not have to pay line rental on top of their broadband access charges”

      The main issue is that you have confused terminology Line Rental

    6. Posted 07/06/2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink |

      frankly this fails the explain it to mum test, you don’t pay a traditional connection fee

    7. PeterA
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink |

      Politifact has managed to lie in an interesting way. By calling Malcolm Turnbulls statement “Mostly True” they have implied that he told the truth. (connecting to the NBN is not free).
      Whereas it is a lie, the connection IS free. The service charges are not.

      What Politifact should have done, is said that the specific ALP flyers were lying. Pants on fire grade in some cases. But the statement from Malcolm Turnbull that connection to the NBN is not free is a lie.. (But critically, not pants on fire lie, it is more like “mostly false” or “somewhat false”).

      • Lionel
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink |

        I haven’t seen that flyer. I got the LNP one last week. If what it claims are true, they should build their network. But FTTH will not cost $94b, nor will the maximum speed on FTTH and FTTN be 100Mb in 2021, nor will FTTN plans be $300 a year cheaper.

      • Tel
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink |

        If there is a minimum contract term on a connection, then it isn’t free, no matter what you do, you have to pay if you want to be connected.

        • Alex
          Posted 11/06/2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink |

          I disagree…

          NBNCO are supplying the hardware only, the RSP the service only.

          The length of the service contract is separate to that of the connection.

          But let me ask then, using this, IMO, generally warped logic that NBN connection (only) isn’t free, even when one doesn’t pay … how do we describes MT’s FoD?

          Are we paying two, three or four times?

          This is fucking ridiculous…

          For connections, we are paying $x for FoD with MT’s plan and paying $0 for FttP via the current NBN. THEN, in relation to both plans, we pay RSP for internet service…

          Seriously… let’s cut the BS.

          • Fibroid
            Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink |

            Ordering a FoD upgrade after you have received a NBN Co FTTN connection is entirely optional, at least you have the cost correct, $x is affordable or not affordable, and depending on which FoD supplier you get your FTTH plan from it could be a $0 connection fee.

    8. HamboCairns
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink |

      NBN does not equal the internet. At least that’s what I’ve been told.

      Internet is just a service that utilises the NBN.

      • clownface
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:22 pm | Permalink |

        Ah, yes, daniel son: you seem to have caught fly!

    9. Xenq
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink |

      The pamphlet was garbage, I agree. There seems to be a big difference though between a locally released pamphlet that perhaps 50 people even bothered to look at, and something like the Opposition budget reply which was watched by millions where Abbott stated that “within three years, the Coalition’s NBN will deliver broadband speeds at least five times faster than the current average for $60 billion less than Labor’s version.” This was weeks after the claims were first raised at the policy launch and later refuted by NBN Co. at the JC meeting.

      I am hoping Politifact can grow into something worthwhile but so far it seems limited to either peripheral issues or interpreting statements too literally and occasionally without additional context. On the NBN specifically, this follows an early fact ruling against Gillard where she failed to include qualifications on claims about the installation of a potential fibre on demand service. It’s fine to be a fact-checker but if you are only checking one side’s facts you’re just a partisan mouthpiece.

      • clownface
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

        Here’s hoping politifact delivers to the people for the people: it’s got a lot to work with after all and has already bravely tackled a lot of the hard ones without fear or favor so I’m guessing in time it will prove itself quite invaluable.

    10. Paul Grenfell
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink |

      Sorry, but i disagree both with Polifact and Renai here.. The conclusion should be “mostly False”
      The NBN isnt an ISP, therefore drops to premises are free..
      Trying to include RSP connections in the equation is drawing a long sword too far..

    11. Karl
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink |

      I’m quite frankly gobsmacked Renai, how you can agree that connection to the NBN is not free is beyond me. They come to your house and hook you up for free, obviously. You have to pay to use it, sure, but getting connected is free. Everybody knows the difference. Telstra has a $300 connection fee, do we really think that suddenly people are going to forget what connection means?

      If the NBN goes past my house, they connect my house. I am connected to the NBN, and it was free, aka “connection to the NBN is free”. I have to pay an RSP to use it.

      But really, the bigger issue here is the way PolitiFact went about it. Labor sent out flyers with 2 questionable claims on them, so why didn’t PolitiFact rate those claims? They would have to rate “connection to the NBN is free” as at least ‘half true’, and depending on how they saw it “there is no line rental” would probably be ‘mostly false’.

      But they didn’t look at the claims directly, they went and found some obscure, unpublicized letter from Turnbull to the ACCC and picked out one little quote that they could twist into ‘mostly true’. They have completely bent over and let Turnbull set the narrative, and why? Nobody knew about this letter until now, what are they his personal publicity team?

      • Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink |

        “You have to pay to use it”

        Enough said. As others have said here, this fails the Mum test.

        • Xenq
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:41 pm | Permalink |

          I’d be astonished if there’s more than a few people in the entire country who would equate “connecting for free” with a free internet connection in perpetuity. Connection is synonymous with installation in this regard, not use.

          More importantly as Karl claims why are they fact-checking Turnbull’s letter and not the original claims. And again — why are they fact-checking this anyway? It’s a local brochure seen by barely anybody from an electorate that Macklin holds safely and is unlikely to lose even in the case of the widely predicted ‘annihilation’. In sum, its impact on the national political landscape is negligible. Politifact don’t exactly seem to be churning out the rulings, so perhaps if they want to be taken seriously they could leave fact-checking of this nature to the Fremantle Weekly Chronicle and concentrate on fact-checking documents from high level policy makers that the average Australian might have actually seen or heard about.

          • Grey Wind
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 6:29 pm | Permalink |

            “I’d be astonished if there’s more than a few people in the entire country who would equate “connecting for free” with a free internet connection in perpetuity. Connection is synonymous with installation in this regard, not use.”

            You underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
            What Labor is saying here is misleading.
            What they should be saying is that installation of the NBN is free. an actual connection to the NBN/Internet is not – though since you don’t have to pay line rental it’ll still be cheaper. (itll save me $50 a month at home)

            • Xenq
              Posted 07/06/2013 at 6:59 pm | Permalink |

              “What they should be saying is that installation of the NBN is free.”

              That’s exactly what they have said. The term connection is completely standard in the telecommunications industry and synonymous with installation. Telstra have referred to the installation of landlines as “connections” for as long as I can remember.

              • Alex
                Posted 08/06/2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink |

                +1

                Exactly…

                This is pedantism at it’s worst, IMO

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink |

            I’d be astonished if there’s more than a few people in the entire country who would equate “connecting for free” with a free internet connection in perpetuity. Connection is synonymous with installation in this regard, not use.

            They may well know it, but it’s very Australian to feign ignorance and threaten ACCC/court action to demand their “free internetz” now days…it wouldn’t astonish me in the slightest.

