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

  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Wednesday, June 12, 2013 15:21 - 150 Comments

    Coalition NBN completed ‘six years faster’:
    False claims from Liberal MP

    ciobo

    news A Queensland Liberal MP who has been described as a “Malcolm Turnbull lieutenant” and a long-time critic of Labor’s popular National Broadband Network policy has written a controversial letter to his constituents making a number of false claims about the project, including the claim that the Coalition’s version could be completed “six years earlier”.

    According to the letter seen by Delimiter (click right to see a large version), Steven Ciobo wrote to constituents in early June this year on the issue. The MP’s electorate of Moncrieff contains areas such as Surfers Paradise and the Gold Coast. “Access to fast broadband is no longer a want — it is rapidly becoming a need for Gold Coast households and businesses,” Ciobo wrote. “The National Broadband Network sounds promising when you read the headlines, however the reality for you is quite different.”

    ciobo-small

    Ciobo told constituents that in their neighbourhood, NBN Co’s rollout website currently showed “no planned rollout”. “This means there will be no NBN or any broadband improvements in your neighbourhood for at least three years,” he wrote.

    The Liberal MP added that when Labor first announced the NBN in 2007, it had said the project would be completed in by 2013 at a cost of around $4.7 billion. “Since then, Labor changed the forecast and said it would cost taxpayers $37 billion and be completed by 2021,” Ciobo added. “Now we know it is actually going to cost taxpayers around $94 billion and won’t be completed until 2025.” Ciobo wrote that Labor was “wasting even more taxpayers’ money by building over existing fast broadband networks like cable”, but was leaving many areas of the Gold Coast “without any service at all or with very limited speed”.

    Under the Coalition’s rival proposal, Ciobo wrote, areas on the Gold Coast “like your suburb” with “the poorest broadband” would receive priority. “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 25Mbps, rising to 50Mbps by 2019,” he wrote. “Importantly, the Coalition’s plan will save taxpayers over $60 billion dollars.”

    There are elements of truth to some of Ciobo’s statements to constituents. For example, it is true that many areas of Australia, including on the Gold Coast, are not slated to see network improvements under the NBN over the next three years, as the project under Labor will take much of the next decade to complete. In addition, Labor’s NBN project will see existing HFC cable networks shut down, and Labor did reform the project in 2010 from a $4.7 billion fibre to the node vision in cooperation with industry, to a $43 billion fibre to the premises project conducted by the Government alone.

    However, other elements of Ciobo’s letter are demonstrably inaccurate, delivered without context, or could be considered highly contestable, in that they do not represent mainstream thinking in the telecommunications industry from the consensus of expert opinion.

    For example, currrent projections place the cost of Labor’s NBN vision at around $40 billion, rather than the $94 billion Ciobo mentions. The only source of the $94 billion claim is the Coalition’s background briefing policy document on the NBN (PDF), which claims the real cost could be up to $94 billion.

    In the document, the $94 billion figure represents a case where multiple variables go wrong. The Coalition states that for the $94 billion figure to eventuate, a number of conditions must all be met simultaneously: NBN Co’s revenue must grow much slower than currently forecast, construction costs must be significantly higher than currently forecast, more households must pick wireless alternatives than is currently forecast, and the NBN must take 50 per cent longer to build (an extra five years) than currently forecast. In addition, the Coalition’s policy document also contains a range of other estimates for the cost of Labor’s NBN, starting at around $45 billion and ranging upwards. The figure is not regarded as credible by the bulk of commentators on the NBN.

    Secondly, it is debatable whether the NBN will in fact “cost taxpayers” anything. NBN Co’s current projections (PDF) show that the project will in fact make a return on investment of about 7.1 percent over the long-term, repaying the Government’s investments in NBN Co and them some. Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has stated that he expects the Coalition’s version of the NBN, which predominantly uses fibre to the node technology rather than the more pervasive fibre vision favoured by Labor, to also make a return on investment.

    The HFC cable networks used by Telstra and Optus will stop providing broadband services under Labor’s vision, but the networks are only used by a minority of broadband consumers in Australia, and are not considered by experts to be capable of supporting the level of traffic required for Australia’s future. Most current broadband traffic is carried over the copper network owned by Telstra.

    Ciobo’s claim that the Coalition could complete its version of the NBN six years sooner than Labor is demonstrably false. The Coalition’s initial FTTN network build is slated to be finished by the end of 2016, according to its policy documents, while Labor’s NBN project is slated to be finished by the end of 2021. However, the Coalition’s 2016 rollout can not directly be considered comparable to Labor’s NBN plan, as it guarantees drastically reduced base speeds of only 25Mbps (ranging up to 100Mbps in some areas) across most of Australia at that date — compared to to the 1Gbps speeds guaranteed to the overwhelming majority of users under Labor’s plan by the end of 2021.

    The more comparable target is the Coalition’s 2019 goal, which will aim to deliver speeds of between 50Mbps, ranging up to 100Mbps, by the end of 2019. In addition, a number of industry commentators have stated they do not expect even the Coalition’s 2016 goal to be easy to attain, given the slow pace of the NBN rollout to date. It is expected that many of the same rollout factors — involving issues with contractor skills and management, as well as complications with the management of the dangerous material asbestos in Telstra’s existing network infrastructure, will also apply directly to the Coalition’s rival NBN rollout plans.

    Ciobo’s argument that monthly retail prices under the Coalition’s NBN policy will be 29 percent cheaper is also highly contestable, given that current NBN retail prices are directly comparable to other broadband prices under existing broadband networks. In general, Australian broadband prices have remained stable over much of the past half-decade. The Coalition has not presented significant analysis to indicate that its plan will result in significantly lower retail broadband pricing.

    The Liberal MP’s letter is not the first time he has severely criticised Labor’s NBN project. For example, in a speech in Parliament in July 2011 (the full text is available on his web site), Ciobo stated: “For cities like the Gold Coast, where Telstra is already in the process of rolling out wireless technology providing 100 megabits per second, with no cost to taxpayers, and where the Australian Labor Party does not even have a schedule for NBN for six years, the Australian Labor Party says, ‘No, you’ve got it all wrong, Steve. The taxpayers have got it all wrong. The NBN is the way to go because taxpayers will pay for it. It will be in excess of six years but, hey, it will have been worth it.’”

    “I am unashamedly opposed to the complete waste of taxpayers’ money that is NBN Co. Where it is not commercial for private providers to undertake that activity, fine—the Labor Party would carry me. But the reality is that in the vast majority of instances, it is commercially feasible, it is already happening …”

    Ciobo, who has held his eat since 2001, was previously the tourism, arts, youth and sports spokesperson for the Opposition, but was demoted to the backbench in September 2010 by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. At the time, a columnist for The Australia, Peter Van Onselen, speculated that Ciobo was “a Malcolm Turnbull lieutenant”.

    The news comes as inaccuracies continue to fly from both sides of politics with regard to the NBN. The Australian version of pioneering US fact-checking website Politifact last week gave 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 in similar letters to constituents as Ciobo sent.

    Politifact also recently gave a “mostly false” rating to Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s National Broadband Network policy will see Australians charged $5,000 for access to fibre broadband infrastructure.

    In early May Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull came out swinging against what he described as “misleading and dishonest” material criticising the Coalition’s NBN policy and promoting Labor’s own, which prominent Labor MPs have started distributing to their constituents ahead of the upcoming Federal Election.

    However, the Coalition has also made a number of misleading statements about Labor’s NBN project over the past several years. In one of the more blatant examples of misleading commentary, Federal Shadow Education Minister Christopher Pyne inaccurately claimed on national radio in October that the National Broadband Network had not connected any customers at speeds of 100Mbps, despite the fact that in fact, 44 percent of NBN customers connected to the project’s fibre infrastructure at that point had taken up such speeds. There have been several dozen other similar examples over that period.

    Similar to the misleading infographics distributed by Labor MPs over the past several months, an infographic currently published on the Facebook page of the Liberal Party of Australia misrepresents Labor’s policy. It conflates Labor’s initial, $4.7 billion policy outlined in 2007 with its reformed 2009 policy, falsely alleging a blowout from $4.7 billion to $90 billion in the project, and a decade-long project timetable extension.

    The ongoing misleading comments has led academics to label the NBN debate as having been poisoned by a constant series of inaccurate and misleading statements.

    opinion/analysis
    There are more than enough legitimate bases to criticise Labor’s NBN vision at this point, as Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has demonstrated over the past few months. It’s disappointing to see Liberal MPs like Ciobo resorting to the bottom of the barrel — throwing away the intelligent debate I know the MP is capable of — to criticise the NBN in a blatant populist appeal to voters, based on a series of statements devoid of context, and basic inaccuracies. Let’s hope the MP can do better next time around.

