opinion For all his flaws and missteps, Stephen Conroy has been an incredible reformer and revolutionary force for change in Australia’s technology sector over most of the past decade. He will ultimately be remembered as Australia’s greatest ever Communications Minister; a visionary who almost single-handedly drove the creation of the National Broadband Network.
If you were following Australian politics at all last night, you would very likely have been preoccupied with the fate of the major actors in the Federal arena. You would have gasped as Kevin Rudd’s victory over Julia Gillard for the Prime Ministership was announced. You would have admired Gillard’s iron stoicism in defeat and Wayne Swan’s cheery determination to continue on. You would have had mixed feelings at seeing a fairly grim Rudd once again take up the leadership mantle, almost three years to the day after it was torn from him.
Unless you were specifically keeping an eye out for it, as I was, you probably didn’t pay too much attention to some of the collateral damage coming out of this struggle of the titans. Certainly the television networks and online commentators last night gave scant airtime to considering the serious implications of some of the ripples which Rudd’s massive wave of change caused.
This morning i want to give just one of those ripples the attention that it’s due. I speak, of course, of the quiet and dignified resignation last night of Senator Stephen Conroy from the post of Leader of the Senate and, more importantly for Australia’s technology sector, from the role of Communications Minister.
Conroy’s resignation came as no real surprise to those of us who track the Victorian Senator closely.
Of course, there is the obvious fact that Conroy, a long-time Gillard supporter who has made his feelings about Rudd’s mismanagement of the Cabinet in his first tenure as Prime Minister very plain, had already earlier this week stated that he would be very unlikely to serve in a new Rudd cabinet. Along with Wayne Swan, Conroy was expected to be one of the first senior Gillard supporters to depart the sinking ship, in the event of a successful Rudd challenge. And, true to his word (a rarity in politics), he fell on his sword minutes after Rudd’s victory was announced.
However, it’s also true that there has been a certain weariness around Conroy’s performance in his portfolio for much of the past year, and for good reason. There are quite a few in the sector who had suspected that Conroy would make way for a new Minister and seek the back bench following the upcoming Federal Election — perhaps even if Labor was successful in retaining government.
The reason for Conroy’s weariness is very apparent to those who have followed events in the telecommunications portfolio over the past half-decade since Labor first came to power.
If you think about the most important portfolios in Federal Government politics, it’s normally areas such as Treasury, Finance, Defence, Immigration, Education, Welfare and Health which come to mind. These are the areas which normally require the closest oversight by Ministers; they are big-spending portfolios where ideological differences exist between the various parties, and where politicking is common. It is these areas which politicians usually aspire to Ministership in.
Prior to Conroy’s ascension to the Communications Ministership in November 2007, the Communications portfolio was not a particularly important one. Previous ministers in the portfolio — such as Helen Coonan and Richard Alston — primarily oversaw regulatory changes in the area which could be best described as ‘tweaking’. For decades, Australian governments have not invested directly in telecommunications, preferring instead to gradually deregulate the sector and slowly progress the privatisation of former government monopoly Telstra, stimulating competition along the way.
Conroy’s ascension to the Communications Ministership in 2007 changed all this and vaulted the communications portfolio into one of the nation’s most important and the position of Communications Minister into a key senior Cabinet post.
As I wrote at the time, the Senator had realised what very few others in politics then understood; that the problem of broadband blackspots and the gridlock created by the Howard Government’s abject failure to structurally separate Telstra’s wholesale and retail operations (as other countries such as the UK were in the process of doing with their own incumbent telcos) had left a massive opportunity open for a progressive Labor administration to take direct action in the sector. And Conroy also proved himself politically astute at the time; as shortly before his own ascension to the Prime Ministership, Conroy was able to persuade the then-Opposition Leader Rudd of the importance of unprecedented government intervention in the sector.
It must be said that Conroy bungled his first several years as Communications Minister, and wasted much of this opportunity — as new Ministers often do, before they get a grip on their portfolios.
The first, $4.7 billion plan to upgrade Telstra’s copper telecommunications network with fibre to the node broadband technology in partnership with industry was a hopelessly naive plan which eventually imploded in Conroy’s face due to a combination of factors; Telstra’s hostile leadership led by imported US executive Sol Trujillo and his cadre of ‘amigos’, as well as the lack of interest by foreign investors in getting their feet wet in the regulatory quagmire of Australia’s telecommunications sector, and the inability of Telstra’s rivals (despite their own deep pockets) to present a truly viable co-investment plan to deal with its monopolistic nature.
Then too, Conroy also at the time fell massively foul of one of the smallest aspects of the Rudd Government’s telecommunications policy which conservative religious elements were successful at sneaking into Labor’s platform shortly before Rudd took power in November 2007; its hugely unpopular mandatory Internet filter project.
It has long been suspected that Conroy did not personally support this policy and that the Minister would have abandoned it quickly if he had the choice, as he was eventually able to late last year after largely neutralising it as an election issue back in 2010. I guess we’ll find out for sure if Conroy ever publishes a biography. However, of course Conroy did not have the choice, and Rudd’s own somewhat socially conservative background coupled with the Prime Minister’s incredibly stubborn nature placed Conroy in the unfortunately position as poster child for the filter; a position which would continually see the Senator ridiculed in public over the first several years of his Ministership.
To be honest, the filter issue still dogs Conroy, and unfortunately it will be one of the defining policies he will be remembered for in his tenure as Communications Minister. You can see this in the approbrium heaped on the Senator last night as his resignation was made public. “Good riddance to bad rubbish,” wrote one commenter on Delimiter last night. “Conroy was the worst and the most incompetent Communications Minister of all times,” wrote another. And of course, it is unlikely that Conroy will ever live down the ignominy of being named “Internet villain of the year” at the UK’s Internet industry awards in June 2009, at the height of the public’s disapproval of the Internet filter policy.
To say that this is unfortunate is a collossal understatement. For Conroy’s accomplishments in the Communications portfolio since he found his feet in it in early 2009 are truly remarkable, far outshadowing his filter missteps and and placing him in a small elite of Australian politicians who have made huge impacts on the industries which they oversee, as well as a tiny group of Australian politicians who have truly understood technology and the Internet.
Conroy’s pièce de résistance; his shining glory in the portfolio, will always be the early 2009 generation of the Federal Government’s current National Broadband Network policy from the ashes of the old failed policy it took to the 2007 election.
If you go back to the development and launch of the policy (you can find more information about its genesis here), it’s clear that it was a unique confluence of factors centering on Conroy personally that fulfilled the creation of the modern NBN policy as we know it today.
Because of the years he had experienced steeped in the nitty-gritty details of the telecommunications sector, Conroy was able to see that the global long-term future of the telecommunications sector was clearly based on universal fibre deployment. Countries such as South Korea and Japan had already been able to steal a march globally because of the early and expensive bets placed in those geographies, and forward-thinkers in other countries such as Europe and the US, which had often focused on cheaper HFC and fibre to the node rollouts, were already looking ahead to the fibre needs of the next decades.
Conroy’s genius (with a little help from Australia’s own industry) was the realisation that he could use the electoral lure of universal fibre broadband to almost all Australians to simultaneously deliver a number of other policy aims. Replacing Telstra’s copper network with a fibre network would once and for all deal with the technical problems inherent in upgrading that network, and setting up a new, wholesale-only fibre monopoly would once and for all deal with Telstra’s structural separation issues, as the previous Howard Government had failed to do. Along the way, Conroy could also argue that the development of the NBN would stimulate Australia’s economy and assist in its switch to an information economy and away from Australia’s resources and agricultural roots, and there was also the likelihood that the NBN would eventually pay for itself through user subscriptions.