        • Karl
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:53 pm | Permalink |

          Mums know that you have to pay to connect to a copper phone line before you can use a monthly service.

          • Grey Wind
            Posted 07/06/2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink |

            And thanks to Labor some of them may now think that when the NBN gets installed it is totally free.

            • jasmcd
              Posted 07/06/2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink |

              I call BS. No reasonable person would expect free connection to mean free service.

            • Alex
              Posted 08/06/2013 at 5:55 pm | Permalink |

              Again, I point you towards Foxtel, where they will have free connection promos…

              Q. Do you think people equate free connections to free pay TV…
              A. No, of course not…

              But hey this is the NBN and all common sense has been disregarded in the name of political oneupmanship…

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 07/06/2013 at 6:30 pm | Permalink |

          I think both sides need to tighten up their language a lot and stop being so loose with the truth. I got home tonight and found a letter from my local (Liberal) MP.

          Heres a few excerpts:

          When Labor first announced the NBN in 2007 they said it would cost around $4.7 billion
          and be completed by 2013. Since then, Labor changed the forecast and said it would
          cost taxpayers $37 billion and be completed by 2021. Now we know it is actually going
          to cost taxpayers around $94 billion and won’t be completed until 2025.

          The original Liberal plan was announced in 2007 and scheduled to complete in 2009 for a cost of $2B, so using the same reasoning as he applied here, the Libs once/if they complete theirs, it’ll be 10 years over time and $27B over budget… :/

          The Coalition plan will see the National Broadband Network completed six years earlier than Labor’s NBN, with monthly prices projected to be 29 percent cheaper, with minimum download speeds of 25 Mb/s, rising to 50 Mb/s by 2019. importantly. the Coalition’s plan will save taxpayers over $60 billion dollars.

          Seriously? 29%? The current prices of the current NBN are already 64% cheaper than what I currently pay ($99 a month for 50Mbps 100G). So the Liberals will give me a 50Mbps plan with 100G for $45?? And if the real NBN is supposed to be completed in 2021, the Libs will get it done by 2015??

          I’m not even going to bother going into the “save taxpayers over $60 billion dollars” BS.

          Labor seriously needs to work on it’s communication skills, but the Liberals really need to do a few ethics courses…

        • MT is a douchebag
          Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:26 am | Permalink |

          I am seriously gobsmacked.

          Is the future of Australia’s infrastructure requirements really to evaluated against the Mum test.

    12. Tinman_au
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink |

      And the circus rolls on…

    13. Alex
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink |

      Does that mean when say Foxtel says sign up this month and get “free connection” they are lying?

      • Tom
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink |

        Yup definitely. And the ACCC should be fining them for the years and years they’ve been using that advertising approach.

      • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink |

        My god has the NBN debate really stooped to this level of BS, Free connection means connecting for free!!!!!
        When you move house, you will find there is a connecting fee for antique copper telstra and your power, I think from memory about $300. Oh and i forgot water rates and thats if you use it or not, And lets not ridicule everyone’s mum out there as they are allot wiser than they let on.

    14. Tom
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink |

      Is this the same Politifact Australia that had its credibility torn to shreds prior to lunchtime on the day of its launch?

      After they’d proceeded to set up a straw man argument and then claim that the Labor Party had been untruthful with a statement about penalty rates.

      Yup it appears so .

    15. Deep Thinker
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull 2 : Conroy 0

      • PeterA
        Posted 17/06/2013 at 9:23 am | Permalink |

        Conroy: 1000megabits Turnbull: 25

    16. Harriet'd
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:27 pm | Permalink |

      For those people who are not into technology and are not following the NBN every step of the way, this could definitely be seen as misleading, whether grammatically it could be argued it is or is not.

      And for those many who only want a phone line on UNI-V (for their existing medical alarm and TTY to work, for instance) and who do not want a broadband connection at all, free connection to the NBN is all well and good when they have no choice but connecting to it. But they are STILL waiting for an RSP to offer a UNI-V landline-only connection at a price close to what they pay now for copper. And RSPs are still reluctant to do this because the NBN wholesale pricing includes the UNI-D ports also being installed but unused and the RSPs pay for them so of course they want to pass that on through bundling only.

      I doubt many of these people are going to care about the semantics of whether “NBN users will not pay line rental for their household phone line” equals free or not, when their monthly phone bill will be much higher because they have to pay for broadband they don’t want or use.

      • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
        Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:09 pm | Permalink |

        You have made a very interesting point, but it would have to be for a very small minority, And how is their monthly phone bill going to be higher? Infact it should be at least be at least $30 to $50 (Telstra dollars) cheaper per month depending on what carrier you are using just to start with. And also they would not even have a phone bill anyway, Are you really switched on to what is happening?

      • seven_tech
        Posted 12/06/2013 at 2:53 pm | Permalink |

        @Harriet’d

        Actually, Telstra will be offering a guaranteed $22.95 basic phone service, same as now. No phone service is cheaper than that standalone. It is part of the Telstra USO deal that they must offer that. They will be providing UNI-V services later this year.

    17. Harquebus
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink |

      Fibre rental?

    18. David
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 10:50 pm | Permalink |

      Still waiting for someone to point me to the fee to connect to the NBN(note for anyone not paying attention NBN is not the internet), surely if it is not free then a price would be set which is readily available. Given that 12+ million homes will be connected.

      All anyone has posted so far is the cost of a RSP internet service, none of which have a connection fee to the NBN. (RSP setup fees are not NBN connection fees)

      Disappointed at the analysis, I was expecting more from Polifacts and yourself.

      I do agree that pamphlet is crispier then taco night with that line rental quote, however the terminology used to describe the access costs is somewhat debatable. Simply writing “NBN users will not be forced to pay phone line rental for their broadband connection” would have been accurate and still portrayed a positive message.(Someone please educate these politicians) The UNI-V port access costs are in my opinion considered “line rental”.

      Show me the fee to have NBN connect our homes to their network or accept that there is no fee and that it is in fact free to be connected.

    19. Alex
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:04 pm | Permalink |

      From the irony files…

      Part of the anti-NBN mantra all along (but especially since the Coalition’s plan including FoD was released) has been “if you want FttP you should pay, don’t expect it for free”…

    20. Guest
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:11 pm | Permalink |

      no installation fee is correct. no connection fee is misleading.
      and if you do not use the nbn for internet but use it for phone, you are paying line rental

      • Alex
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink |

        Installation (as in software installation) is more questionable in relation to broadband terms, han connection, IMO…

        This is just another BS beat up… period.

    21. Charles
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:12 pm | Permalink |

      We can tell PolitiFact directly… https://www.facebook.com/PolitiFactAustralia/posts/404659709647576

    22. LetsBeOpenAboutThis
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:34 pm | Permalink |

      People seem to keep following America, God knows why, Because they are an absolute basket case!
      Why would you follow lunatics? With Guns? So why should we care what Polififact says any way!