    Image credit: Athmitchell, Creative Commons

    submit to reddit

    150 Comments

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

    1. Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

      Holy crap, Renai is such a Labor apologist, I don’t know how he sleeps at night defending this white elephant of a project, it’s like school halls on steroids.

      • Mark
        Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:33 pm | Permalink |

        Why are you anti kids having decent buildings to learn in? ;)

      • Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink |

        I’m assuming this is a spam post? Renai?

        • Grey Wind
          Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink |

          No that’s Renai he just likes anticipating accusations of party bias, and I find it quite humorous :)

          • Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink |

            Ohhhhh – trolling trolls. Got it.

            Slow – stuck in code.

            • Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:30 pm | Permalink |

              I have to say, trolling trolls on my own site is one of life’s purest joys.

              • PeterA
                Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

                Very Web 3.0.

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 13/06/2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

                And as it was the first post, I think it could be termed a “pretroll”….very “Minority Report” :o)

                • socrates
                  Posted 13/06/2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink |

                  At least when you troll on your own site, it’s very unlikely that you’ll get modded off!

                  And now back on topic, before I get the bullet:

                  One of the biggest lies-by-omission in the Coalition proposal is that it purports to infer that the coverage area of their FTTN will broadly be the same as that of the NBN.

                  In fact it will be nothing of the kind. The HFC areas will get nothing new, and there will be a lot of outer areas in the NBN plan that will not get FTTN, for various reasons such as cost cutting and excessive distance to node. So the FTTN area will not be comparable to the NBN coverage at all.

                  • Fibroid
                    Posted 18/06/2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink |

                    Very interesting indeed, you know more about the proposed NBN FTTN coverage maps before they have even been put forward by the Coalition NBN Co after the reveue process post a Coalition win sometime between late 2013 and early 2014.

                    • Lachlan
                      Posted 18/06/2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

                      No, he just reads the actual coalition policy document.
                      It allows for 10% of households, about 1.2 million of them, to not necessarily get more than 25mbit.

                      The dag ends of the FTTN, beyond VDSL range, are likely to be those left behind in these copper ghettos being able to get maybe 30mbit but nothing more except for only the possibility of paying thousands for fibre.

                      HFC connections which already meet the 50mbit limit will also be able to be ignored under the policy, as stated above. But with no testing mechanism stated in the policy, even a theoretical 50mbit capability, such as the contented Optus HFC network, might meet the policy requirements.

                      Also, the FTTN network is required to make a positive ROI. So given the conflicting mandates, it’s quite feasible to put the position that coverage and performance will be sacrificed to meet that requirement.

                      Anyway, the reviews have so much wiggle room and the policy is so rubbery, the coalition could do anything from rollout the existing plan, to licence a Telstra FTTN monopoly via a impairment and fire sale of NBN co, to just dumping the whole thing as unprofitable while subsidizing rural broadband to payoff the nationals.

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 4:24 pm | Permalink |

                        ‘No, he just reads the actual coalition policy document.’

                        I wasn’t aware the Coalition Policy was so specific, perhaps you could point out where it states:

                        ” and there will be a lot of outer areas in the NBN plan that will not get FTTN, for various reasons such as cost cutting and excessive distance to node.”

                        ‘The dag ends of the FTTN, beyond VDSL range, are likely to be those left behind in these copper ghettos being able to get maybe 30mbit but nothing more except for only the possibility of paying thousands for fibre.’

                        What makes you think they will be unhappy with 30Mbps, so therefore the only option for them is paying for FoD?

                        ‘HFC connections which already meet the 50mbit limit will also be able to be ignored under the policy, as stated above. But with no testing mechanism stated in the policy, even a theoretical 50mbit capability, such as the contented Optus HFC network, might meet the policy requirements.’

                        HFC can do 100Mbps now, I have no idea what you are on about with your 50Mbps limit.

                        ‘Also, the FTTN network is required to make a positive ROI. So given the conflicting mandates, it’s quite feasible to put the position that coverage and performance will be sacrificed to meet that requirement.’

                        Well the Labor FTTH is required to make a postive ROI also with a hell of lot more CAPEX in providing it to 93% of residences, so why will coverage and performance be sacrificed only under a Coalition rollout which is less cost than Labor, but the Labor NBN will not have to do that?

                        ‘Anyway, the reviews have so much wiggle room and the policy is so rubbery, the coalition could do anything from rollout the existing plan, to licence a Telstra FTTN monopoly via a impairment and fire sale of NBN co, to just dumping the whole thing as unprofitable while subsidizing rural broadband to payoff the nationals.’

                        I agree with you there, but keep in mind rural broadband is effectively subsidised no matter who does it, starting way back with the Broadband Connect scheme enabling rural exchanges with ADSL and heavy subsides for a rural satellite BB connection.

                      • Djos
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

                        Wow Fibroid, with all the strawmen you keep at your place I feel sorry for your neighbors as you are a real fire hazard!

                      • Lachlan
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink |

                        “What makes you think they will be unhappy with 30Mbps, so therefore the only option for them is paying for FoD?”

                        Well, takeup rates for 100Mbit connections are running at over 30%, that’s at least 20% of households that are voting with their wallets to pay for more than they will be allowed to pursuit.

                        “HFC can do 100Mbps now, I have no idea what you are on about with your 50Mbps limit.”

                        Exactly, but that 50Mbit limit represents the finish line for the Liberal policy (Page 8 of the policy document.). So you can get a contented line that can theoretically reach 100Mbit, but slows to maybe 20Mbit after school lets out, and still have “super fast broadband” that meets the expectation. That’s on page 11 of the policy document.

                        “Well the Labor FTTH is required to make a postive ROI also with a hell of lot more CAPEX in providing it to 93% of residences, so why will coverage and performance be sacrificed only under a Coalition rollout which is less cost than Labor, but the Labor NBN will not have to do that?”

                        Easy, the NBN is exceeding it’s revenue target, is under budget, and has flexibility in financing that’s excluded explicitly in the coalition policy.
                        “the statement of expectations will specify a limit on the public capital available to NBN co. This limit will be $29.5 Billion.” page 8 of the coalition policy document.
                        Also, the coalition policy will require NBN co to spend most on underserved areas first, which would have higher capex $/subscriber (page 9 of policy document). It allows cherry picking of less costly areas for FTTH by competing networks, (page 10) while undercutting NBN pricing in a discriminatory basis (page 8) and still requiring NBN rollout in those areas. And it doesn’t include the possible cost price of the Telstra copper……
                        If you don’t think those crippling limitations won’t exhaust the capital limit before meeting the reduced expectations inherent in the coalition policy, then I’m sure ROI hurdles will be able to be met and I will be wrong.

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 20/06/2013 at 11:33 am | Permalink |

                        ‘Well, takeup rates for 100Mbit connections are running at over 30%, that’s at least 20% of households that are voting with their wallets to pay for more than they will be allowed to pursuit.’

                        Yes but take up rates on HFC 100Mbps which is a optional plan on BigPond or Optus cable for those that can get it, which is not all cable customers doesn’t really equate directly to 30% of residences that have a FoD option will cough up the dollars to have it rolled out then pay for the monthly plan on top of that does it?

                        ‘Exactly, but that 50Mbit limit represents the finish line for the Liberal policy (Page 8 of the policy document.)

                        No it’s not the finish line, it’s a minimum limit for the FTTN rollout by 2019, many will get higher than that on FTTN, FTTH and HFC.

                        ‘Easy, the NBN is exceeding it’s revenue target,’

                        Really, what revenue target are you looking at that has been exceeded? which is a interesting statement to make as rollout targets were not met TWICE and have been updated downward TWICE so the NBN Co have less revenue from residences that should have been connected but are not.

                        ‘ is under budget,’

                        Figures please.

                        ‘“the statement of expectations will specify a limit on the public capital available to NBN co. This limit will be $29.5 Billion.” page 8 of the coalition policy document.’

                        I at least give you full marks for actually reading the Coalition policy, I assume you think the Coalition rollout will cost more than the anticipated $29.5b of borrowing plus the stated CAPEX from Government equity, the question then is how you know this before the rollout has even started and such a statement could only be reasonably made around at 2016-2019 at the earliest.

                        ‘Also, the coalition policy will require NBN co to spend most on underserved areas first,’

                        Which is as any Government funded rollout should be.