The Senator also knew that only one type of administration would be likely to support such a plan; a new Labor Government backed by a massively popular Prime Minister who would be willing to take a risks to deliver a once in a lifetime infrastructure project. And that’s precisely what the Rudd administration was at that time.
If you go back and watch the press conference in April 2009 where Rudd and Conroy announced the NBN, with hindsight, there is a sense of ridiculous naivity about the event.
Rudd was pushing things way too far with his cabinet and the Labor caucus, an arrogant approach which would result in the night of the long knives a year later. And Conroy, honestly, had no idea that implementing the NBN policy would be as hard as it has been since that time. Project management of a national infrastructure initiative is tough; a lot tougher than announcing it.
But at the time, there was also sense that the pair were introducing something genuinely new and visionary to the Australian political arena; a massive new infrastructure project which would deliver fantastic service delivery outcomes, reform the telecommunications industry and set up Australia for the new digital millennium along the way.
Over the years since that time, there is no doubt that the NBN project as a whole has gone remarkably off-track. It’s universally acknowledged that the project is substantially late, NBN Co has had extensive senior staff turnover and the whole project is turning out to be massively more complex than anyone, except perhaps Telstra, could have anticipated back in April 2009. The Coalition has more than enough ammunition to criticise the project, and the fact that it brought out one of its most powerful guns to tackle it, former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, has not helped Conroy’s ability to defend the project.
However, there is an important fact here worth acknowledging: Conroy’s April 2009 NBN policy has stood the test of time since it was introduced, and there is very little doubt that the bones of it — very large bones indeed, century-influencing bones — will eventually be delivered.
The policy remains overwhelmingly popular amongst the Australian electorate today, it enjoys the support of pretty much the entire telecommunications industry, it is slowly being delivered, and it truly is the envy of many telecommunications industry experts, politicians and most importantly, individual residents and businesses the world over. Out of all of the accomplishments and policies of the Rudd and Gillard administrations, it is very likely the NBN that has been the most visionary policy and the one most likely to impact on Australia’s future in the long-term.
The proof of this is the fact that the Coalition has been forced to largely support it. A close examination of the rival NBN policy launched by Turnbull in April shows that it shares most of its elements with Labor’s existing policy, differing largely only in that the Coalition wants to deliver the project faster, through using less fibre infrastructure and reusing more of Telstra’s network.
That a Labor Government has been able to drag a fiscally conservative Opposition to the table to invest tens of billions of dollars of public money in a project of this size is nothing short of astonishing. Largely, in 2013, we have bi-partisan support for the NBN, and that isn’t due to the quality of the political maneuvering around the project. It is due to the quality, the enduring sheer quality of the original, incredibly audacious vision which Conroy delivered in April 2009. As veteran telecommunications analyst Paul Budde wrote this morning:
“… the achievements of this Minister have been nothing less than remarkable … as a result of his vision and hard work the country is now building a national broadband network, and with contracts in place for NBN connections for approximately half of the population, the future of the NBN is safe. The Coalition has also warmed to the plan and there is now bipartisan support for the NBN. This is an enormous achievement … There won’t be many ministers who will have as great a legacy to look back on as Stephen Conroy.”
Much of this is due to another factor here which must be acknowledged, beyond Conroy’s original NBN vision: His sheer tenacity in driving the project. As Apple supremo Steve Jobs once famously said: “Real artists ship” — or in other words, vision is nice, but delivery is also important.
Those familiar with the NBN debate will know that the Coalition, conservative commentators and the majority of Australia’s mainstream media has done everything they possibly could to tear down this project. Ever since it was introduced four years ago, the NBN policy has suffered constant attacks on every front, from the integrity of its executives to its choice of technologies, from its relationships with its contractors to its reporting mechanisms, from its finances to its public relations approach. Every single piece of mud that exists in this universe has been flung at this project, with every ounce of might that powerful Australian politicians, commentators and mainstream media outlets could muster, even if flinging such mud has required outright lies being told in public.
Yet, unbelievably, the centre has held.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, along with a few key lieutenants such as NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley, have staunchly sat like the Spartans at Thermopylae, and defended their ground with the NBN every step of the way, refusing to yield before the massive tide of incredible lies, half-truths, slander and base accusations which have been flung their way. You all know what I’m talking about here. You’ve read daily about this stuff in the pages of Delimiter for the past three years now. The amount of mud which has been flung at the NBN has been incredible.
And yet, Conroy has not yielded. In fact, he has stood his ground so well that, like Apple legend Jobs, Conroy has succeeded in bending reality around himself through sheer bloody mindedness and guts, to the extent that the Opposition now largely accepts the superstructure of the NBN project and is vowing to “complete” the project faster than Labor could, a statement unthinkable only a few years ago.
I do not exaggerate when I say that, even discounting all of his other important portfolio responsibilities in areas such as media reform, digital television switchover and Australia Post (you know, the reforms he slipped in along the way while he was reforming Australia’s entire telecommunications sector), Conroy has had one of the most difficult, intellectually demanding and controversial portfolios in the Federal Government over the past half-decade, and, unlike almost all of his Cabinet colleagues, the Senator is still standing, having survived both the Rudd and Gillard administrations.
If you attend Conroy’s press conferences, as I do, you will have noticed something growing in the Minister over the past several years. Conroy has become so inured to the ongoing slander being thrown at the NBN, so accustomed to dealing with ridiculous leading questions from media outlets such as The Australian and The Financial Review, so practiced at answering technically inept questions from journalists that know little about broadband, that it has become too easy for the Senator.
When I first interviewed Conroy before the 2007 Federal Election, he was the Shadow Minister, and barely understood the basics of Australia’s telecommunications industry structure, or how broadband worked. Today, the Senator is a master of the area, so much so that it has become second nature for Conroy to use facts to repudiate the ridiculous daily insinuations about the NBN that he faces. To his credit, Conroy has continually advanced his knowledge of the field over the years.
Conroy has always been arrogant; his pushy Senate performances long ago saw him labelled as a ‘bulldog’ in parliamentary circles, and I suspect few will forget his ‘red underpants’ gaffe. But the past few years of being locked in the crucible of the NBN debate have also imparted a degree of wisdom on the Senator. Like a master swordsman, there is now no thrust that Conroy’s can’t adeptly handle; no question that throws the Minister for a loop. I have never met a politician that knows as much about his (incredibly technical) portfolio or who had such a mastery of its details. And I will challenge Conroy’s successor (whoever that may be; there are no obvious candidates) to get to the same level.
However all of this has also taken its toll on Conroy; like all visionaries, the Senator has burnt himself up in keeping the NBN dream alive. He has put too much of himself into the flames of the NBN and has wearied of holding the torch for so long and against so much opposition. That’s why Conroy’s resignation this week comes as no real surprise; he has sacrificed himself for his dreams, and now needs to step back before awaiting the next challenge. Perhaps this was the only way for the NBN to have gotten off the ground in the first place; perhaps it needed a ‘bulldog’ of Conroy’s stubbornness to sacrifice all for the cause for that dream to come alive.
There are also other, smaller reasons for Australia’s technology community to remember the Senator fondly. Conroy was the first Communications Minister to acknowledge the efforts of online broadband communities such as Whirlpool, with the Senator repeatedly mentioning NBN threads on Whirlpool in parliament and in press conferences, as well as mentioning influential bloggers in the telecommunications field.