    23. MT is a douchebag
      Posted 07/06/2013 at 11:58 pm | Permalink |

      Is it just me or does the ‘Suggest An Item’ link at politifact not work.

      I would like to suggest to them the claim from Malcolm Turnbull (aka the esteemed purveryor of total BS in politics) that the Labor NBN would cost $94 Billion is bullshit.

    24. Angy
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:32 am | Permalink |

      The issue is that they each want to say theirs is cheaper. It comes down to nothing more than how well you word your phrases.

      The crux of truth is upfront charges. You’re not being charged to have fibre physically connected to your house. Experts tend to think that even an FTTN connection under the Coalition plan will cost a few hundred as the consumer will need to hire a qualified sparky if they want to receive a reliable connection. For on-demand FTTH, the $5k figure comes from the UK. That’s not exactly the maximum cost possible, just the max distance they will roll.

      I think the fact is that the ALP is fighting an uphill battle if they want to combat the Coalition’s policy on a factual basis. What is the correct quote for FOD? We don’t fucking know. Sure, they’re picking a number that suits them, but they might as well. The problem is that the best any of us can do is have a punt.

      This is effectively the Achilles heel of fact-checking. It’s always going to be shown as a lie to put a price tag on something that hasn’t been thought out, even though the fact that it hasn’t been thought out should ring an alarm bell. At the same time, sites like Politifact will not check every iota of policy and press release. Context is important. Okay, so getting a retail provider to enable your connection actually does cost you. But it’s the same as all the other kinds of connectivity, that’s going to cost you one way or the other. What are the charges unique to each system? Dare we deign to ask for an answer so simple?

      • MT is a douchebag
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:38 am | Permalink |

        How much does it cost me to connect to the electricity infrastructure?

        • Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:41 am | Permalink |

          Electricity is a basic service so it’s connected by default, but check your bill because there is actually an ongoing connection charge no matter how much you use.

          • MT is a douchebag
            Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:50 am | Permalink |

            And that is the point that everyone seems to miss. The government IS actually trying to make the internet as a basic service connected by default!

            The government (be it state or federal) provides the electricity which is provided by a retailer, be it Origin or Energy Australia or whoever.

            Under the Labor NBN the government supplies the internet access which is provided by a retailer, be it Telstra or iinet or whoever.

            Once you’re connected to the NBN there will also be a ongoing charge no matter how much you use.

            Please explain to me the difference.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 11/06/2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

              ‘The government (be it state or federal) provides the electricity’

              No it doesn’t, only in some states.

    25. Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:52 am | Permalink |

      Once you’re connected to the NBN there will also be a ongoing charge no matter how much you use

      Really? This is the first I’ve heard of that someone with an NBN connection with no services over it are going to be charged an ongoing connection rate.

      • MT is a douchebag
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:59 am | Permalink |

        Cool… so we both agree that the NBN connection is free,

        • Posted 08/06/2013 at 1:01 am | Permalink |

          Do you have a point? Or do you just want to hear me repeat the same thing I said earlier, and has been said multiple times here already.

          The cost of the NBN connection isn’t up for debate, we all know it’s free, MT’s argument is that you won’t get the NBN connected unless you sign up for an RSP, which isn’t free, so he’s arguing pedantics.

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:10 pm | Permalink |

            Well, technically, you can get the NBN connected for free, but to get the
            internet, you’ll need to pay…

            • seven_tech
              Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink |

              @Tinman_au

              So therefore, connection to the NBN IS free. Connection to the internet or phone serviceVIA the NBN, isn’t.

              Using pedantics against pedantic people is fun :D

    26. MT is a douchebag
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 1:10 am | Permalink |

      I was trying to argue the same point which you just put across much more successfully.

    27. Matt
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 1:41 am | Permalink |

      $5000 is the average cost over in the UK, considering their population density and the fact they already have FTTN in place Fibre is easier to roll out under those conditions. The further you are from the ‘node’ the more you’ll have to pay (which doesnt help regional aussies one bit) it could be much much more then $5000. Oh it also doesn’t include VAT costs see links below for details

      http://recombu.com/digital/news/bt-fttp-on-demand-trial_M11049.html

      http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/serviceproducts/excessconstructioncharges/excessconstructioncharges/downloads/ECCs.pdf

      On top of that, Ill quote something here and say that:

      The annual line rental that BT provide for the Fibre Line @ 800 Pounds per year!
      So over a 10 year period the English punter is up for what again!
      $15,000 or the price of small car for Malcolms FRAUDBAND Fibre Extension!
      AND THIS DOESN’T INCLUDE YOUR NOW PRIVATIZED ISP COSTS EITHER!
      So for the average family an average of $1000 per year ($83.30/month) that brings their spend to $25,000 over 10 years.

      $25,000 + average of $5,000 upfront = $30,000 (not inc VAT costs) over 10 years.

      $30,000 x 12,000,000 subscribers = $360,000,000,000 over 10years direct out of peoples back pockets.

      thats only the fixed line subscribers that ive taken into account…

      $360 billion + $29 billion (libs policy) + $11 billion for telstra copper (what you didnt think they’d just give it away did you?) = $400 billion

      libs $400 billion over 10 years
      vs
      labor $40 billion projected mayyyybe $60 if it blows out in cost (doubtful).

      Oh and just as a side note since everyone’s concerned about asbestos… how would you feel about each pit being opened 200 odd times with less oversight? thats what you’re buying with libs policy as people can choose to upgrade to fibre at different times instead of just getting it over and done with once.

      • Fibroid
        Posted 11/06/2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink |

        Wow I have just caught up with this gem of misinformation.

        ‘$5000 is the average cost over in the UK,’

        No it isn’t, the cost for about 55% of the UK population under a FTTN footprint able to obtain FoD is 200 – 1000 pounds distance based plus a standard installation fee of 500 pounds, that in $A at today’s rates including installation is $1158-$2482.

        http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/updates/briefings/super-fastfibreaccessbriefings/super-fastfibreaccessbriefingsarticles/nga00713.do

        ‘considering their population density and the fact they already have FTTN in place Fibre is easier to roll out under those conditions.’

        umm, Openreach are rolling out FTTN AND FTTH in the UK, they haven’t stopped FTTN and are just concentrating on FTTH because they thought they needed some ‘direction’ from Labor in Australia.

        I am not aware of any ‘Australia unique problems’ relative to other FTTN rollouts in the world not just the UK that indicates a FTTN rollout is not feasible here, technically or economically?

        Keep in mind also the Coalition plan offers 50% off with co-funding on FoD for many applicants who qualify.

        • Posted 11/06/2013 at 2:45 pm | Permalink |

          I am not aware of any ‘Australia unique problems’ relative to other FTTN rollouts in the world not just the UK that indicates a FTTN rollout is not feasible here, technically or economically?