                        ‘which would have higher capex $/subscriber (page 9 of policy document).’

                        I have read page 9, what statement do you draw that conclusion from?

                        ‘ It allows cherry picking of less costly areas for FTTH by competing networks, (page 10) while undercutting NBN pricing in a discriminatory basis (page 8) and still requiring NBN rollout in those areas.’

                        Anyone rolling out FTTH (FoD) must provide it to all access seekers at ACCC controlled wholesale NBN Co pricing, I don’t know how your ‘undercutting NBN pricing’ works in that Coalition policy situation.

                        ‘it doesn’t include the possible cost price of the Telstra copper……’

                        Which may be contained within the $11b already contracted with Telstra to shut down the copper under the Labor NBN.

                        ‘If you don’t think those crippling limitations won’t exhaust the capital limit before meeting the reduced expectations inherent in the coalition policy, then I’m sure ROI hurdles will be able to be met and I will be wrong.’

                        Well I don’t foresee any crippling limitations as you have painted them because most of your points are based on incorrect assumptions.

                      • Lachlan
                        Posted 20/06/2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink |

                        ‘ is under budget,’
                        Figures please.

                        http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/media-releases/2013/report-to-parliamentary-joint-committee.pdf
                        Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2, hell, lets just say pg 3-11.
                        “I also draw your attention to something that may not have been obvious: in the $37.4 billion there is $3.6 billion of contingency. That contingency we have carried forward from our very first corporate plan and that is 10 per cent of our capex. That 10 per cent contingency has remained since the beginning of the project—we have not had a need to call on that 10 per cent contingency.”
                        QUIGLEY, Mr Mike, Chief Executive Officer, NBN Co., Hansard 19/4/13
                        “Just against the FY13 budget, in terms of indirect costs, we are currently running about 10 per cent under budget.”
                        QUIGLEY, Mr Mike, Chief Executive Officer, NBN Co., Hansard 19/4/13
                        You might note that a contingency in a budget that isn’t spent would result in a project being under budget.

                        “‘Also, the coalition policy will require NBN co to spend most on underserved areas first,’
                        Which is as any Government funded rollout should be.”

                        Ah, but there in lies the rub. If FTTH exceeds HFC or FTTN in capability, won’t those areas be “underserved” eventually compared to the FTTH areas, hence by your admission deserving of a government funded rollout of FTTH. Hence by your logic, the correct choice is a universal FTTH rollout. (I think I have heard that idea somewhere before.)

                        ‘ It allows cherry picking of less costly areas for FTTH by competing networks, (page 10) while undercutting NBN pricing in a discriminatory basis (page 8) and still requiring NBN rollout in those areas.’
                        Anyone rolling out FTTH (FoD) must provide it to all access seekers at ACCC controlled wholesale NBN Co pricing, I don’t know how your ‘undercutting NBN pricing’ works in that Coalition policy situation.

                        “non discrimatory terms for reference products”Pg 10 Reference products as definied pg 8 as minimum broadband rate (eg 12mb.) and the most popular phone and broadband bundle (probably 25mb and UNI-V).
                        So, privateFTTHco offers wholesale prices below NBNco rates for those two limited options, but charges like a wounded bull for any higher speed on wholesale prices while giving it’s own retail arm a sweet heart deal, with no ACCC comeback under the policy.

                        “‘it doesn’t include the possible cost price of the Telstra copper……’
                        Which may be contained within the $11b already contracted with Telstra to shut down the copper under the Labor NBN.”
                        There is at least $2 billion worth of ULL revenue lost to Telstra due to the immediate severing of copper in a FTTN rollout vs the 18+month transition period of the FTTH rollout. $14/month times 18 months times 8 million ULL gives $2.16 billion. That’s for starters….. IP, termination equipment, telephony billing systems, all of which will be needed by the FTTN, which Telstra would be the sole source…. I’m sure they will give that up for free.

                        “Well I don’t foresee any crippling limitations as you have painted them because most of your points are based on incorrect assumptions.”
                        Well, different assumptions, which lead to different conclusions. I just have been burnt more by the Liberals, and just trust MT to be the lawyer he is with the policy document.

        • bern
          Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:57 pm | Permalink |

          Yeah, I think the banhammer needs to swing on that one!

          • Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:31 pm | Permalink |

            I’ll speak to the editor about getting Renai banned. I can’t believe he’s lasted this long.

      • Deep Thinker
        Posted 12/06/2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

        I would prefix “unashamed” to “Labor apologist”.

        Otherwise, +1

      • RocK_M
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:13 pm | Permalink |

        I find the technical term is Labor stooge :D

      • Kandid
        Posted 15/06/2013 at 10:24 am | Permalink |

        Campbell Newman was raised in Tasmania :)

    2. Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

      Can we expect the MSM to call Ciobo on lies?

      Where is the outrage from those shouting the words “JULIAR” every day?

      • jane
        Posted 16/06/2013 at 12:03 am | Permalink |

        Don’t hold your breath, although with Rupert a bit preoccupied trying to dud Wendi Deng, the msm might grow at least one. :)

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 16/06/2013 at 3:21 am | Permalink |

          “Don’t hold your breath”

          Indeed. you just need to look at how Limited News is handling the Murdoch/Deng divorce (you’d think it’s all sunshine and lollipops). Imagine how Limited News would be reacting if it was Gillard and Mathieson…

    3. Lachlan
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:39 pm | Permalink |

      HI Renai,

      Just a quibble with the above comments,
      “Labor’s NBN project will see existing HFC cable networks shut down” isn’t completely accurate as the NBN-Telstra agreement only covers the internet customers and not the existing pay TV customers, (such as it is).
      So the HFC networks will still exist and be used after completion of the NBN fibre rollout, just not for internet.

    4. Peter
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink |

      “Ciobo, who has held his eat since 2001″

      Perhaps he’s just in need of a feed? I know I get light headed when I don’t eat for a while.

      • Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink |

        Stupid phone takes so long to type… :(

    5. Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink |

      Ciobo, who has held his eat since 2001

      Man, I can’t go without food for more than a week without it getting unbearable, but this guy hasn’t consumed anything in 12 years?

      Damn.

      • Gwyntaglaw
        Posted 12/06/2013 at 7:49 pm | Permalink |

        Bloody breatharians. Always bragging about how the weight just falls off them.

      • Duke
        Posted 14/06/2013 at 1:17 am | Permalink |

        On the basis of the content of his media release I think “Ciobo has held his meat for the last twelve years” may be a better fit…

    6. jasmcd
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink |

      It has pretty much all been said for how loose the opposition are with their facts and figures. You get the impression they would sell their own families if it would guarantee their success at the next election. This despite the fact they almost have that guarantee anyway.

    7. Alex
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:30 pm | Permalink |

      Hmmm, now compare this to the argument over “free NBN connectivity” being debated a few days back….

    8. David Lannan
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:33 pm | Permalink |

      I did notice that there was no comment that in fact the Gold Coast already has sites under construction, and the majority of the Gold Coast from Palm Beach to Southport will have construction commenced within the next 3 years

      Check the NBN rollout map here http://www.nbnco.com.au/when-do-i-get-it/rollout-map.html?address=Surfers+Paradise%2C+Queensland

      • jasmcd
        Posted 12/06/2013 at 10:32 pm | Permalink |

        No, Ciobo will insist that the 600,000 residents on the GC should all have access to the NBN tomorrow. It is apparently a strong Liberal area. Ciobo has had his seat for 12 years and the Liberal mayor has also been an ass in the past to NBN Co, despite the work being done on the GC and the NBN Co Call Centre adding jobs to his city.

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink |

        A lot of the areas that aren’t on the GC rollout map yet, already have access to decent internet (the Gold Coast has a lot of areas with HFC for example), so his claim that the NBN is leaving many areas of the Gold Coast “without any service at all or with very limited speed” is pretty wobbly as well.

        • Ken
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink |

          Unfortunately, I’m in one of the areas of the Gold Coast, not yet on the coverage map, and with terrible internet.
          Basically all of the northern end of the coast (Oxenford, Coomera, Upper Coomera) are stuck in RIM hell. Stuck with ADSL 1, high rates of congestion, no top hats on the horizon.
          Personally, I’d rather wait it out for fibre, but something does need to be done to fix the internet in this area. Many times of the day I can’t even reliably stream a youtube video.

          • Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:29 pm | Permalink |

            Believe me when I say we all empathise. Unfortunately no one, except NBNCo, is in a position to help you (unless you can pay for your own community ISP project, but that’s another story entirely).