It’s been this level of attention to detail which has shown the Minister’s true commitment to the portfolio and his process of ‘coming home’ as Minister. It’s hard to believe that someone once denounced as the “Internet Villain of the Year” now spends time trawling Whirlpool to stay up to date on the incredibly detailed nuances of the NBN debate. Yet it’s plainly true.
When much of the Australian public thinks about Stephen Conroy, they think about the politician who wanted to impose a draconian Internet censorship regime on Australia, and who contemptuously attacked those who fought against such an effort. Despite Conroy’s recent attempts to ensure transparency around government filtering (remember, it was Conroy who disclosed ASIC’s use of Section 313 powers to block websites, and Conroy who is trying to put transparency and accountability measures around that practice), I saw that level of vitriole arise again last night when Conroy’s resignation was announced; it’s still out there, and it will never go away.
However, when I think of Senator Conroy in 2013, I see the opposite: Conroy’s not the enemy of the Internet. He’s its main champion in Australia. Over the second half of his tenure as Communications Minister, the Senator went native and became one of our own: A self-professed geek; Australia’s most technically knowledgeable politician; a late night reader of Internet forums; a passionate visionary who burnt himself up in the flames of his idealism in his quest to bring universal high-speed broadband to all Australians.
Conroy is a warrior who fought, day by day, a hostile media, an ignorant Opposition happy to be loose with the facts to score cheap political points; a Communications Minister who so out-classed those who came before him that they can barely be counted in the same category. We might like them personally more, but even Conroy’s contemporaries in the technology portfolio — Senators Kate Lundy and Scott Ludlam, and even Turnbull — have not achieved anything in the portfolio on the scale that Conroy has.
Like him or hate him, you can’t deny Stephen Conroy’s massive impact, and you can’t deny he’s been the greatest Communications Minister Australia has ever seen, and perhaps the only politician who has ever proven worthy of the title. We may never see his like again, and right now, there is really nobody qualified to replace him. Vale, Minister. And thank you.
Image credit: Kim Davies, Creative Commons
Well said Renai. I’ve thought this about Conroy for a while, only someone with his pig-headed stubbornness and determination could have got the NBN up. He had his flaws but when compared to the dire efforts by some of Howard’s comms ministers, he has been very good.
I’ve been planning to write this article for a long time. I was once Conroy’s greatest critic. It is to his immense credit that he has turned me into one of his biggest fans. He has what I would say is the greatest compliment I could pay to anyone — a flexible mind, and the willingness to learn.
Thanks Renai. Well done.
For sure, his willingness to do the hard yards to learn his portfolio is what has impressed me as well.
” a flexible mind, and the willingness to learn”
that’s you, not Conroy I assume you’re talking about?
IMHO He is/was the antithesis of that. He reminded me of Cartman, without the cheesy poofs
Yes he was such a charmer, a factional thug who indirectly inferred Kate Lundy and most of us were ‘opting into child pornography’, shamed himself on Q & A to the amusement of a wide audience, and still couldn’t get technical details of his only tick column item, the NBN, correct. His dalek and big red panic knob can now happily head for Kerrys ski slopes via the portal and the Russian mafia under the pages and into the board room without a care in the world and leave us with his idiotic legacy.
I admire Conroy for his work on the NBN against the most powerful industry, media and political players. I think future Australia will look back on his work as the catalyst for a paradigm shift in online services in Australia.
ITNews has a good summary
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/348139,top-20-stephen-conroy-memories-and-milestones.aspx/0
Literally for his human flaws and mistakes, arguably he along with Quigley achieved a massive amount for Australia, the for Australia is what counts
I’ll admit conroy has done some good things, NBN of course being the prime example, but if he’s the greatest communications minister then what about his predecesors? Did they struggle to understand how telephones worked?
“Did they struggle to understand how telephones worked?”
Yes. They did.
They were completely incompetent. Richard Alston was crowd World’s Biggest Luddite by The Register!
No more Xmas cards for Renai :)
I look on reddit and everyone excited now he’s gone.
The concern I have now is data retention and filtering could return under someone whom could be potentially sympathetic to the argument. Internet filtering as idea been around from Alston days
As you also said is true:
“Conroy did not have the choice, and Rudd’s own somewhat socially conservative background coupled with the Prime Minister’s incredibly stubborn nature placed Conroy in the unfortunately position as poster child for the filte”
Conroy eventually shelved plans once Rudd left office. Preventing mandatory filtering
The thing is, I don’t think Conroy was ever in favour of the Internet filter, but he was tasked with implementing it by Rudd. He backed away from it when he could, ultimately canned it completely, and he’s been the one trying to place transparency controls around use of the Section 313 notices. Data retention is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, not Conroy.
People still have this Internet filter hangup about Conroy — but the rest of his accomplishments really dwarf that whole debacle.
It’s also very instructive to compare his accomplishments to those of the Communications Ministers who came before him. As I wrote, he’s in an entirely different class. The title “Communications Minister” now means something completely different than it used to.
I was never comparing him to past ministers.
As you suggested and I agree. Conroy was never keen on the idea
Just because he’s gone doesn’t mean another person whom might agree with internet filtering arguement
I may be wrong, but I thought it was something to do with needing Steven Fielding’s senate vote for other purposes?
The Howard government made some changes to the Telecoms legislation to win Fielding’s vote and started work on an ISP based filter to buy his allegiance. IIRC the requirement for MA & R18+ material to be behind a paywall was one of the changes made.
When Coonan came out and said that it was unworkable they decided to offer free PC based filters to the masses and in the process produced the ACMA blacklist for use on said filters. It is of note that these filters were a raging success with about 3% of the households taking up the offer.. The other 97% seemed to think that the government should keep their nose out of their family life.
It begs the question, will the filter now be back on the agenda?
Which what to becareful to lookout for upto the election promise after someone elected.
A rejected idea normally pops up again
Nicely put Renai.
Conroy has done a brilliant job of dragging Australian telecommunications into the 21st century.
He really does deserve the credit and our thanks.
Cheers!
Hear hear, Renai. Conroy will always deserve respect and admiration in my book, never minding the minor missteps. He was consistently the most effective Minister the ALP has had for a long time.
Bye Conroy :(
Yet now we face a strong possibility of having a Liberal government after the next election. That probably means bye-bye to a FTTN NBN, so all this all may be moot.
So we’re going to lose the NBN that we all want.
Why?
Because Labor’s going to get voted out of office.
Why?
Because it’s struggled to govern from a minority position relying on independent votes, and has had to make concessions and engage in embarrassing displays (Wilkie, Slipper, Thomson) that have robbed it of policy momentum.
Why?
Because Labor didn’t get enough votes to govern with a majority.
Why?
Because in an election where a few thousand extra votes in a couple of Sydney or Melbourne electorates would have made the difference, young educated technically-literate people turned away from Labor in droves.
Why?
Because young educated technically-literate people found Labor’s Internet censorship plan offensive.
NICE WORK, GENIOUSES.
I would say the NBN won Labor far more votes than the censorship plan lost.
You can say it but neither you or I know how many votes each issue cost, I do know that no matter how much I wanted the NBN (still want!) the filter was a vote turning issue to me.
If Conroy genuinely didn’t want the filter (and from what I’ve read that’s possible) then all I can say is that he didn’t have the courage to risk losing from his ministry fighting it.
If it was Labor wanting the cross bench vote then that’s compromising ideals in that manner that creates the low opinion of politicians which is endemic in Australia.
Either way that makes ‘best communications minister ever’ seem a bit like ‘best used car salesman’.