          Haven’t paid that much attention to any of the posts me and other posters here have replied to you with have you?

          I’ll name one: the gauge of the copper utilised in Australia is thinner than the gauge utilised in the United Kingdom. This means than in order to get equivlenet performance you need shorter line lengths.

          It’s not wise to reply to misinformation with misinformation. Maybe you should have just stuck to refuting the $5000 claim?

          • Fibroid
            Posted 11/06/2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink |

            Have Telstra indicated this a deal breaker? if not why not?

            • Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:04 pm | Permalink |

              Oh yes, let’s willing advertise that our network is inferior to overseas versions when it comes to deployment of FTTN. That’ll totally go down well with the shareholders.

              • Alex
                Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink |

                Well Telstra did admit in 2003 that the copper needed replacing, even back then, so…

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:20 pm | Permalink |

                  …… they submitted a FTTN submission to the 2008 Labor RFP, the purpose of which was to upgrade their copper infrastructure nationally to Fibre to the Node.

                  • Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:30 pm | Permalink |

                    Didn’t we have this conversation before?

                    • Alex
                      Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

                      Yes…

                      And we ascertained that Telstra a) pulled out of negotiations with the ACCC (but it was 2006 iirc) and later supplied a non-compliant RFP bid, which having done so twice… supported their 2003 Senate inquiry admission that their copper was cactus and that’s why didn’t want anything to do with FttN…

                      No evidence was presented to disprove this, so…

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

                      Yes we did , the outcome is still the same.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 11/06/2013 at 5:34 pm | Permalink |

                        So no evidence… yes as I said… thank you.

                  • Tinman_au
                    Posted 12/06/2013 at 1:07 am | Permalink |

                    …… they submitted a FTTN submission to the 2008 Labor RFP, the purpose of which was to upgrade their copper infrastructure nationally to Fibre to the Node.

                    If it was commercially viable, why ask the government for handouts?

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 12/06/2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink |

                      What, please explain?

                      • PeterA
                        Posted 17/06/2013 at 9:29 am | Permalink |

                        He is saying If Telstra thought it would make them money why didn’t they do it.

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 17/06/2013 at 5:10 pm | Permalink |

                        As Peter said.

                        If Telstra thought it was such a hot-shot idea (and it’s their copper don’t forget so they have the whole “incumbent doing the upgrade cheaper than anyone else could” going for them) why didn’t they?

        • Alex
          Posted 11/06/2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink |

          “No it isn’t, the cost for about 55% of the UK population under a FTTN footprint able to obtain FoD is 200 – 1000 pounds distance based plus a standard installation fee of 500 pounds, that in $A at today’s rates including installation is $1158-$2482.

          So comparing 1 for 1, that’s the equivalent for connection only, here for MT’s FoD.

          So how much is the current NBN connection only, in comparison…?

    28. Bruce Wallace
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 5:35 am | Permalink |

      Really, how has this totally minor point become such a hammer to bash the NBN with, again.
      Is this all Turnbull has?
      Apart from lies such as the real NBN costing $94Billion.

    29. Jon
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 8:53 am | Permalink |

      It’s this simple….

      HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO PAY NBNCo TO CONNECT??

      Nada!

      How much will (or do for some lucky ones) we have to pay our ISP??
      Same as what we pay today via ADSL.

    30. midspace
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 8:55 am | Permalink |

      At the end of the day, the user ONLY pays for a service.
      The ACCC would have already ruled on this as the wording is already plastered on the NBNCo website.

      If anything Labor failed in its wording.
      Instead of “Connection to the NBN is free.”
      It should have said.
      “No fee to connect to the NBN.”

      As I understand, the CVC is not considered rental. Consumers are not renting the line/fibre. They are paying for a service on the line.
      Its like bandying the difference between a limo service and a car rental. Both get you a car to be driven from point a to b, both cost money. But one you pay a “service” charge for, the other a “rental” fee.

    31. Dave
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 10:15 am | Permalink |

      If you applied the LNP’s NBN protestations to the building of a house you’d end up living in a tent. Some things cost, are hard to organise/do and take time. I don’t understand how that concept has become so difficult to understand.

      • Alex
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink |

        I think ‘everyone’ understands it Dave.

        But unfortunately excepting (publicly) such common sense.just isn’t politically prudent.

        • Dave
          Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:04 pm | Permalink |

          re prudent, that’s yet to be determined. A lot of people here don’t seem to like it. I am btw one of the great (technically) unwashed.

      • Kane
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink |

        Depending on who in the libs you want to believe, you wouldn’t end up in a tent, you would put a slab as big as the house you want, and build a smaller house on it that can be extended to fit the full slab at a later date

        • Dave
          Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:05 pm | Permalink |

          Yeah an then imagine doing that to thousands of houses. Imagine the upheaval.

        • Alex
          Posted 08/06/2013 at 6:12 pm | Permalink |

          Yes and don’t forget even though you are paying almost as much as your neighbour, who has bought a new home, half of your home still belongs to Telstra.

          :/

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:34 pm | Permalink |

        There are a lot of Liberal comments that, taken to their logical conclusions, just don’t make any sense at all. But they sound great as a sound bite…

        • Guest
          Posted 08/06/2013 at 5:35 pm | Permalink |

          let me correct that for you:
          There are a lot of politician comments that, taken to their logical conclusions, just don’t make any sense at all.

          like most fools on the web, you seem to think stupidity only affects one side of politics. you are wrong

          • Alex
            Posted 08/06/2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink |

            I agree both sides of politics (as I have said all along) are equally dumb in many ways…

            But In relation to broadband needs, it is obvious the opposition are dumber…

    32. Kane
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink |

      I never got around to it, but putatively in Jenny Macklins flyer the main statements about the coalition’s plan that should be questioned are,
      minimum speed of 25mb/s, and
      a connection cost of up to $5000.

      While they are both true on their own, to the vast majority of people who aren’t as engaged in this, these put together a very misleading, if you get a 25mb connection, the cost to the user is no different to Labour’s plan, if you pay the 5k, you would get a higher minimum speed, you can’t claim both points are true at the same time though which is what is being stated.

    33. WhatsNew
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink |

      After the eye catching headline, I read this article expecting to see some deep dark secret that Labor were hiding re: connection costs for fibre to the home on the NBN, but found nothing of the sort. Malcolm is conflating connection cost with monthly usage fees. Why didn’t this at least get “half truth” as opposed to “mostly true” from Politifact?

      “Mostly True – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

      Half True – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.”

      I give Politifact “mostly false” on this one:

      “Mostly False – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

    34. Tinman_au
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:28 pm | Permalink |

      In a nutshell. where Malcolm went wrong is that the NBN doesn’t provide the Internet (unless you want to play semantic word games), it just provides the ability/conduit to get it and other services. NBNCo offers NO access plans what so ever to households.