            I really wish there was a cost effective interim fix for people in your position, and unfortunately FTTN isn’t really it. Which is annoying, but unavoidable. So stick in there mate, and make everyone aware, and campaign to have your area in the next release sites. Hopefully someone will listen. :)

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 16/06/2013 at 2:15 am | Permalink |

            I agree with Knight.

            I’m actually pretty lucky in that I have HFC and can get 100Mbps now if I want it, but I actually believe that 100Mbps to all Australians is where we should be heading (for multiple reasons including things like productivity and folks being able to start online businesses from home), so I’m voting Labor this time around in the hope that they can get the NBN far enough along that the Liberal party can’t “can” it. Not sure it’ll make that much difference in the lower house (Steven Ciobo’s “safe as houses” seat here), but I can make a difference for the senate at least.

    9. paul grefell
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

      No fact checking links allowed on this site, please.. We are trying to maintain low standards of journalism.

    10. Ben Zemm
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink |

      Have I gone back in time or something? It feels like this exact article is posted every week or so.

      Also how is the coalition plan so expensive? Shouldn’t it be closer to the 4.7b plan from 2006? Talk about government waste!

    11. Tailgator
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink |

      “There are more than enough legitimate bases to criticise Labor’s NBN vision at this point, as Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has demonstrated over the past few months.”

      And in my opinion (and Renai’s if some of his past articles are anything to go by) he has also demonstrated more than enough illegitimate bases to criticize Labor’s NBN vision on.
      Imo Ciobo is simply taking a Liberal approach of mixing fact with fantasy in the hope that the electorate will believe him.
      Which does not bode well for the implementation of the Liberal policy should they win the election.

      • Fibroid
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 9:34 am | Permalink |

        Well mixing fact with fantasy is not the exclusive domain of the Coalition is it?

        “Gillard said the Coalition’s broadband plan will “cost households $5000 to get connected”.

        That is just not accurate. While others in Government qualified the statement by saying the price might be “up to $5000″, Gillard left out the qualifier, making it sound like every family in Australia would have to pay that much. ”

        http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/12/julia-gillard/julia-gillard-says-coalitions-nbn-will-cost-househ/

        • Lionel
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 11:13 am | Permalink |

          Yes, it was inaccurate. It was not however a continual and deliberate deception, there is a difference.

        • Guest
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 11:58 am | Permalink |

          “Gillard said the Coalition’s broadband plan will “cost households $5000 to get connected”.

          That is just not accurate.

          ====

          The statement is accurate. Your comprehension is flawed.

          The statement does not say “it will cost EVERY household $5000 to get connected”.

          Politifact shows a disturbing level of political bias and needs to be called on it at every instance.

        • Angy
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink |

          Granted the ALP argument is based entirely on the BT rollout, I still find it tenuous at best to say something is inaccurate when the truth is being concealed. Why stop at saying it could cost up to 5000? Might as well say it could cost up to 10000. Who the fuck knows? Turnbull denies the claims but fails to explain the true numbers.

          • Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:04 pm | Permalink |

            Then it would be getting down to the levels of “worst case situation for every possible step of the way” rather than basing it on an existing rollout that the Coalition have used over and over again as the pin-up child of FTTN over FTTH.

            • GongGav
              Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:34 pm | Permalink |

              Then it would be getting down to the levels of “worst case situation for every possible step of the way” — like how Ciobo states “Now we know it is actually going to cost taxpayers around $94 billion and won’t be completed until 2025″?

              “Actually” is an adverb, defined as ‘an actual or existing fact’, which means he is representing what he states to be true. Grubby politics, representing the worst case scenario for the opposition as a foregone conclusion, and his own best case scenario in response.

              Where do the Liberal apologists stand on that one?

          • Fibroid
            Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

            ‘Turnbull denies the claims but fails to explain the true numbers.’

            Oh I see, in the absence of any figures from the political party to whom the FoD concept belongs as part of their NBN platform it’s ok for Labor to pluck figures out of the air as a scare tactic , jeez that’s easy eh?

            • GongGav
              Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:40 pm | Permalink |

              Nice of you to be consistently selective Fibroid. No numbers have been plucked out of thin air, the $5000 figure has been provided internationally by plenty of people as the likely peak cost for a FttN to FttH conversion.

              Will it cost $5000? Very very unlikely. But its remotely possible, and a lot closer to the truth than Ciobo’s claims here.

              The only thing Gillard left out was the words “up to”, a far smaller crime than what Ciobo is doing here – “actually going to cost taxpayers around $94 billion ” is a statement of fact. Look up the definition of “actually”.

              Its grubby politics because thats the standard line the entire party is using. Labor’s standard line is UP TO $5000, with Gillards omission the exception. If you’re going to hang her for that, give a noose to Ciobo as well, and tighten the knot.

            • Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink |

              No, it’s not right, but it’s why the scare tactic is working. While any policy doesn’t have certainty surronding its cost the opposition of said policy will use any avenue they can to pick holes in it.

              It doesn’t make it right, it doesn’t make it ethical, it’s just the way it’s done.

              You have to accept it as a reality of politics and we rely on people like Renai to pick apart the bullshit from the reality.

              Look, I don’t agree with the process of doing a “he said, she said” kinda thing when it comes to the spin and bullshit coming from other partys, no point getting upset about it. By all means correct people who do it, but it’s not worth it to point out the hyprocrisy.

              Why? Because by pointing out the hyprocrisy you’re being as hyportical as the guy you’re responding too.

              • Posted 13/06/2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink |

                …and this is where the media traditionally would have stepped in and asked questions to put holes in both sides…

                With the NBN-lite proposal from the Coalition, the number of questions not asked regarding the risk to the project goals is astounding – especially with where the focus has instead been on.

          • grump3
            Posted 13/06/2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink |

            Well I’m just outside a present roll-out area & surrounded by multiple new housing developments being serviced by an exchange/node some 5 to 7Klm distant from most of us.
            Patchy mobile reception in our heavily timbered area with lots of tall trees & ancient copper that struggles to provide an audible phone service even in dry weather.
            $5,000 each wouldn’t even give us a whiff of fibre so will be interesting to see what we end up with for our promised “25Mbps service in 2016″ other than possibly satellite at a likely $100/mth for a handful of GB?

        • Alex
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink |

          How can you argue over the FoD cost being under $5K when it is (well was yesterday anyway) according to you… unknown?

          http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/07/politifact-backs-turnbull-labors-nbn-not-free/#comment-612790

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 16/06/2013 at 2:18 am | Permalink |

          “Gillard said the Coalition’s broadband plan will “cost households $5000 to get connected”.

          That is just not accurate. While others in Government qualified the statement by saying the price might be “up to $5000″, Gillard left out the qualifier, making it sound like every family in Australia would have to pay that much. ”

          Replace “will” with “can” and it’s entirely accurate.

          There’s nothing you can swap in for the Liberals that makes their statements any where near accurate though…

          • Fibroid
            Posted 16/06/2013 at 8:59 am | Permalink |

            You have to love the crazy efforts to sympathetically analyse Gillards statement and manically downplay it as a subtle ‘oh a word was just left out’ while at the same time exaggerating anything the Colaition says, including multiple, deliberate misquoting of Coalition NBN Policy by many posters here in Delimiter.

            When the misquoting is pointed out it is usually met by a stoney silence, only to be repeated again a week or so later, sometimes from the same person.

            I can only assume desperate times as we head rapidly towards a probable Labor loss in September require equally frenetic anti Coalition NBN spin, fact or fiction it doesn’t matter.

            • Alex
              Posted 17/06/2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink |

              Funny you make a bid deal about leaving out the words ‘up to’… but will willingly accept $94B (plus) as the current NBN cost and six years earlier for FttN…???????

              Really?

            • Tinman_au
              Posted 17/06/2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink |

              “You have to love the crazy efforts to sympathetically analyse Gillards”[snip]

              No, substituting “will with “can” isn’t crazy, real crazy efforts are things like increasing the cost and time of a project by a factor of three to suit an agenda, and then acting like thats “for real”.

              • Fibroid
                Posted 18/06/2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink |

                Both sides are playing exaggeration politics on the NBN, you have to try and get the punters attention on a relative boring subject somehow, but to try and dilute anything Labor says because after all what does it matter we have to keep that FTTH multi billion dollar juggernaut rolling on regardless.

                • Alex
                  Posted 19/06/2013 at 11:00 am | Permalink |

                  Yes if only they had said “up to” $94B and “up to” 6 years earlier eh?