The filter policy eliminated Labor as an option for me at the last election. Labor lost my vote because of that policy alone.
Does that include the technically literate geniuses as well?
“Because young educated technically-literate people found Labor’s Internet censorship plan offensive.”
Also cost Labor many votes from many not so technically-illiterate seniors…
Nonsense. If you can blame Rudd for Conroy’s internet filter then you must surely credit Rudd for Conroy’s NBN! Or could it just be Conroy who pushed for the internet filter, as well as the NBN, all along? Perhaps maybe Conroy only put the internet filter aside when the rest of the Labor party realised that it was hurting their brand image?
The fact is at any time Conroy could have chosen not to pursue the fascist policy that the internet filter was, but didn’t. In pursuing that fascist policy he put the very foundations of Australia’s democracy at risk by setting a precedent for secretly censoring political opposition to his own views. If it was successful it would have had fundamentally dire consequences years down the track.
He deserves no credit for what he’s done.
It feels a bit weird responding to myself – even if it’s not myself. But given the last 24 hours, it seems remarkably normal.
Having said that, the filter’s initial champion wasn’t Conroy. He was just the poor bastard at the helm of the portfolio that had to implement. And like anything else he did, he executed it with the same pig-headed determination.
It was first called for by another Senator. And not a Labor one.
It’s obnoxious to present it as his idea all along. He’s been the Comms Minister – of course it was his job. And yet, it never happened; instead it’s all but died.
The NBN wasn’t initially warmly received either. You can’t argue the guy is both an idiot and a genius and have that make sense. :)
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, “I was just following orders” is an excuse that was used after WW2 and has since been disregarded as illegitimate.
Conroy has decided to quit his position now that Rudd is leader, so surely he could have quit his position if he was made to do something that he didn’t agree with!
The argument that Conroy possibly didn’t agree what he simultaneously determined to impose on the entire country is invalid. Conroy knew what he was doing and he believed in it 100%.
Look, you can argue semantics all you like (and boy to people like to do that); I stated I believe he executed the push for the Filter in the same manner as everything else.
It’s called dedication, and for all the guys failings, he has bucket loads of it. I was no fan of the filter. He was obviously convinced it was a good idea, and he had a lot of support for it.
But I can still respect the work he did inspite of that.
Again, we have an NBN because of the same dogged determination that he threw into the filter.
Well then we should be counting our lucky stars that Conroy’s “dedication” (read authoritarian megalomania) failed!
His work on the NBN, only part of which is anything to cheer about, pales in comparison to his despicable promotion of the mandatory secret blacklist internet filter. If we had no NBN we’d still be able to enjoy the freedoms that we currently take for granted, but if we had the internet filter it would have been the start of the demise of democracy in Australia as we know it. It was that serious.
For that he will never be forgiven.
The ‘start of the demise of democracy’? Democracy in Australia has been in ill-health for years – not because of Labor and the internet filter, but because of the agendas and biases of the mainstream media, and the partisanship of the Tony Abbott-led opposition.
Yes, the filter was a terrible idea and we’re all glad it’s dead. But you have to give credit where credit is due. While his pushing of the mandatory internet filter scheme might not be balanced by his pushing of the national broadband network, the fact is there was both good and bad in his works, just as there is both good and bad in you and I and every human being. Do you always focus only on a person’s past bad deeds, despite the good he has done in the present?
Does that mean I forgive his work on the internet filter? No. But do I forgive him as a person? Yes. I think that at the end of the day, he has done a fantastic job. Unlike other politicians, he has done more than simply talk, more than simply scramble for votes – he has actually gotten things done. We need more politicians like him in Australia.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law again, and to exaggerate a little to make this point, would you consider showering Hitler with similar praise because he created VolksWagon for his people?
We must contrast his work on the NBN with the extreme ramifications that his fascist police state ambitions would have had on Australia if he was successful in implementing them.
NBN +1
Fascist police state information control -100
You are the incontestable master of hyperbole.
Howard Government’s abject failure to structurally separate Telstra’s wholesale and retail operations (as other countries such as the UK were in the process of doing with their own incumbent telcos)
UK actually implemented functional separation, not structural separation. But, I’ll be generous and give you that one. Since you use the plural, what other countries were in the process of structurally separating their incumbent telcos during Howard’s time?
Oh, it almost makes you want to weep!
I think that we should all wear red underpants on our heads as a sign of our respect. :)
¨It has long been suspected that Conroy did not personally support this policy¨, and he held multiple secret meetings with ACL to tell them this did he? His refusal to meet, even once, with EFA doesn´t show anything about his stance on censorship?
¨Despite Conroy’s recent attempts to ensure transparency around government filtering (remember, it was Conroy who disclosed ASIC’s use of Section 313 powers to block websites, and Conroy who is trying to put transparency and accountability measures around that practice)¨ Well, I suppose ¨Transparency¨ is one way to describe gloating about the fact that he side-stepped the power, checks and balances of Parliament. Putting the thing to a fair and Democratic vote apparently is unfashionable when you have ¨Transparency¨. And, of course his lie to Parliament that he would oppose any expansion of Internet Censorship seems to have been ret-conned in typical ¨1984¨ style so that half heartedly calling for ¨Transparent¨ Censorship means he didn´t really lie, much.
It has long been suspected that Conroy did not personally support this policy
My passive-voice spidey sense is tingling.
It has been suspected? By whom? When? Published where?
Renai LeMay, Today, Here.
Things still aren´t looking good for Labor at the Election. Can you imagine if after the election Labor has so few sitting members Conroy has to take up 2 Shadow posts? Maybe one of them will be Health. He can hold secret meetings with Tobacco and Alcohol Lobbyists but refuse to see the AMA or Nurses Federation. He could promise to protect Medicare´s store of our health records, then when they are published publicly claim he only meant that they would be stored ¨Transparently¨. He hasn´t gone away entirely, and people should consider what he may do next.
Check the SMH Newspoll today then, 281,000 people voted on the question of if Labor can win with the change to Rudd. By close of poll, 60% said yes. the rest, no.
“ultimately be remembered as Australia’s greatest ever Communications Minister”
What about poor ol’ Mal? Have you forgotten what he has/is doing for us??? What we he be remembered for? Surely “Mr Broadband” will be the greatest evahhhhh?
/sarcasm
To be fair to Mal he hasn’t been communications minister yet :)
AND HOPEFULLY NEVER FUCKING WILL BE :)
Truly a sad day for telecommunications in Australia. Hard working bloke who I found always had time to say hello to me and ask how things were. Even complimented my work to the board at NBN Co.
Thanks for writing this Renai.
Agreed
And P.S thanks Scott for your dedication and efforts above and beyond, hope you have a good future regardless of what happens
+1
Grats on an excellent article Renai. Senator Conroy’s legacy of the NBN will be recognized and appreciated for many decades to come. His commitment, work and effort cannot be under-rated. Rather than add more, I’ll just quote your last paragraph again, sentiments which I heartily and fully endorse.
“Like him or hate him, you can’t deny Stephen Conroy’s massive impact, and you can’t deny he’s been the greatest Communications Minister Australia has ever seen, and perhaps the only politician who has ever proven worthy of the title. We may never see his like again, and right now, there is really nobody qualified to replace him. Vale, Minister. And thank you.”
Like him or hate him, you can’t deny Stephen Conroy’s massive impact, and you can’t deny he’s been the greatest Communications Minister Australia has ever seen
I see nothing in this sentence that conveys anything positive about Stephen Conroy.