      RSP’s are not a part of the NBN/NBNCo and DO have access charges to get Internet, and other services, access.

      For Malcolm to get a “Mostly True”, RSP’s would have to be also be “owners” of the NBN.

      He should have gotten a “Mostly False”. The only reason that wouldn’t be a “Totally Untrue” is that some people may see iiNet as a part of “the NBN” (though I doubt there would be many, as anyone shopping around for a plan would realise there are a lot of companies that provide an access service….just not NBNCo it’s self).

      • Guest
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink |

        NBN* does let you access the internet. NBNCo does not.
        would be a more appropriate phrasing.

        * requires an RSP account.

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 11/06/2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink |

          Wrong. The NBN is not an internet service. This is why they release “take-up” numbers…you can get the NBN connected to your house and not get the internet…

    35. Gordon Drennan
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink |

      We all knew what TPG meant when it said “unlimited” and quoted a price that was what you had to pay as well as line rental. But TPG was jumped on from a great height be the government’s regulators because a person who didn’t understand could have misunderstood. So if the government can jump on TPG and call that false and misleading, it is only appropriate that the government should itself be held to the same standard. The word “connection” could be read as getting one, or having use of one. There is no charge for the former, but you can’t have the latter without paying someone money. The way the word has been (ab)used by government members is false and misleading. People who impose standards on other people should be required to meet them themselves.

      • Alex
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 7:21 pm | Permalink |

        Unlimited means unlimited…not unlimited…but

        Connection means connection… you know having the fibre connected…

        • Djos
          Posted 08/06/2013 at 7:31 pm | Permalink |

          Having the fibre physically connected to the PCD on your house is what labor are talking about – its pretty clear IMHO.

          They have never implied an NBN based service was free, only that under their NBN you don’t need to pay $500-$15,000 to get fibre laid from a node/fdh to the PCD on the outside of your house.

          • Alex
            Posted 09/06/2013 at 9:39 am | Permalink |

            Indeed Djos…

            Let’s ask this question.

            If it will cost (arguably, up to) $5K to “physically connect fibre to your premises” before any services are supplied, in relation to the Coalition’s plan and $0 for the same via the current NBN…can Politifact spot the difference?

            • Djos
              Posted 09/06/2013 at 9:45 am | Permalink |

              Apparently not but tbh quite a few of their calls to date have used highly suspect logic!

              • Fibroid
                Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink |

                Apparently they are only ‘suspect’ if they enforce a anti-Labor NBN or pro Coalition position, pro Labor or anti-Coalition is always going to be supported as ‘spot on’.

    36. Maude
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink |

      Renai,
      I hope you don’t mind me saying that Malcolm Turnbull will be a panellist on ABC Q & A on Monday June 10th.
      We should use whatever chance we can to send in questions for MT to answer. ABC site is
      http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

    37. Djos
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink |

      Sorry Renai but you are completely missing macklins point:

      “Connection to the NBN is free”

      You are mixing the word connection with the word service! Macklin is correct, getting a fibre connection in labors NBN is free, getting fibre connection under the LBN is going to cost anything from $500-$15,000!

      Getting service is not free for either network but she is also correct that there is no line rental under the NBN in the traditional pstn sense – unlike on the pstn there is no voice service as distinct from a data service, it’s all a data bitstream with whatever services you like provided using that bitstream.

      A basic phone package is a classic example, it’s just a data service with VoIP bundled in!

      • Djos
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 6:57 pm | Permalink |

        Just to clarify, when I say “connection” I’m talking about the install of the PCD on the side of your house that we get for free under then NBN – if we choose to pay for a service we get an ONT/NTD too but the point is under labors NBN 93% of homes are physically connected to the NBN for FREE!

        • Michael
          Posted 09/06/2013 at 12:10 am | Permalink |

          Technically if you want to be truly pedantic, connection to either parties NBN is free; the only difference is the basic service being offered.

          • Djos
            Posted 09/06/2013 at 8:11 am | Permalink |

            Connection to Fibre is not free under the LBN, it is under labour.

            Simple fact is that the LBN isn’t a true NBN, it’s a patchwork collection of mostly obsolete copper based technologies that won’t last past 2020 and should be replaced as Labor planned.

            • midspace
              Posted 10/06/2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink |

              Probably the biggest point going for Labor’s NBN model, ignoring the cost or technology aspect, is the redundancy.
              The loops in the design of the fibre FAN distribution allow failover in case a portion of the network is either cut or breaks down, providing a high percentage uptime (probably some figures on the NBNCo website for that).
              Where as the LNP model (as far as I understand it) does not.
              Some truck backs into your node? Your internet and communications is toast. Some guy doesn’t dial before he digs, and cuts the fibre connection, same deal. It’s like the Warrnambool Exchange fire all over again.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 10/06/2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink |

              Sorry you don’t get to define what a NBN is based on your known political anti-Coalition pro Labor agenda.

              It’s not as simplistic as throwing in a few well worn catch phrases like ‘patchwork’ and ‘obsolete copper’ and thinking the job is done.

              • Alex
                Posted 11/06/2013 at 7:21 am | Permalink |

                http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/04/optus-mulls-user-pays-ftth-nbn-plans/#comment-612026

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 12/06/2013 at 1:13 am | Permalink |

                Labor have the better plan, because it is better, not because it is Labors….

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 12/06/2013 at 10:23 am | Permalink |

                  I don’t agree, the Labor plan to give 93% of residences in Australia FTTH is a multi billion dollar extravagance that is massively drawing down on Government equity that does not help the budget deficit at all, and will also increase public debt when they finally get around to negotiating that multi billion dollar debt in 2015.

                  But as I said before Labor is smart as it looks as if the Coalition will be left with holding the can on that one, Labor can sit back in opposition thinking ‘phew we got out of that one just in time’.

                  FTTN at a much cheaper cost and faster to rollout will be fine, and the vast majority of FTTN residences will be entirely happy with FTTN.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 12/06/2013 at 10:56 am | Permalink |

                    $30B for FttN…

                    Say no more

                  • Posted 12/06/2013 at 11:02 am | Permalink |

                    I don’t agree, the Coalition plan is to give 71% of residences in Australia FTTN is a multi billion dollar extravagance that is massively drawing down on Government equity that does not help the budget deficit at all, and will also increase public debt when they finally get around to negotiating that multi billion dollar debt in 2016.

                    But as I said before the Coalition are smart as it looks as if Labor will be left with holding the can on that one, the Coalition can sit back in opposition thinking ‘phew we got out of that one just in time’.

                    FTTN at a much cheaper cost and faster to rollout will not be fine in the long term, as althrough the vast majority of FTTN residences will be entirely happy with FTTN in the short term, ultimately Telecommications in Australia will need to be upgraded beyond the capacity of FTTN, and the combined cost of a stagged rollout will not result in significant savings compared to a full FTTH in the first place.