                  ;)

    12. Tel
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink |

      … compared to to the 1Gbps speeds guaranteed to the overwhelming majority of users under Labor’s plan by the end of 2021.

      No, the current NBN plan is 2.4 Gbps at 30:1 contention which is only a guaranteed speed of 80 Mbps, still faster than 25 Mbps but not by as much as the article suggests. Yes it matters because anyone who wants to apply QoS can only enqueue at the guaranteed bandwidth (or close to if they are willing to take risks).

      • Posted 12/06/2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink |

        Oh, because the ISPs are totally going to provide uncontented 25Mbps links to every Tom, Dick and Harry in Australia.

        You’re deliberately obfuscating the point.

        How about we put it in “Telecommunications Expert Spec” rather than the “Normal Man” speak Renai used for you so you can understand what the point actually was?

        Coalition: minimum PIR expected upon order of maximum available advertised plan for users at the completion of network build: 25Mbps with an upgrade to 50Mbps via vectoring expected.

        NBN: minimum PIR expected upon order of maximum advertised plan for users at the completion of the network build: 1Gbps.

        You see, being pedantic like that such that you require Renai to unambiguously qualify every statements serves to do nothing except annoy people. And one person you really don’t want to annoy here is Renai.

        Further don’t think you can get away with mixing CIR and PIR like you just did above. The only way your argument applies is if you use the following criteria to define it:

        Minimum IR expected under maximum capacity per household between the NTU and first active network hardware. Which is quite frankly a retarded measurement criteria, and only one you would use if you are deliberately trying to mislead someone. Why? Because that is no way indicative of actual expected network performances. I have a 1Gbps link between my computer and the router in my house, why then can’t I download at over 100MB/s from every server on the web? Oh that’s why, because my DSL connection is only 10Mbps. What’s so special about the line between the NTU and first active network hardware that allows you to treat it differently than any other link in the chain?

        • Tel
          Posted 12/06/2013 at 8:52 pm | Permalink |

          OK, so the bottleneck sits at a higher level with the ISP. Very likely true in a lot of cases (not all) but that just reduces the difference between last mile technologies when the bottleneck is determined by unrelated factors.

          Thank you for playing, I think you have proven the point I was making.

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 16/06/2013 at 2:20 am | Permalink |

            Thank you for playing, I think you have proven the point I was making.

            Seriously? Limiting everyone to 25Mbps is your “solution” to congestion? /boggle

        • Tel
          Posted 12/06/2013 at 8:54 pm | Permalink |

          Further don’t think you can get away with mixing CIR and PIR like you just did above. The only way your argument applies is if you use the following criteria to define it:

          Errrr, I was referring to CIR in both cases, because copper lines are not shared between subscribers. If there is contention with an ISP it is not contended on the copper lines but higher up into the network. You really should already know this.

          • Posted 12/06/2013 at 9:59 pm | Permalink |

            OK, so the bottleneck sits at a higher level with the ISP. Very likely true in a lot of cases (not all) but that just reduces the difference between last mile technologies when the bottleneck is determined by unrelated factors.

            Thank you for playing, I think you have proven the point I was making.

            If that point is that no matter your connection speed you can’t fully realise it unless the server you access and the intermediate hops you make support it allow for it, then this is quite frankly obvious.

            So obvious in fact I’m confused as to why you’re pointing it out. So you can try and suggest that just because there a limited applications for above 50Mbps that that somehow justifies no provisioning for more? Hmm, I’d love to see a road built by you. “The highway this road connects too only has 2 lanes, so we should build the houses right next too it without any room for future expansion” because that’s how a sane engineer makes decisions is it?

            So basically, I may have proven your point, but your point doesn’t refute or otherwise undermine Renai’s.
            Which is… umm… why I didn’t try and refute you, I accused you of obfuscation… did you miss that?

            Errrr, I was referring to CIR in both cases, because copper lines are not shared between subscribers. If there is contention with an ISP it is not contended on the copper lines but higher up into the network. You really should already know this.

            As I said, you were comparing the following Minimum IR expected under maximum capacity per household between the NTU and first active network hardware. Which is quite frankly a retarded measurement criteria. Which means I do know this, and to suggest otherwise indicates to me that you’re desperately trying to undermine my points here by suggesting I’m incompetent by taking something out of context.

            Further, what you failed to understand is that CIR is not this figure you were quoting. CIR is the minimum expected speed over the entirety of the network. We don’t know what the CIR actually will be in either case, so you were trying to impose a CIR estimation to a network where we only have information about one hop and the PIR.

            One hop does not a network make. As you’re well aware I’m sure, over one hop, using a non-shared medium, the PIR and CIR are equal. Which is why you don’t refer to the CIR or PIR over one hop.

            And you’re not seriously now going to try and tell me we should opt for FTTN over FTTH because “shared bad, direct good” are you? That’s like suggesting we shouldn’t build a railway line or invest in mass transit because independent transport is so much more flexible.

            Further, that argument opens a can of worms I’m sure you don’t want to get into, why not direct fibre instead of GPON? They’ll comparable in cost considering most of the expenses actually goes into works…

            Oh and remember, if you were comparing CIR, there is something you should be aware of:

            There is no if when it comes to contention in the residential space. There is only how much. Hence the sarcastic point at the top of my post… did you miss it?

            Thank you for playing. I’m here all week.

            • Gene W
              Posted 13/06/2013 at 10:45 am | Permalink |

              It’s almost as if he only just discovered that contention exists.

              Worrying that a 10Gbps line (since they’re moving to 10GPON) won’t have 1Gbps spare 0.00001% of the time is the first worldest problem I’ve seen all day.

              • Posted 13/06/2013 at 10:52 am | Permalink |

                In this case, I know Tel knows what contention is, because we’ve dicussed it before.

                However, unfortuantely there are people in the world who don’t understand contention at all. They seem to think that if you have a 100Mbps you always have 100Mbps avaiable. For example I saw one commentor arguing that under the current deployment of GPON (2.4/1.25Gbps for those not aware) they could only practically have 24 100Mbps connections in a First in First Served setup, implying that it would be possible for 8 clients to miss out on the connection entirely if everyone signed up to 100Mbps on their ONT. He went on to say that this problem would be even worse when they started offering 1Gbps connections.

                I almsot fell off my chair with that one.

                • Gene W
                  Posted 13/06/2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink |

                  I saw one poster say something like “once they hit 24 100Mbps connections, they upgrade it to 10GPON”. Yeah…

            • Lionel
              Posted 13/06/2013 at 11:17 am | Permalink |

              Go back to the release of ADSL and there were people arguing there was not point getting it. Servers were only disigned to supply data for dialup speeds and the international links were a bottleneck. Having 256Kb was a waste of money, you wouldn’t be able to utilise it…
              Same old, same old.

            • PeterA
              Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink |

              Thanks for this NK.

              Such a pity that his simple to say mis-representation takes so very much text to refute.

    13. Mathew McBride
      Posted 12/06/2013 at 11:19 pm | Permalink |

      “The Coalition’s initial FTTN network build is slated to be finished by the end of 2016″

      I’m curious as to how they could achieve their initial build in such a timeframe. Has any type of project plan been put forward anywhere?

      Unless Telstra has designed FTTN for the whole country in secret and only told Malcolm about it?

      • Fibroid
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 9:21 am | Permalink |

        Telstra has already planned to replace their copper with FTTN, they submitted it in 2008 to the Labor RFP.

        What they maybe facing post September is a partial FTTN build in conjunction with FTTH and their existing HFC, not too hard I would have thought.

        • PeterA
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink |

          Wait, Telstra is the coalition NBN Co?

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 13/06/2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink |

            If you read between the lines, yes.

            There are rumours that Malcolm will be stacking NBNCo executive with ex-Telstra execs (Justin Milne and JB Rousselot).

            http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/06/12/tips-and-rumours-898/

            There is also the apparent expectation of Malcolm that they’ll get to use Telstras copper for free

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-10/coalition-expects-telstra-to-hand-over-copper-network/4619594

            There is also speculation that Malcolm may have already even done a deal with Telstra

            http://www.zdnet.com/has-turnbull-already-negotiated-fttn-nbn-concessions-with-telstra-7000014969/

            • Fibroid
              Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink |

              wow breaking headline news!!

              Telstra who 100% owns the copper link that is a crucial component of Fibre to the Node will be involved in the rollout of that infrastructure under a Coalition plan.

              Who would have ever thought!

              • Alex
                Posted 13/06/2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink |

                And therein lies just one problem of many problems….in relation to the Coalition’s always the bridesmaid never the bride plan…

                And people who cried anti-competitiveness in regards to a very retail competitive NBN, should have a long hard look at themselves…IMO.