Great write up Renai, Conroy has done a great job and made all other comm’s ministers look like the Luddites they where!
Hear Hear Renai. Thank You. You said it all and you said it well.
Senator Conroy should be recognised for what he has done. I don’t know if I would ever have had the fortitude to deal with what he has had to cope with in his role.
What he said!
Renai, this was a truly remarkable effort. Congratulations, not just on the words written, but also on proving to everyone just how well you know your tech news, history and politics.
Great article, thanks for writing what I was feeling. The NBN *does* totally dwarf the filter. Hearing the libs say they’d do it faster is one of the few times I’ve felt good about politics this year.
Add me to the list of those who rate Conroy very highly. One of the most competent, effective and important ministers our country has ever had.
Can’t think of any other politician who could have achieved what he did.
I just threw up a little in my mouth!
Babies tend to do that.
Ppppppfffffffftttttttttt!
he he.
It’s sad to see so many people willing to sacrifice their political and social freedom, the foundation of Australia’s stable and enviable democracy, for the sake of fast internet broadband.
I for one and am only too happy to see the back of the megalomaniacal tyrant that is Stephen Conroy.
It’s even sadder to see that the right wingers are still engaged in relentless negativity!
Oh I see. So *opposition* to a mandatory internet filter, which is based on secret blacklists that include bans on discussions about topics which contravene official government policy regarding euthanasia, abortion and drug use is, *right wing*?!
I guess you think that criminal prosecution involving gaol time for so much as disclosing the contents of the blacklist itself is justified in a liberal democracy such as Australia?
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, which is obviously why you’re a fan of the Conroy dictatorship.
Let’s all focus on a dead policy *clap* *clap*
We’re focussing on the legacy of a megalomaniac which tried to implement draconian police state monitoring and censorship system on Australia. Try not to let your political allegiances colour your judgement of him.
Hmm, lets look at my voting record over the last 20 years, Liberals = 10, Labor = 2
Now what where you saying about political allegiances again?
Why would a proud socialist vote Liberal 10 times?
I’m not a socialist!
I’m an economic realist!
I would love to hear your definition of a socialist.
My guess would be anyone to the left of Genghis Khan!
LAUGH OUT LOUD
It´s not dead, it´s ¨Transparent¨, do try to keep up with the ret-conning.
“the Conroy dictatorship”
hey mate, Conroy dumped the filter policy — that’s old news.
He very reluctantly put it on ice only when under much duress. That doesn’t earn him any credit in my book!
If we’re going to take a rational and unbiased view of his legacy, we must be fair and consider his most dangerous policy which he fought tooth and nail to implement.
We’re just very *lucky* that, even though he tried as hard as he could, he ultimately failed to impose it on us.
Now we have s313, with new improved ¨Transparency¨. Not Censorship at all. I´m sure ASIC have replied to ALL your FOI requests, and will continue to do so.
Thanks to the AG department.
Dictatorship?
Please. The mandatory filter was a bad idea. It’s still a bad idea. It won’t ever likely be a good idea. However the guy did a lot more than raise the desire for a filter.
But you’re going to tell me how evil the filter is, again, such despicable action. And ignore the rest of the comments outside of that policy, right?
I’m glad that you agree it was a terrible idea. Therefore the instigator of this terrible idea must be lamented for trying to impose it on us, correct?
To try and sweep this putrid policy of his under the carpet just because he championed the NBN is irrational and smacks of bias.
Or do you really value your internet download speeds above your democratic freedoms?
You’re not actually reading my responses. That’s okay, though, because – filter. Filter filter *bangs desk* filter.
All you seem to want to do is whitewash the existence of Conroy’s police state filter and shower him with praise for giving you fast internet downloads.
You can believe what you want about the man, but you can’t change the facts.
Can you not see that you are locked in a though process for which you cannot escape? The filter has be roundly criticised by the very people you are discussing here on Delimiter. But the filter went a long time ago, and in the meantime, there has been successive significant changes, including the big one, NBN Co and the NBN. Renai’s article says what some of us have considered, that Conroy wasnt overly enthusiastic about the policy. We wont know for sure until he is out of politics and prepared to tell us what he really thought. In the meantime, he is gone, his legacy *is not* the filter, but *is* a range of other things. Had he implemented the filter, well, then you might find yourself with more agreement from others. I would suggest that many think poorly of Malcolm Turnbull, but if he were made Liberal leader, I reckon most would judge him not on his ‘Destroy the NBN’ “policy”, not on his claims that ‘Wireless is better’, and not on his various claims proven to be misleading or factually vacuous, but on what he actually does when he has a chance to ‘do’. I think that was the point of the article.
Whether Conroy is a fan of his own policies or not is irrespective. The fact is he fought tooth and nail to implement them, therefore he is responsible for their advocation.
However to claim that Conroy wasn’t really a fan of the filter, he was just doing what others told him to, is irrational and baseless in fact. He’s just quit politics because he doesn’t like Rudd, therefore it stands to presume he would have quit long ago if he didn’t agree with his own policies!
His work on the NBN has attracted some compliment, but it has also resulted in a lot of criticism regarding his false promises regarding missed targets and overblown budgets.
His legacy *is* the filter, even though try as he did, he ultimately failed to implement it. It would have had a profound impact on the very foundations of our democracy, and thus is his most far reaching and influential policy.
If he was still in his position I’d be *VERY* worried about the future of democracy in Australia, because he could decide to give it another push at any moment.
The point Brendan, is what filter.
Please show me the filter that Conroy enacted, and that is what we are talking about.
Protip: Democracy decided against it. You can’t have a democracy where you can’t offer ideas. Not being allowed to talk about some ideas that some people disagree with is the opposite of a democracy.
Yes he failed to implement it, but that’s not to his credit! It is just *VERY* fortunate that with determination and vigilance the Australian people managed to wrestle his police state ambitions away from him!
Yes democracy only thrives where the discussion of ideas is tolerated. This is the very foundation that Conroy sought to destroy, by enacting a filter which is based on secret blacklists to silence discussion about topics which are contrary to the views of Conroy and his ilk.
Conroy is no champion of democracy, he is a fascist who sought to sow the seeds of an autocratic dictatorship based on information control and punishment of dissent!
Mark Antony: “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones”
Google: “Don’t be evil”
Pretty simple formula, one day someone in politics will get it.
Helen Coonan was better, she achieved a more results, with a lot less struggle. If you check the ABS 8153.0 we have …
September 2004 (Coonan starts as PMG), total data downloaded: 11,004 TB
December 2007 (Coonan hands over to Conroy), total data downloaded: 59,331 TB
December 2012 (Latest available), total data downloaded: 554,771 TB
That’s an average geometric gain of 5.24% per month during Coonan’s watch.
Compared against an average geometric gain of 3.79% per month during Conroy’s watch.
Yes, when largely left alone, the private system, with only light touch regulation, does deliver better growth.
Given that recent reports show that speeds in Australia have been going backwards in 2013, I suspect the difference would be worse if we had more recent survey data. Probably there will be another survey Dec 2013 and we can revisit that.
As usual Tel you have everything backwards, data traffic increased DESPITE Coonan!
As usual you will make any excuse to ignore facts. In which case, why do you even bother?
Unlike right wing nut jobs like you and your 3 IPA mates, the rest of us do t take isolated facts and then twist them to suit their ideology!
If the Liberal party took industry advice to properly seperate Telstra into a retail company and a network company we would have had FTTN 10 years ago and wouldn’t be arguing over the need for an NBN!