                    • Lionel
                      Posted 12/06/2013 at 11:43 am | Permalink |

                      Very true. Fibroid is really just blowing hot air now that the two plans have very similar short term costs. Since, even admitted by Turnbull, the end play is FTTH, there is just no argument as to which should be done. Unless of course you disregard the years of costings done, and the current prices being paid to rollout the network, and go with Turnbulls gut feel and anonymous “experts” (why are all these experts that Turnbull and The Australian quote not named?) and want to inflate the rollout (an inflation that could be just or more valid under FTTN, Telstra copper price? Condition of copper? Much longer copper runs and lower density than the UK? Germany 330,000 nodes to get 25Mb?) figure to support the only little straw left to grasp.

                  • Tinman_au
                    Posted 12/06/2013 at 12:31 pm | Permalink |

                    As others have pointed out, even Malcolm says FTTH is the “end game”. The problem with going FTTN first, is that it’s a massive overbuild (read: wasteful) with FTTH as an end objective. FTTH does not need a node every 400m, you can actually run a signal down fibre over kilometres, not meters.

                    It also remains to be seen if Malcolm’s plan, once it’s actually designed out and properly costed IS actually any cheaper…

    38. Nick Jones
      Posted 08/06/2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink |

      “Macklin baldly state (in bold font) that “Connection to the NBN is free” ”
      “This is, flatly, horseshit. Accessing the NBN is not free”

      Which is it Renai “Connection to the NBN” or “Accessing the NBN”????
      2 different things man!!

      • Djos
        Posted 08/06/2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink |

        +1

        Having a fibre connection vs having a fibre service are 2 different things.

        I can have a phone line connected to my house too but with no active service on it, it would be just sitting there doing nothing and not costing me anything.

        Same goes for the NBN, I could have the fibre tail running into a PCD on the side of my house (free as the NBN rolls past) and I leave it sitting there doing nothing (as many have according to stats). If I want I can order a fibre service 12 months later and only then will I pay for the service and NTD+Wifi Router and installation.

        But in the case of the LBN if I want fibre I have to actively ask for it and pay for a fibre extension to be run to my house – this might cost anywhere from $500-$15,000 but to get fibre under the Libs plan it will cost me money (unless you live in a greenfield estate).

        • Fibroid
          Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:05 am | Permalink |

          If I get FTTN I’m happy with that and I have no intention of ordering Fibre on Demand, perhaps if I was running a photography business from home I might consider it, but then I just use the Internet for what the overwhelming majority as indicated by polls use the Internet for, email, browsing, banking and reading the news.

          FTTN is fine.

          • Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink |

            You get up and arms by us indicating our requirement for FTTH connections, which althrough is true, isn’t the reason we support the NBN over the Coalition alternative, and then think it’s completely okay to be a complete hypocrite about it?

            Further I appericate you indicating your usage pattern as a case study, but how precisely does that relate to the post you replied too?

            He was pointing out relative costs for the minority of users who will opt for a fibre extension under the different plans, in response to a clarification of distinction between upfront and ongoing costs… how that translated into your head as “This poster thinks everyone will want to get FTTHoD and I must explain to him that FTTN will be adequate for a lot of use cases” I will never know…

            • Fibroid
              Posted 11/06/2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink |

              The point is FoD is indicated as being the majority requirement once the Coalition FTTN rollout is established, then the pro Labor NBN analogy can be pushed ‘oh well we might as well rollout FTTH in the first place’.

              I repeat again FoD demand at the RESIDENTIAL level will be so low it won’t be the norm it will be the exception, the vast majority of residences will be entirely happy with FTTN , and will only hook up to FTTH if a RSP, etc comes into their area and rolls out FTTH under a co-funding arrangement 50:50 with the Government NBN Co.

              Then for all intents and purposes a co-funded FTTH rollout works exactly the same (to the residence) as the fully funded NBN Co rollout.

              • Posted 11/06/2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink |

                The point is FoD is indicated as being the majority requirement…

                Actually no it isn’t. I attempted to explain this to you once before, about how the costs of FoD on top of a preexisting FTTN mean that a minority, in fact a relatively small one, only have to sign up to FTTHoD, before you reach the break even point when compared to a full FTTH rollout. You ignored it. You have a habit of doing this. I would strongly appericate it if you stopped. I take the time to read all your replies to me.

                Further, this is again not responding to Djos post in context. You’re streching a point that indicates that if you look at upfront costs in isoaltion, Pollifacts asseisment is incorrect, to an attempt to justify FTTH on FTTHoD. Again, this forum is not here for people to push their political agenda. You have been warned about this from Renai where you accused members on this forum of attempting to push a “pro-Labor” agenda.

                I repeat again FoD demand at the RESIDENTIAL level will be so low it won’t be the norm it will be the exception, the vast majority of residences will be entirely happy with FTTN , and will only hook up to FTTH if a RSP, etc comes into their area and rolls out FTTH under a co-funding arrangement 50:50 with the Government NBN Co.

                Your point is wel made in other areas of this forum. Once again, this point is only very loosely related to the thread you actually replying to. In other words, you’re arguing a strawman.

                Then for all intents and purposes a co-funded FTTH rollout works exactly the same (to the residence) as the fully funded NBN Co rollout.

                Only if Malcolms assumptions about viablity of FTTN and Tony’s assumptions of demand hold true, which we have constantly provided evidence that we don’t believe they will, both points which you have failed to actually counter.

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 11/06/2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink |

                  ‘I attempted to explain this to you once before, about how the costs of FoD on top of a preexisting FTTN mean that a minority, in fact a relatively small one, only have to sign up to FTTHoD, before you reach the break even point when compared to a full FTTH rollout.’

                  Where did you provide the evidence for this?

                  • Alex
                    Posted 11/06/2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink |

                    “I repeat again FoD demand at the RESIDENTIAL level will be so low it won’t be the norm it will be the exception, the vast majority of residences will be entirely happy with FTTN …”

                    Where did you supply the evidence for this?

                  • Posted 11/06/2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink |

                    You’re still off topic.

                    It should be obvious as well. Considering the individual cost of FTTH is, in the best case, about $3k to premises, that’s approximately 2 million premises to reach break even, or about a quarter to a third of actual premises receiving FTTN. Last O checked a third was a minority, a quarter even more so. And that’s using best case figures.

                    • djos
                      Posted 11/06/2013 at 3:48 pm | Permalink |

                      “You’re still off topic.”

                      Standard MO for Lib-trolls

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 11/06/2013 at 5:00 pm | Permalink |

                      ‘Considering the individual cost of FTTH is, in the best case, about $3k to premises, that’s approximately 2 million premises to reach break even, or about a quarter to a third of actual premises receiving FTTN.’

                      Sorry what has the relationship of $3k for the individual cost per premise for the Labor NBN got to do with the cost of FoD (which is unknown anyway), and what ‘break even’ figure in dollars are you referring to?