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 14/06/2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink |

                  Of course there is zero Telstra involvement in the Labor NBN rollout, if you overlook the $11 billion payout to shut down Telstra HFC for broadband and the shut down of Telstra exchanges running ADSL2+ and PSTN voice.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 14/06/2013 at 10:56 pm | Permalink |

                    Once again I see you are very selective in your replies to me… my others were obviously a bit too hot for you to handle :/

                    But please enough of the shut down this and shut down that… Because these rules you invent and only apply to the NBN, then expect people to swallow are utterly ridiculous.

                    So I’ll ask for the umpteenth time (for not one answer yet) did you complain about asphalt roads shutting down dirt roads? Or digital shutting down analog (TV and mobile)? Go on tell me you have never “shutdown/replaced” anything at your place with something better… *sigh*.

                    “Again”… it’s known as decommissioning due to progression and improvement and anyone who has two eyes and can carry more than one how to vote card, can see this…

                    Funny thing is (as are most of you intended NBN only claims) even though they don’t, if they actually had credence, they almost unanimously would also apply to the FttN you adore, but you will never admit this :/

                    The copper to be used in FttN has been made obsolete (outmoded, outdated, replaced by something new and better) by fibre. The only people who argue this point are FttN junkies and/or Coalition politicians… But NOT, even the Coalition’s colleagues abroad are that visionless…

                    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/11/copper-wire-technology-whose-time-has-passed/

                    So seriously…

                    And again of course, you overlook the whole, regarding the $11b being for a number of things, such as customer migration, pits and ducts leasing, etc and don’t forget, these sorts of deals are done in the business world regularly.

                    But without such a deal (a deal even yourself had to begrudgingly admit previously, was fair, being sanctioned by the ACCC) the NBN could have still gone ahead without it…

                    Can the Coalition do FttN without Telstra’s copper last mile? Go on tell me they can roll out their own copper (or better still FttP) ;)

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 14/06/2013 at 4:05 pm | Permalink |

                Telstra who 100% owns the copper link that is a crucial component of Fibre to the Node will be involved in the rollout of that infrastructure under a Coalition plan.

                Who would have ever thought!

                Telstra always had to be involved in FTTN, it’s there copper, I’ve said that all along.

                Now, how much do you think they’ll want for that copper?

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink |

          Telstra has already planned to replace their copper with FTTN, they submitted it in 2008 to the Labor RFP.

          Not exactly true.

          The way you word it, you make it sound like Telstra had decided to use FTTN and the government could help them do it.

          Telstra submitted a design for Labors “request for proposal”, the proposal being that Labor set up an FTTN NBN. Labor (or more importantly, an expert panel that advised Labor) decided it did not meet the evaluation criteria (one of which being that Telstra cut small and medium-sized enterprises out of being involved in the NBN).

          Telstra abandoned it’s own plans for rolling out FTTN back in 2005. Instead, they started using FTTP in greenfields and retrofitting FTTP in areas that needed reworking (like South Brisbane).

          • Fibroid
            Posted 13/06/2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink |

            ‘Telstra submitted a design for Labors “request for proposal”, the proposal being that Labor set up an FTTN NBN.’

            OMG here we go again, the RFP didn’t specify the fibre upgrade type, it could have been FTTN OR FTTH OR a mix of both.

            Telstra submitted FTTN.

            • Alex
              Posted 13/06/2013 at 6:30 pm | Permalink |

              Correct it was FttN and/or FttP, again I congratulate you for listening.

              Pity I had to argue tooth and nail with you and even then you wouldn’t admit I was right, when I told you this… but look now :)

            • Tinman_au
              Posted 14/06/2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink |

              Telstra submitted FTTN.

              Well, duh. It only makes sense to do FTTN for an incumbent…

              • Fibroid
                Posted 16/06/2013 at 9:17 am | Permalink |

                The point which you and others always desperately avoid is the copper is capable of a FTTN upgrade, otherwise Telstra would have submitted a full or partial FTTH proposal in 2008.

                This is despite armchair musings from the armchair brigade on Telstra fault reports based on a ‘someone said a tech said….’ type of deep analysis.

                A partial FTTN rollout as per the Coalition plan will be fine.

                • Alex
                  Posted 17/06/2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink |

                  Yes and how was this RFP Telstra submitted, which you use as your so called evidence?

                  Let me answer (as you have a reluctance to do so)… it was “non-compliant.”

                  This after previously indicating they would consider FttN, but pulling out.

                  So Telstra pulls out of FttN twice, yet you still suggest they actually were going to build it, because the copper is fine?

                  History clearly suggests you are wrong…!

                • Tinman_au
                  Posted 17/06/2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink |

                  The point which you and others always desperately avoid is the copper is capable of a FTTN upgrade, otherwise Telstra would have submitted a full or partial FTTH proposal in 2008.

                  I’ve never said the copper isn’t capable, and I’ve also never said you couldn’t do an FTTN rollout.

                  My stance has always been that the time for FTTN is passed, and that the cost when compared to FTTP makes it a waste of money.

                  The Libs are saying $30B for their LBN, and there are many things they haven’t adjusted that price for as we’ve found out in the weeks since (with things like paying Telstra for access to the copper, and Malcolm admitting he didn’t factor enough cabinets to start with).

                  • Fibroid
                    Posted 18/06/2013 at 10:12 am | Permalink |

                    Apparently the time has passed for FTTN only in Australia, many countries overseas are actively rolling out both FTTH and FTTN, it gives you a warm comfortable glow to know that Australia is so flush with funds (that’s turning a blind eye to the Budget deficit and Government debt – that helps) we can afford to rollout FTTH to 93% of the population on the basis ‘they need it’.

                    Of course the best indicator of ‘need’ is when the copper is shut down, there is nothing like adding a boost to ‘need’ when there is nothing else to choose from.

                    • dJOS
                      Posted 18/06/2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink |

                      is that so, show me another non-incumbent telco building FTTN?

                      That’s right, no one but incumbent Telco’s are building FTTN, everyone else is building FTTP (google, Electricity companies, municipal councils etc etc all building FTTP!)

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 18/06/2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink |

                        Your point is what? the incumbent Telco in our case being Telstra has a copper link crucial to a FTTN rollout that is ‘out of bounds’ for any Government/private partnership NBN infrastructure rollout because?

                        The incumbent ducting, exchange space, copper customer base and HFC BB customers are fair game for the Labor NBN and they are paying the incumbent $11 billion for it all, but that’s ok?

                      • Alex
                        Posted 18/06/2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink |

                        @ Fibroid.

                        “Your point is what? the incumbent Telco in our case being Telstra has a copper link crucial to a FTTN rollout that is ‘out of bounds’ for any Government/private partnership NBN infrastructure rollout because?”

                        I think the point he was making, which is obvious to all people with two eyes and who can carry more than one how to vote card, was… it is cheaper for an incumbent who already owns the legacy infrastructure to roll out FttN than another who does not own the infrastructure… don’t you agree that is bleedin’ common sense?

                        Of course Telstra’s copper is not out of bounds… just don’t be naive and believe that copper will be gifted. It will either be paid for in cold hard cash or plenty of back scratching ;)

                        “The incumbent ducting, exchange space, copper customer base and HFC BB customers are fair game for the Labor NBN and they are paying the incumbent $11 billion for it all, but that’s ok?”

                        Yes that’s ok… remember you agreed previously, because the ACCC sanctioned the deal.

                        Yet you keep harping on about it, or picking certain people who perhaps hadn’t seen you agree, seemingly just to try to make cheap, nit-picky political points?

                        Really?

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 12:44 pm | Permalink |

                        That’s right, no one but incumbent Telco’s are building FTTN, everyone else is building FTTP (google, Electricity companies, municipal councils etc etc all building FTTP!)

                        Exactly, and as they do, people are already starting to introduce applications to use that bandwidth.

                        http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57589753-93/fast-fiber-apps-coming-at-70-percent-the-speed-of-light/

                        It’s a very interesting article, with a lot of interesting links in it (Comcast unveiling that it can do 3Gbps cable for example)

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink |

                        It’s really a pity that the majority of Internet use is for email, browsing, reading the news and banking then isn’t it?

                      • Posted 19/06/2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink |

                        It’s really a pity the majority of road usage is short less than 20km runs to the shop, work and home. We shouldn’t bother spending untold billions building highway links between towns and cities, they’re only used by a small percentage of people.