Doh, “do t” = don’t
Your little story shows how much we need the NBN. Growth is obviously being limited by the current copper.
That seemed like the far more likely outcome. People are unable to buy faster and faster connections. I would love for Tel to review the numbers after the NBN has started getting some bigger end user numbers, I wonder how much his stats would inform his stated perspective then! Seems to me rather like they wouldnt.
Will, do I expect them to be dismal when 2013 is taken into account.
Growth has been limited by government interference. If Conroy had done nothing, more greenfields would have fiber fight now.
Nice fantasy Tel!
Let us know when your IPA contract ends and you are allowed to think for yourself!
If Conroy had done nothing, no brownfields would have fibre right now.
Are there more houses in greenfields, or brownfields.
Which one being upgraded would yield a bigger impact on the numbers.
Again, from the ABS, they keep a count of how many active connections are faster than 24M (the highest tier in the stats). Here are the numbers as far as they are available:
2007 DEC: 176k
2008 JUN: 262k
2008 DEC: 373k
2009 JUN: 443k
2009 DEC: 503k
2010 JUN: 632k
2010 DEC: 901k
2011 JUN: 989k
2011 DEC: 1213k
2012 JUN: 1458k
2012 DEC: 1645k
In comparison, let’s suppose the NBN does meet target and passes 180k premises, but of course not all of those are active, at a best estimate maybe 25% will be active. Thus we have 45k coming from the NBN fiber… or about 3%, ignoring any private sector growth in the past 6 months.
Not all of the 24 Megabit connections are fiber, maybe NBN delivers a better product, maybe not. I’m using the statistics that are available. The point is that at 3% market penetration (just counting 24M or greater connections, at best) they have not delivered any significant contribution for the $4 billion or $5 billion spent so far. The private sector are still doing the heavy lifting and we see almost all growth in high speed broadband is utterly irrespective of the NBN effort.
In fact, the NBN have yet to achieve even a quarter as many high speed broadband connections as were running back in 2007.
I know, I know, all gonna happen next year, that’s what they were telling me last year.
Tel
Not having current figures, however Conroy did indicate last week that average take up rate has hit 37%.
However April/May figures are available here
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/345123,nbn-cos-take-up-rates-soar.aspx/0
Some sites now well over 60%
Do note the acceleration in take up rates, from the comments in the Coffs Harbour Advocate, that culd be partly driven by the public become aware of the benefits and costs/savings and the fact that the Nats and Libs have been spreading B.S and FUD
Country people may be conservative but they have extended families and friends scattered Australia wide and actually talk to them or at least write letters.
Called word of mouth, by far the best means of getting the message through
@Tel: Great statistic!
Now here’s the bigger question.
Whats the percentage of those yearly downloads compared to the total global download? And take into account any significant changes in technology.
Local rise in trends only show a small picture of the whole. Like for example… how much penetration of broadband technology there was there during Coonan, the change in technology/lack of change in the local market. Of course there will be a natural skew in the DL from the jump between dial-up to Cable, the same way there would be a jump when early Cable was superceded by ADSL1/2 technologies. The main marker here is how much else information was being downloaded w/ the rest of the world at the time.
Unless you can show that our own local infrastructure has kept up w/ the demand it’s going to be a bit obvious that there will be a general slow down of usage mainly because our own system cannot keep up w/ the demand.
The gain was limited by technology.
Coonan went from a dialup – adsl world
Conroy is trying to install a network that will exceed 1000 megabits per end point, not average out to 50.
‘Average out to 50’ another quote from the pro Labor NBN supporters ‘We up make up Coalition Policy to be anything we want it to be’ manual?
What like $94B…
Oh hang on *sigh*
That’s not my quote.
LOL….
Where did I say it was your quote…?
So when I mention claims made by the Coalition and/or their supporters, you take offence?
Thanks for the frank admission, regarding Delimiter’s worst kept secret.
If Conroy was so against the filter why did it take him so long after Rudd was deposed to ditch the policy? I don’t buy your claim. No matter though, it’s gone now (for now).
The greatest achievement by Conroy imo was his work in getting the NBN off the ground and in kicking Telstra into an agreement that makes the NBNCo viable to the benefit of all Australians. I can’t think of another politician on either side that could have done the job. Love him or loathe him everyone should applaud him for that achievement.
Where he was not quite as effective imo was in countering Turnbull’s smooth salesmanship. Conroy is a much better arse-kicker than he is a salesman. I hope his replacement is better suited to countering Turnbull. I hope they can take the argument beyond speed onto the things we can do with the flexibility and consistency of FTTP that can’t be done with FTTN. Paul Budde and Nick Ross having been pushing this line for ages now. I hope the new minister can pick up on their work to make Turnbull’s job much, much harder.
btw Renai, i think thats ‘opprobrium’ you wanted..
it turns out i should have gone to the shops 20 mins earlier the other day, might have seen him at the aspley turnon. oh well, i at least have an nbn service and him to thank for it in a way. i do think despite all the hate on for him there is actually quite a bar set for the new person in the folio.
after all the leadership hijinks (i came to it later on, not having seen the news that evening being in Columbia at the time /cough/) it will be interesting – one report i saw was claiming an immediate 5pt bounce for Labor. dont remember if it was before or after preferences but either way, given Katter has given his support and Wilkie will at least back confidence votes, the gap in the House looks to have narrowed. the senate is still the most important but i get the general sense the Rudd return lifts Labors stocks a bit, and if the senate stays at the point where LNP cant complete their bills the NBN is probably better off than it was a few days ago – excepting that as Renai says the key man is now gone.
if it isnt for reasons of fatigue (i.e. party political) id offer him the job back if i was Kev, but im mad like that. replacing him is going to be tricky, on the other hand i think it likely the replacement will leave at least as big a mark on the NBN whoever wins the election. a good or bad impact, thats a whole ‘nother question….. i will certainly miss Conroy, i was a hater too and he certainly has his repertoire of gaffes. but hes put far more effort in the folio than ive ever seen from any minister for quite some time back. i think hes certainly earned my respect. watching to seee what happens with interest.
Thanks Renai, great article. With Conroy, Oakeshott and Windsor gone, Quigley looks awfully alone out there.
I don’t expect Quigley will stick around for long, frankly, especially if the Coalition wins the election.
Oh for sure. He came out of retirement to do something he believed in, not get kicked in the nuts by Turnbull every day.
Missing rollout targets and massively downgrading them twice had nothing to do with Turnbull.
this is the most retarded story i have even seen. This clown Conroy was the dumbest moron to be elected in a long time and took great pleasure in trying to implement the biggest, most backwards policies that remove fundamental rights in a democracy ever seen in Australia. He is more suited in a place like China or Cuba with their retarded versions of freedom let alone his distorted sense of “humour”. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I have heard people talk like that. I never thought anyone could write like this.
Anyway thanks for such of thoughtful contribution.
Oh, and I totally disagree with you.
You write that and call Conroy the dumbest. hahaha.
Well that was gushingly eulogistic.
Not sure I agree, but it’s an interesting perspective and one that certainly has at least some meat on its bones.
He’s certainly shifted the whole landscape of his portfolio and, while in many ways it feels like he’s gone from cockup to cockup, some of his positive results along the way have been undeniably & uniquely nation changing.
Later Conroy – you were Interesting.
Nice article Renai.
We’re saying thanks to Senator Conroy with #redundiesday . Hope you don a pair and join the twitter party on July 8.
Let’s not forget Conroy was the Communications Minister, not just the Internet Minister.