                      • Alex
                        Posted 11/06/2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink |

                        Hmmm you indicated below… through comparison that the cost would be …$1158-$2482… didn’t you?

                        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/07/politifact-backs-turnbull-labors-nbn-not-free/#comment-612741

                        Now you don’t know… gee it was only a few hours ago… so which is it?

                      • Posted 11/06/2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink |

                        You’re still off topic.

                        Sorry what has the relationship of $3k for the individual cost per premise for the Labor NBN got to do with the cost of FoD (which is unknown anyway), and what ‘break even’ figure in dollars are you referring to?

                        Are you not capable of understanding basic English?

                        The $3k figure is a optimistic estimate for the average cost of a FTTHoD connection per requested connection. Considering they can’t take advantage of any of the economics of scale a full FTTH rollout providers, it is naturally higher than the estimate for FTTH en mass. Something which should be obvious in context.

                        Break even figure by definition is the point at which the cost of one thing equals the cost of another. Since we are comparing FTTH vs FTTN with FoD, it is obvious to anyone who has half a brain that the figure I am referring to is the difference between the two plans. Something that also should be obvious in context.

                        I am sick and tired of repeating myself because I explained this in detail in another post. A post you have clearly not even bothered to read. I was only giving you a quick summary, because as I’ve reminded you, this thread has little to do with the original post we’re in reply to.

                        Do I seriously need to write everything verbose, repeating every point we have made to each other previously, ensuring that a small child with no knowledge of the subject at hand can understand what I’m saying, or are you going to act like a big boy and engage the grey matter between your ears before posting a reply on this forum?

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 12/06/2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink |

                        How can you possibly comment about ‘break even points’ when comparing the cost of Labor FTTH vs Coalition FoD based on a per residence when:

                        1. FoD costs are range based on distance, so is widely variable.
                        2. Co- funded FoD is also widely variable depending on what deal the FoD provider ends up with when negotiating with the fibre contractors who are rolling out the FoD for them, which of course will be based on the number of residences under the intended foot print.

                        It’s accounting mission impossible, especially in June 2013 when we have no idea if FoD will get off the Coalition drawing board post election.

                      • Posted 12/06/2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink |

                        What… the…

                        That is the most ludicrous rebuttal I have ever heard.

                        You could have got it down to 5 words and still have as much input in the debate: “It’s just too complicated man.”

                        Your rebuttal doesn’t even make any sense. You know what else is widely variable cost depending on distance and other factors? Good old FTTH without the attached oD. And yet they manage to make a reasonable estimate of the cost. Same with FTTN, which is also variable cost depending on distance and other factors.

                        What you think that NBNCo are going to build every single connection for exactly the same amount? You think that the installation of a node is going to cost exactly the same no where where you put it?

                        So basically, instead of looking at the evidence and saying “well yeah, he makes some interesting points, but he forgot this particular assumption” your rebuttal is “sorry man, you make some good points ‘n all but really, until it actually, like happens, and we can like, see the cheques, nothing you say matters.”

                        You know, I used to think you were a troll, deliberately obfuscating the truth to push an agenda. That I can handle, hell, I deal with people doing that all the time.

                        But now, after that, Occam’s Razor kicks in… and to be honest, an intelligent troll with vested interests is one thing, but someone who generally believes that he just made a valid point with that post? That’s something else entirely.

              • Abel Adamski
                Posted 12/06/2013 at 12:58 am | Permalink |

                Fibroid
                “Then for all intents and purposes a co-funded FTTH rollout works exactly the same (to the residence) as the fully funded NBN Co rollout.”

                I disagree. If an RSP is going to cofund a rollout it would be lunacy to expect open wholesaling on that fibre. It will be a mini monopoly arrangement. The RSP most likely to be able to afford that would be Telstra in the high value areas who strangely are also the ones responsible for the remediation to allow it.
                Pounds to Peanuts Telstra will insist on a Foxtel package bundled into the FoD service using the multicast product (may not happen as not technically viable via FTTN – especially for HD or 4K), there is form with POTS phone rental.
                The current NBN is about a wholesale only ubiquitous national communications platform . Delivers the coalitions claimed holy grail of CHOICE of service, rsp, product .

                The proposed alternative does not fulfill those criteria, the FOD service by a rsp provided even 50/50 method, certainly involves the LBN, uses LBN infrastructure , but IS NOT a LBN service. The customer is committed to that provider for an extended period with no other choice.
                Effectively over time driving the competitors that don’t have deep pockets or a very lucrative Pay TV Monopoly out of business , so much for promoting competition

                Which comes back to the topic.

                The NBN and the LBN are two similar but different products, that literally can not offer the same choice or platform, instead the choices are denied us and we are told what we want or need .
                As such the evaluation is mostly invalid.

                P.S
                Competition.
                Even the msm is realizing that the ACCC’s stupidity in mandating 121 POI’s is anti competitive and forcing higher prices.

                http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/government-it/fears-telstra-could-exert-control-over-nbn-20130610-2nzxs.html

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 12/06/2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink |

                  ‘I disagree. If an RSP is going to co-fund a rollout it would be lunacy to expect open wholesaling on that fibre. It will be a mini monopoly arrangement.’

                  I don’t believe it, I repeat AGAIN (this must make it about five times!), Coalition Policy states that such a rollout must operate under the same terms and conditions as a NBN Co FTTH rollout, that is all access seekers can use it and the ACCC controlled wholesale pricing is the SAME as NBN Co FTTH.

                  ‘The RSP most likely to be able to afford that would be Telstra in the high value areas who strangely are also the ones responsible for the remediation to allow it.’

                  But under a 50:50 co- funding arrangement it won’t be just Telstra who can afford it, SingTel, iiNet are two other companies that have large shareholder funding that comes to mind.

                  Also it doesn’t necessarily have to be a Telco, any investment group here or overseas may be interested, they just just buy into it, the NBN Co manages and operates it.

                  I am sure the ACCC will look closely at Telstra buying into it as well,and its affect upon competition, they are already by far the dominant Australian Telco

                  ‘Pounds to Peanuts Telstra will insist on a Foxtel package bundled into the FoD service using the multicast product (may not happen as not technically viable via FTTN – especially for HD or 4K), there is form with POTS phone rental.’

                  You are confusing FoD at the retail level with FoD at the wholesale level, how BigPond the BB retailer bundle resold FoD is up to them, if Telstra Wholesale rollout FoD in a area all access seekers can resell in that FTTH area.

                  ‘The current NBN is about a wholesale only ubiquitous national communications platform . Delivers the coalitions claimed holy grail of CHOICE of service, rsp, product .’

                  Yes, but so does the Coalition plan, the only difference is that there will be a mix of fixed line fibre infrastructure, not just FTTH.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 12/06/2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink |

                    As I have said and will say again… IMO, most who oppose the NBN have been completely disingenuous and history proves it.