                        It’s really a pity the majority of power usage is confined to home lighting and heating. We shouldn’t bother providing large capacity industrial links to factories since they only use a fraction of the power home users do.

                        It’s really a pity the majority of people reading this site don’t comment, we shouldn’t bother providing a comment function because only a fraction of users actually use it.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

                        @ Fibroid,

                        “It’s really a pity that the majority of Internet use is for email, browsing, reading the news and banking then isn’t it?”

                        Yes under those circumstances, it really makes the $30B, short term FttN network, even more of a waste. If only there was a similarly priced, superior, longterm solution!

                        Thanks for highlighting this ;)

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 21/06/2013 at 11:02 am | Permalink |

                        @Fibroid “It’s really a pity that the majority of Internet use is for email, browsing, reading the news and banking then isn’t it?”

                        if you really think that, then you really should educate yourself better on the subject. Here is a place for you to start: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/

    14. mick
      Posted 13/06/2013 at 9:06 am | Permalink |

      My biggest beef is that politicians are not being held to account for their lack of accurate knowledge and more importantly lack of ethical behaviour or personal integrity.

      The voting booth is not sufficient deterent it seems with people generally voting party lines.

      The comment about poisoned debate is spot on. How many read sites like this? (Sorry renai ;P) there is no balance of fact or truth for the mainstream population.

      Politicians in australia need to lift their game…. and be made to lift it.

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink |

        +100

      • Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:52 pm | Permalink |

        Agreed – there’s definitely a lot of parroting of press releases and just “report” what someone said, as opposed to fact checking claims made and treating it as partisan spin until a view can be expressed on the point.

        It’s like this across every point of discussion.

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 13/06/2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink |

          there’s definitely a lot of parroting of press releases and just “report” what someone said

          Exactly, this is where MSM/”4th pillar” are letting Australians down these days. Thank god the 5th pillar is picking up the slack…

    15. Carnivore
      Posted 13/06/2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink |

      ROFL at the comment, we don’t have enough qualified people to be able to keep the NBN on track now so what make them think they could do it faster. Any project can come a cropper to any number of issues including technical know how and even asbestos.

      The problem with the whole of the NBN is that Labor believed it could do it even in the financially unstable environment we have today. The way I see it Labor had a excellent Vision but has bitten of too much to quick and is now chocking on it’s mouthful. If the Coalition believes it can do better then it had better think again becuase there are to many variables which can make this project drag on forever.

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:46 pm | Permalink |

        You must have missed the story about how they are getting back on track:

        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/28/nbn-co-to-beat-june-target-says-itnews/

        Sure they are still behind their original targets, but they seem to have rectified the issues that caused that and they say they can catch back up now.

        Personally, I think it very healthy that they can acknowledge they have a problem and can fix it, rather than make shit up and try and bury the issues.

    16. arcc
      Posted 13/06/2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink |

      “he expects the Coalition’s version of the NBN to also make a return on investment.”

      Actually, according to the coalition plan, he doesn’t. Page 8 states “NBN Co will be required to achieve these objectives while providing a positive after-inflation return on all post-election equity invested by taxpayers”.

      The coalition have no expectation of return existing money, and ROI (not IRR!) greater than inflation for post-election money. An IRR of 2.5% is less than bond rate, and a ROI of 2.5% is less than an IRR of 2.5%.

      Sure, it’s technically a positive return on investment, which is good for PR, but it’s not enough for it to be treated as an investment from a budgetary point of view. What are there no articles on this and the massive budgetary implications such as the coalition policy to return to surplus?

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:56 pm | Permalink |

        but it’s not enough for it to be treated as an investment from a budgetary point of view.

        I thought the thinking on it was that as infrastructure, they just need to be able to cover the cost of set up, the asset it’s self is the actual “return”?

        The part where I have a problem with their plan, is as they are intending on allowing infrastructure competition, low take up of the LBN will mean they won’t even get to cover the cost of the initial set up.

        As I already have HFC (which delivers much higher speeds than FTTN), why would I want to change? The HFC example applies to 30% of Australia, that’s a pretty big hole in the plan right there….

        • Fibroid
          Posted 17/06/2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink |

          ‘The part where I have a problem with their plan, is as they are intending on allowing infrastructure competition, low take up of the LBN will mean they won’t even get to cover the cost of the initial set up.’

          Of course you overlook that infrastructure competition as in a 50:50 FoD rollout and the fact that it is also a partial FTTN rollout means that the initial setup cost is much less than the Labor plan, so the Coalition have LESS cost to cover in the first place.

          • Posted 17/06/2013 at 10:55 am | Permalink |

            Let’s just ignore the existence of HFC because it doesn’t suit your argument?

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

              What is it about HFC that doesn’t suit my argument?

              • Posted 18/06/2013 at 11:35 am | Permalink |

                Well, HFC isn’t 50:50 Co funded FoD, is it?

                So by saying that infrastructure competition is 50:50 Co funded you effectively ignore about a quarter of the market that will be in direct competition with HFC under the Coalition plan.

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 18/06/2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink |

                  Yes I know HFC is not co-funded FoD, it still don’t know what your point is, unless you are saying FoD won’t be available in HFC areas so therefore FoD is not viable because of this,

                  The point I would make about that is how do you know co-funded FoD will not be allowed to be rolled out in HFC areas?

                  • Posted 19/06/2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink |

                    You specifically talk about infrastructure competition and then try to define that to be Co Funded Fibre, which isn’t.

                    You know what is competition? HFC vs LBN. They key is in the description: competition. i.e. they compete. CoFunded fibre doesn’t, it replaces the FTTN.

                    • Tinman_au
                      Posted 19/06/2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink |

                      I’m not sure he realises that every non-LBN connection is a nail in the coffin for an ROI on the LBN…

                      Put simply, the Liberal plan is to fully fund 73% of folks to have access (via FTTN), but 73% of people won’t take up that access, as they will have other (mostly better) alternatives that wont go toward paying back the cost…

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 1:17 pm | Permalink |

                        What better alternatives are there for residences connected to a NBN Co FTTN cabinet?

                      • Posted 19/06/2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink |

                        For those who have it available, HFC.

                        Which was my entire point. You know, pointing out that HFC is the actual infrastructure competition we are meaning when we refer to infrastructure competition because CoFunded fibre isn’t infrastructure competition. It’s an optional upgrade, nothing more.

                        That’s like saying that getting a 4G phone service from Telstra is in competition with a 3G phone service from Telstra. Both contribute to Telstra’s bottom line, only one requires an additional upfront cost to utilise.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 19/06/2013 at 5:06 pm | Permalink |

                        @ Fibroid.

                        “What better alternatives are there for residences connected to a NBN Co FTTN cabinet?”

                        Here we go ‘again’… not applying the same logic relating to FttN that you incessantly did/do with the NBN/FttP…?

                        Didn’t you claim the NBN/ FttP was unnecessary and/or even unviable because other avenues such as wireless only homes would make FttP unwanted by many potential NBN customers?

                        So why doesn’t such logic automatically transfer across to FttN?

                        Ironically, after making such claims towards the superior FttP you now conveniently ignore wireless competition claims in comparison to the slower, lesser, inferior FttN? The same wireless which is also vastly inferior performance/specs wise to FttP but not FttN. Especially LTE which could (does?) surpass FttN, actually making wireless a real option vs FttN.

                        Personally I think wireless will impact on a small scale in relation to FttP, but FttN well, if prices and quotas aren’t ridiculously expensive in comparison to FttN and congestion isn’t a major issue, I’d suggest the impact of wireless on FttN could be far greater.

                        I’m sorry Fibroid, but every time I read such blatant contradictions in logic, the word hypocrite comes to mind :/

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 17/06/2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink |

            Of course you overlook that infrastructure competition as in a 50:50 FoD rollout and the fact that it is also a partial FTTN rollout means that the initial setup cost is much less than the Labor plan, so the Coalition have LESS cost to cover in the first place.

            Yes, less cost…..you say that like $30B is nothing :/

            While the LBN has less cost, there is also far less incentive for people to sign up to it…I know I won’t be.

          • Abel Adamski
            Posted 18/06/2013 at 11:25 am | Permalink |

            Fibroid
            And who pays the 50%’s and How and Where do those Angel’s obtain their ROI and Fat Profits, who is responsible for the Guarantee , maintenance and repairs?. Of course as NOT bulk rollout, costs will be much higher so savings less than touted, also using Telstra’s infrastructure which has been leased to the NBN, Now the Legality of using that infrastructure and the leasing costs.
            In reality unless a la OPTUS off the Power Poles, Telstra is the ONLY one that that would work for, they own the infrastructure. Look at their inefficient expensive Bris South Rollout.