There’s some pretty big failures in his other portfolio areas. The recent media reforms, anti-siphoning changes, spectrum auctions, digital radio being next to useless (or non-existant) outside the capital cities, etc.
Digital radio, seriously? Why would any sane government waste money and spectrum supporting digital radio when we have universal high-speed broadband in our future?
Oh and Josh, I haven’t noticed Australia Post collapsing, and the switch to digital TV seems to be going pretty well.
Great article Renai.
Slight problem with your digital radio thinking there Sarah. Conroy’s “universal high-speed broadband” is fibre, which is next to useless for radio where almost 45% of people under 55 listen in the car. Are you looking forward to using amazingly immerse video and virtual reality applications powered by your fibre NBN connection, only to jump into the car and listen to scratchy old AM radio that cuts out next to a tall building? DAB+ implementation is a complete failure.
And how about the failed media reforms from a few short months ago, what a joke that was. And let’s not even start talking about the anti-competitive anti-siphoning laws which restrict how sport can be consumed in this “new media landscape”.
Don’t get me wrong – I think the NBN is a great idea, and Conroy should be applauded for his determination to have it implemented. I agree he is certainly Australia’s greatest ever Broadband Minister, especially given the small pool of 1. But greatest ever Communications Minister, let alone greatest ever person who walked this earth as suggested in this editorial – I and thousands of others certainly can’t agree with that.
+1
Stephen Conroy is a skidmark on the ALP’s underwear that feathered his own nest at the expense of any ethics or principles. A brilliant manipulator of the truth and an even better warlord. Good riddance to him.
“Australia’s most technically knowledgeable politician;”
No, that would be Green’s Senator Scott Ludlum.
Otherwise, a very good opus Renai
Actually, that is a reply good point…
hey Dan,
when it comes to the telecommunications field — and I’m talking here about the regulation especially, and the specific details of the fibre rollout, it is pretty clear right now that Conroy is the most knowledgeable politician in Australia. I would rate Turnbull second, due to the extensive research he has done in the area, and Ludlam third. Ludlam does not have as deep knowledge in telco infrastructure as Conroy and Turnbull — he more specialises higher up the network stack).
Ludlam is more of a ‘digital native’ than the other two — but there is no doubt right now that the learned knowledge that Conroy and Turnbull have accumulated over the past several years puts them in front.
Renai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vwRoe8CKYA
Great opinion piece Renai!
I’ve been an avid follower of the broadband debate since the era of the “Sol inspired” FTTN proposal to the then, Liberal government. I’m still amazed that when I look back over the journey since then, that we have reached a point where the country is on the way to such a massive infrastructure development.
Vale to the former Communications Minister – I only wish that the “other side” had been more robust at holding the deployment more accountable, rather than taking the “rip it down” approach. Imagine where we would be now!
‘ I only wish that the “other side” had been more robust at holding the deployment more accountable, rather than taking the “rip it down” approach. Imagine where we would be now!’
And imagine where the NBN will be if the Libs get into power… ?
Another 10-20 years behind, again !
I was disappointed when Conroy was first appointed to this ministry as I thought Lundy with her tech smarts would be better for the role. How wrong I was (not about Lundy, but about Conroy). He has proven himself to be a determined worker and brave in the face of great adversity. Yes, he’s a bit of a soccer hooligan bovver boy as well, but unlike a long string of communications ministers before him he has really learned the tech detail needed to be effective and he hasn’t waivered from the ambition to bring fibre to almost every home in Australia. The internet filter was the low point of his time, but at the same time, even though he must have privately understood what a toxic idea it was, he did the job of selling it with determination. The fact that he was ultimately unsuccessful is probably also to his credit, ironically. I hope his next role allows him to make a similar contribution to Australian life — there certainly aren’t enough people like him.
I’m also a fan of Conroy, especially the NBN. It’s just the kind of thing that governments should be doing, providing solid durable infrastructure that provides much needed competition in the sector. If the Liberals get in and actually replace it with their hybrid low performance, high maintenance version it will be a sad day, not just for the NBN but also rational government action in general.
As for the filter, however, FAIL. I’m actually in favour of aggressive attacks on internet crime, but it has to be workable and effective. A moral panic about kiddie porn is not where to start.
Got you all suckered by the sound of it.
Conroy is just another key member (and this is fairly well documented) of the ALP branch stacking operation that operates out of Melbourne’s Western Suburbs.
Hasn’t anyone wondered why the majority of key ministers in the government after Rudd was ousted all herald from Melbourne’s West?
Gillard
Conroy
Shorten
O’Connor
Roxon
Conroy
All on the front bench, and all cosied up in the safe Labor seats of the sad western suburbs. I live here and have suffered these fools neglect of the area, watching their machinations on the national platform, rubbing shoulders with the real faceless men at local council meetings. Hell, one local council was sacked and is still under administration because of the unethical power grabbing control that the branch stackers had over the council funds.
You can find Conroy on youtube late one night to an empty parliament pledging loyalty to the main person who was responsible for the council being sacked. Just google: conroy suleyman
Many of the machinations are documented in the report from the ombudsman George Brower.
Until the ALP starts following its own constitution and outlaws branch stacking anyone with real talent and a sense of ethics cannot make any headway in the Labor Party.
The grubby deals with branch stackers are required to make headway. An environment that is repellant to anyone with a sense of ethics and this why the party has so many corruption allegation. Only the grubby need apply.
What is spectacularly tragic is that the talent in the Liberal party appears to be even worse!
Well said Renai.. Stephen Conroy has been a great reformer in his role as Comms Minister and his single biggest attribute is that he truly fully understands the transformative nature of digital technologies and the need for them to be front and centre in the economic and social development of the nation. His next biggest attribute is that he has the courage of his convictions to act on that understanding to make tough but fundamental changes which have made a real difference to the digital economy landscape. No prior Comms Minister in living memory has come even close on that big-picture strategic thinking. He will be missed, no doubt.
Headline = “Stephen Conroy: Australia’s greatest ever Communications Minister”
Considering past ministers that was not hard to achieve at all :-)
Yes, Conroy should be given credit for getting the proper NBN in motion but ultimately if completed as planned his departure no great loss.
I have two impressions of Stephen Conroy.
The first is of a mealy mouthed, sly, underhanded, lying mongrel who tried to introduce mandatory ISP based internet censorship.
The second is of a hard headed fighter for a modern universal communication system that is available to all Australians regardless of their domicile.
I think Conroy was an opportunistic politician who grabbed and supported what he thought were going to be popular (vote winning) projects and ran with them. Generally he did them to the best of his ability and in my opinion for what it is worth has done a good job on the NBN.
Having said that I would like to record my opinion that anyone who tries to have someone gagged from commenting in a political debate by their employer and calls people pedophile supporters because they challenge his claims is not someone I trust or consider worthy of accolades.
It is amusing to know what the responsibility for ‘getting the NBN going’ actually means.
First all the Labor NBN was born on the back of the failed Labor RFP the intent of which was to have a less costly and less risk private/Government partnership to rollout a replacement infrastructure for the Telstra copper.
That all got too hard to continue on that line so the easy and least line of resistance option was to have the Government fund the lot, it was also driven by a desire to try and show Telstra who was boss cocky in Australian communications.
The most galling aspect of the Labor plan is the billions shelled out to the Telco owners to shut down existing working infrastructure, the main purpose of which is to remove fixed line choice and ensure the Labor NBN baby has maximum uptake thereby in effect artificially creating the self fulfilling prophecy of ‘see everyone needs it’ .