                    Fibroid, you came here daily to oppose the NBN by claiming it anti-competitive, a monopoly and we are being forced. But after heated arguments and ensuing bannings all round, you just readily agreed with Abel that the current NBN is competitive and there is choice after all… simply because, err well… so too has the Coalition’s?

                    And not a word about being “forced” onto FttP for months (well since the NBN alternatives announcement) – seems the daily refuting, asking will we ergo be forced onto FttN too, finally hit home.

                    Seriously, it is this sort of intentional misrepresentation, do as I say not as I do and one set of ridiculous claims aimed at the NBN which the same people will never aim at the Coalition’s plan, which makes one shakes one’s head in disbelief :(

                    Instead of smoke and mirrors why not a “fair dinkum”, apolitical, nuts and bolts analysis of the two networks Fibroid? Oh that’s right, without the smoke and mirrors, the NBN’s alternative will never stack up, will it…?

                  • Abel Adamski
                    Posted 12/06/2013 at 11:06 pm | Permalink |

                    Fibroid
                    We can only assume from your comments that you are suggesting a “bulk” rollout in an area

                    “based on the number of residences under the intended foot print.”
                    “will only hook up to FTTH if a RSP, etc comes into their area and rolls out FTTH under a co-funding arrangement 50:50 with the Government NBN Co.”

                    a) Telstra owns the pits and ducts and pipes, the NBN is leasing them. Now Third Parties are on the scene. Any remediation is on the terms of NBN’s lease
                    b) How do the third parties make a return on their costs?, if an RSP, they have done the work, expended the money – they own the fibre, what is the customer payment, and what is it for?. Yet NBN is responsible for maintenance etc. And the RSP is left where they may have no retail customers if it is open access wholesale, they may prefer another RSP
                    c) Sell the fibre install to the NBN at what price?, if exorbitant (Private Companies – show me the money, show me the profit). What if the NBN says sorry, won’t pay that price

                    Complications, issues of responsibility, warranty, access to the Cabinets – will it be an active fibre service, GPON, have multicast capability – so many issues. Yet NBN is supposed to take on and manage all these factors, multiplied Australia wide.

                    Sound Good Motherhood Statements for before an election, practical reality may well be that cold shower

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 12/06/2013 at 1:29 am | Permalink |

                The point is FoD is indicated as being the majority requirement once the Coalition FTTN rollout is established,

                True, I know I wont even bother with FTTN, and I suspect with the topology FTTN will take, I’m not sure their FTTH will actually offer the same speeds that the “real” NBN would have offered (the BT one only offers a max of 300Mbps…)

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink |

                Then for all intents and purposes a co-funded FTTH rollout works exactly the same (to the residence) as the fully funded NBN Co rollout.

                if you ignore the massive overbuild and extra expense of having FTTN/H cabinets every 400m and the fact that “hybrid” tech isn’t designed generally for an optimal outcome, then, yeah, I guess so…

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 12/06/2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink |

                  There won’t be FTTN/FTTH cabinets every 400 metres, because FoD won’t be everywhere for a start, and of course there won’t be FTTN cabinets every 400 metres in the first place.

                  • Posted 12/06/2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink |

                    So, based upon your knowledge of the current state of Telstra’s copper, and the gauge utilised, what is the average maximum line length you expect in order to get the promised minimum of 25Mbps without vectoring, as promised by Turnbull.

                    Because, if we look elsewhere in the wrong, you know, your go to line “BT does it! DT did it! It’ll work here” whenever we try to point out no one shares Turnbull’s optimism.

                    For example, take this passage from here:

                    Looking at Deutsche Telekom we can see similar, albeit less stark, contrasts between Australia & Germany: higher population densities, low attenuation copper, & a network that has already had heavy investment over the last decade. Something interesting to note is that when DT deployed their FTTN network to 10 million customers (just 2 million more than the Coalition’s plan intends to connect), they needed to build 330 000 nodes. Yes, that’s 5x the number Turnbull intends in a country where the urban population density is more than double that of Australia. The reason for doing so was to keep loops short enough to support 25Mbps services, as Turnbull wants to do.

                    When you add this to the fact that DT’s copper network is of higher gauge, and better maintained than Telstra’s, and the average population density, 400m is a very reasonable estimate.

    39. Daniel
      Posted 09/06/2013 at 1:02 pm | Permalink |

      Now both Turnbull, ALP Pamphlets, Delimiter, Political-fact are all wrong.

      You all Grasping at straws, while also Malcolm Turnbull get’s away without being attacked for his lack of policy.

      Our political system has gone down hill along with our media.

      *sigh*.

      • Posted 09/06/2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink |

        Define “lack of policy”, if you would be so kind?

    40. Daniel
      Posted 09/06/2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

      Also,

      I just received my Propaganda from Liberals here in QLD.

      My Local member, Andrew Laming, claims I will not get NBN under Labor.

      On the actual evolve it says ” Sorry, No NBN for you”.

      You then open it and it’s got the FUD numbers from the Coalition Party Policy.

      The same costings in the Policy document.

      • Posted 09/06/2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink |

        Can u email that to me please? renai@delimiter.com.au

        • Charles
          Posted 09/06/2013 at 9:09 pm | Permalink |

          http://www.electionleaflets.org.au/ may also be interested in a copy!

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 11/06/2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink |

          Did you get the one I sent via the Tips drop Renai?

          • Posted 11/06/2013 at 5:29 pm | Permalink |

            Yes :) Thinking about whether to do anything with it.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 12/06/2013 at 10:43 am | Permalink |

              There was a couple of points reading Daniel’s post that came to mind, putting aside the FUD comment that is anything in the Coalition Policy is therefore FUD by definition it leaves us with the ‘ Sorry no NBN for you’ comment, which is probably based on this:

              “Background

              The eleven electorates not getting the NBN are:

              “Bowman – Andrew Laming – LNP

              Calare – John Cobb – Nationals

              Forde – Bert Van Manen – LNP

              Hume – Alby Shultz – Liberal

              Mackellar – Bronwyn Bishop – Liberal

              Maranoa – Bruce Scott – LNP

              McMillan – Russell Broadbent – Liberal

              Richmond – Justine Elliott – ALP

              Ryan – Jane Prentice – LNP

              Wannon – Dan Tehan – Liberal

              Wide Bay – Warren Truss – LNP”

              http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/speeches/2012_-_minister_speeches/005

              • Abel Adamski
                Posted 12/06/2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink |

                Aren’t they truly Blessed, they wont be forced to use that nasty Labor fibre and will instead have the glorious choice of using the magnificent Liberal copper wires or Telstra/Optus HFC if available.

                The Lucky people

    41. Alex
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink |

      The Coalition have said the NBN is unnesccesary and oppose it, so…




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • 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 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, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • 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