            But then it is all about maximum snouts slurping at the Taxpayer Trough which is how it will work out in reality under the Coalitions Plan whilst they proclaim it is all Labors Fault, and deliver second rate inadequate for the future

      • SMEMatt
        Posted 13/06/2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink |

        The wording is also bit tricky there and I would say a lot misleading. Notice the “after election” bit so the first thing they will do is write off what has already been spent on the NBN. Bet they will claim it as labor debt.

        • Fibroid
          Posted 16/06/2013 at 9:34 am | Permalink |

          Perhaps because it is Labor debt?

          • Alex
            Posted 17/06/2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

            There is a clear path mapped out how this debt will be fully repaid.

            Therefore, if the Coalition gain power and refuse to stick to this plan to repay the debt, that is their decision and therefore, it will become their debt.

            Surely this is obvious?

            • Fibroid
              Posted 18/06/2013 at 4:05 pm | Permalink |

              Yes I understand the principles of carried forward accounting liability, of course the Coalition intend to tone down the Labor NBN extravaganza, while Labor look on in opposition grinning at what a close call it was and the Coalition are left holding the financial can.

              One of the fortunate consequences of Labor procrastination on the yet to be negotiated NBN debt scheduled for 2015 is that the Coalition will control the main debt purse strings, and just how much of the original Labor multi billion dollar extravaganza dream will actually be negotiated.

              • Alex
                Posted 18/06/2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink |

                Extravaganza… wow…

                And $30B for FttN linked to obsolete copper is what, just right?

                Funny when the McKinsey NBN report first came out and the figure of $27B was mentioned, those such as you attacked tthis huge amount…

                But look now?

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 19/06/2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink |

                  Cooking the figures to try and make the Labor figure look relatively good I see.

                  Let’s compare eggs with eggs here, the actual Coalition figure from their policy vs the actual NBN Labor figure from the latest Business Plan.

                  You quoted the required funding figure of $30b (it’s $29.5b actually) for the Coalition, so the true comparison is the actual required funding of $44.1b for the Labor NBN.

                  That’s better.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 19/06/2013 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

                    Firstly, once again I ask why do you only reply to some of my questions or comments (to you)… are the others too hot for you?

                    Secondly, thank you for that copy/paste of your stock standard response (I’ve seen that almost as many times as Mat’s infamous 12mbps/50%, now)… nice too, seeing you once again totally ignore the crux.

                    Funny, yet typical, when someone makes a point here and it is clearly meant to be interpreted a particular way and 99% of people will do so, you can always rely on at least one person here to go the 1% route and argue the strawman… and abracadabra, here you are again…

                    The point so strenuously overlooked by you was… this wasn’t a funding comment, it was a basic comparison of two announced figures. One firstly touted by McKinsey (regardless of the ins and outs) of $27B … which was decried by those like you as a massive amount of money. We can’t afford it…

                    But the second figure from Malcolm Turnbull, of $30B (and for a lesser product, FttN, to fewer people) isn’t decried by the same people as a lot of money… don’t you see the hypocrisy…

                    No of course not… but the other 99% do :)

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 20/06/2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink |

                      Yes got all of that, you still rigged the figures to try and make the Labor rollout look cheaper, I fixed it for you so that it was a fair comparison based on stated figures from the NBN Co 2012-2015 Corporate plan and the stated figures from the Coalition NBN Policy.

                      • Posted 20/06/2013 at 10:03 am | Permalink |

                        I think maybe you’re reading a different thread to the rest of us.

                      • djos
                        Posted 20/06/2013 at 10:07 am | Permalink |

                        He’s living in a Liberal party fantasy’verse!

                      • Alex
                        Posted 20/06/2013 at 10:57 am | Permalink |

                        Well since you insist on going down the typical childish, nit-picky route…

                        Yes I got all of that, you stll didn’t answer my question… are my other questions and comments too hot for you?

                      • jasmcd
                        Posted 20/06/2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink |

                        The only figures that are currently rigged are those that are on the liberal broadband policy. The policy is a high level document, political in nature to present the Liberal Broadband plan in the best possible light and to rubbish the NBN. The business plan from NBNCo contains actual figures, informed by actual experience and test sites on the ground here in Australia. These figures have been revised to reflect the real life challenges that have been faced and that are expected with a undertaking of this size.

                        NBNCo has corporate responsinilities and auditing requirements to ensure that they are not “cooking the books”. As CEO Quigley himself could face jail time if he was found to be openly decieving their share holder, and as in all likelihood their main shareholder is going to be replaced by a much more hostile one, it is in his best interest to be forthcoming with the truth or at very least not to intentionally decieve the Australian Public. Further to this, both the NBN and the Communication Minister are exposed to the additoinal pressures of FoI requests which is another avenue to expose this imagined fraud many Liberal supporters believe NBNco to have committed.

    17. Tinman_au
      Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink |

      Great article Renai, one of your best yet :o)

      And if any Aussie politicians read this, please stick to the facts, there’s enough of them to argue either way without having to make stuff up…

    18. djos
      Posted 13/06/2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

      More Lies from the Lieberal’s, frankly im shocked….. oh wait, no im not!

    19. Viper6
      Posted 14/06/2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink |

      Talk about misleading people. My parents received this letter. They are in Emerald Lakes on the Gold Coast, which already has FTTP.

      Areas on the Gold Coast like your suburb with the poorest broadband will receive priority’. According to this joker ‘there will be no NBN or broadband improvement for at least three years’. Hello? We already have fibre here and it is likely the NBN will purchase these Smart Community/Velocity FTTP estates from Telstra.

      • Fibroid
        Posted 16/06/2013 at 9:20 am | Permalink |

        You have fibre already because Telstra rolled it out? – the irony has not escaped me.

        • Alex
          Posted 17/06/2013 at 3:36 pm | Permalink |

          Even wirh the usual evasion…

          Don’t think the irony of anyone ignoring the crux of Viper6′s comment… a political rep (regardless of persuasion) sending out leaflets (with taxpayer $…?????) to people who have fibre telling them they won’t get (NBN) fibre, has escaped us either.

          Gee if NBNCo sent letters telling people NBNCo fibre is imminent, when people already have fibre, all hell would break loose and the usual cyclopic suspects would be screaming mismanagement and calling for Quigley’s head.

          How curious… “not” :/

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 17/06/2013 at 5:40 pm | Permalink |

          You have fibre already because Telstra rolled it out? – the irony has not escaped me.

          The real (delicious) irony is that you actually admit/recognise that Telstra gave up on copper and went to fibre themselves :o)

          • Alex
            Posted 17/06/2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink |

            +1

          • Fibroid
            Posted 18/06/2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink |

            There is no irony because Telstra, Opticomm and others fibre rollouts are in greenfield areas, the Coalition Policy is still FTTH for greenfield, which of course has nothing to with utilising a portion of the copper in brownfield areas for FTTN, in order to speed up the rollout and cut down on costs.

            • Alex
              Posted 18/06/2013 at 5:59 pm | Permalink |

              Would that be the very same FttH you said for two years, homes don’t need…?

              • Fibroid
                Posted 19/06/2013 at 1:23 pm | Permalink |

                Where have I ever said greenfield areas should not have FTTH?

                • Posted 19/06/2013 at 2:06 pm | Permalink |

                  All the time.

                  Because, and let me reiterate it for you NBNCo is not an incumbent.

                  Course you’ll have no idea what the significance of this statement is despite it being often repeated to you in the course of the debate.

            • Tinman_au
              Posted 19/06/2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

              Your whole position on the FTTN/FTTH thing reminds me of something Henry Ford once noted, if he had asked consumers what they wanted, they would have said faster horses…

            • Tinman_au
              Posted 21/06/2013 at 11:14 am | Permalink |

              @Fibroid “There is no irony because Telstra, Opticomm and others fibre rollouts are in greenfield areas, the Coalition Policy is still FTTH for greenfield”

              And why do you think all those companies think fibre the best way to go?

              If you were going to roll out a new network, what would you use?

    20. Posted 19/06/2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink |

      I have no idea what the hell you guys are all doing on this ancient thread, but I suspect I will have to post a new NBN rant tomorrow so that people move on.

      • Posted 19/06/2013 at 8:39 pm | Permalink |

        Ancient? It’s only a week old…

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 21/06/2013 at 11:15 am | Permalink |

        It’s not ancient, it’s epic!! :o)




    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