Labor’s legacy since gaining Government six years ago has been one of profligate waste in many areas, the history of the NBN rollout if it is allowed to continue with a third term of Labor Government will show it was one of the biggest ever.
That’s Labor’s famous “chequebook” approach to policy-making. Policy roadblock? Too much difficulty, effort and agro’ involved to get things right and implement the cost-effective solution? Just take out the taxpayer chequebook and splash billions around…. That’s how you get a policy that is “better than the alternative in every single respect” and win gushing praise from special interests… Show me 40 billion dollars, and I’ll show you a good time…
As deep as your thoughts must run, it seems they still haven’t caught on to the idea that the “40 billion” will be repaid.
That, truly, is the genius of the NBN. While LNP governments have been content to splash taxpayer money around to private companies to fill in the holes, this Labor government has created an infrastructure project that pays for itself.
You have to ask yourself, if everyone is better off under NBN access, then who cares if the migration takes place all at once in one clean go, or in drips and drabs that are costly and messy?
this Labor government has created an infrastructure project that pays for itself.
Yup.
And Malcolm Turnbull invented the internet.
:-)
“this Labor government has created an infrastructure project that pays for itself.”
Evidence to prove otherwise please?
Those are independent statements. One is true, the other is false.
@ Fibroid…
“The most galling aspect of the Labor plan is the billions shelled out to the Telco owners to shut down existing working infrastructure, the main purpose of which is to remove fixed line choice and ensure the Labor NBN baby has maximum uptake thereby in effect artificially creating the self fulfilling prophecy of ‘see everyone needs it’ .”
We have been here many times and this ridiculous repeated and repeated statement easily rebutted, at which point you have no answers and disappear, only to pop up at the next article sprouting the same nonsense…
Such claims, which you only apply to the NBN…. seriously…
Fixed line choice, currently I have the choice of just copper, but that’s ok isn’t it. With MT’s plan I will have the choice of FttN, but strangely, you never apply the same logic to anything but the NBN… why not?
Why is having the choice of fibre only any different to only having the choice of copper only now or FttN only, in the future? Tell us.
Regardless, again, even your fellow conservatives abroad agree copper technologies are no longer relevant –
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/11/copper-wire-technology-whose-time-has-passed/
Simple question, if FttP is not needed, why does the Coalition’s plan even offer FttP in greenfields and/or FoD?
Great comment Alex. +1400
Thanks Hubert :)
I’d live to hear the justification for spending $11 billion on buying out Telstra’s copper network. The alternative of not spending $11 on Telstra and rather setting up the NBN in parallel seems much more logical to me.
If the alternative meant that people didn’t bother with the NBN and stuck with Telstra’s ADSL services then it just shows that the NBN isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Surely Conroy would have had enough confidence in the benefits of the NBN to be certain that people wouldn’t opt for ADSL over it?
So why spend $11 of public money on ensuring that we have no alternative??
“So why spend $11 of public money on ensuring that we have no alternative??”
This is a nonsense argument. There is more to it than simply “buying out Telstra’s copper network” that’s not what is even happening.
1. NBNco are paying Telstra to lease infrastructure. They are not “buying out Telstra’s copper network” because NBNco are simply not interested in a product made from obsolete copper. They want to install their own fibre which is capable of much more.
2. Pointless to have two networks running when one can achieve more at a lower cost.
3. Hope that helps.
Surely it would be a much lower cost to leave Telstra to their own business and build the NBN on fibre in parallel?
You’ve given no justification for spending $11 billion on it.
“Surely it would be a much lower cost to leave Telstra to their own business and build the NBN on fibre in parallel?”
You expect Telstra to give access to their infrastructure to NBNco for free? Telstra’s “own business” is making a decision to decommission their obsolete copper. Apparently they don’t see the point in keeping it running in parallel either since they can offer better quality services over NBNco fibre instead and save money in the process. That is a choice they made and NBNco agreed to the price for access to the ducts to lay their fibre so Telstra can service their customers. If you think that price for access should be lower you should tell us what it is and explain to NBNco in fine detail why you think they got ripped off.
“You’ve given no justification for spending $11 billion on it.”
Because the alternative solutions would cost everyone more. No more stupid comments please.
” setting up the NBN in parallel seems much more logical to me.”
Unfortunately, you’re the only one who thinks it is logical.
This is like suggesting that if someone builds a new house to replace an older dilapidated one, the builder should really leave the old house to see whether the customer prefers to live in the old one. And that would be the ultimate test as to whether they wasted their money building a new one.
“So why spend $11 of public money on ensuring that we have no alternative??”
A quick correction first. It is not spending public money. This is money invested and repaid. And, no, it is not done to ensure that we would have no alternative. Why? (notice only one ?, not to be used like exclamation mark). Because it has been demonstrated in many other areas that there is no need for competition when a fair and reasonable price is charged and when the cost of building and maintaining competing infrastructures doesn’t make sense. Normal business monopolies tend to over-charge when there is no competition. This, however, is less likely to occur with NBNco given the relative low ROI which is proposed. Additionally, you may not have noticed but duopolies are rarely much better than monopolies.
I am sure you prefer the coalition model, even though, its insistence on having competition at the infrastructure level will ensure that it takes much longer to repay their plan. I supposed one should never let common sense prevail over ideology, no matter how flawed.
I hope this puts in perspective for you.
Your analogy of a house is incorrect, since you can’t build a new house on top of an old one until you’ve cleared the old one.
A more correct analogy is building a multi lane freeway to replace a smaller and older road. It’s much more efficient to build the freeway in parallel, and leave the older road to be used as well.
Governments regularly build freeways bypassing older roads all over the road. It’s much cheaper, you still get to use the old road when the freeway is blocked, and it gives you an alternative scenic route if you don’t want to take the freeway!
You still give no real justification for spending $11 billion of taxpayer’s money on Teltra’s copper network. You admit that a monopoly is bad for consumers but excuse it because a duopoly is just as bad. How about no monopoly or duopoly?
A quick correction for you too: It is indeed public money until it is repaid. There is no business case for it explaining how it will ever be repaid, so we have to trust Conroy (the man who wants to censor the internet) that it will actually end up paying for itself. I for one don’t trust him at all, and I think you will agree that we have good reason not to considering his ambitions for implementing a fascist police state!
Another correction: I’m not the only one who questions the logic of this. The entire country wants to know how this is going to make sense. So far all that Conroy has come up with arrogant ranting and insults to avoid justifying it. Have a look at the polls!
I don’t know if the Coalition’s latest plan is any better either, since it is now locked into showering Telstra with billions of dollars for relatively little in return. Unfortunately the Australian public is now lumbered with that deal thanks to our hero Conroy.
“Your analogy of a house is incorrect, since you can’t build a new house on top of an old one until you’ve cleared the old one.”
You can build next to it.
“You still give no real justification for spending $11 billion of taxpayer’s money on Teltra’s copper network.”
The money is not taxpayer’s money, it is a taxpayer’s loan. Nor is it to buy the copper network (looks like you have your plan mixed up). It is to buy the infrastructure (you know, pits, ducts, things that would cost quite a bit if you had to redo it). Part of the money also pays to transfer customers to NBNco when the network is retired.
“You admit that a monopoly is bad for consumers but excuse it because a duopoly is just as bad”.
Selective argument. I said a monopoly is bad when it overcharges. That will not be the case with NBN.
How about no monopoly or duopoly?’
Do you mean you don’t one two networks now? But I thought you said… never mind.
“A quick correction for you too: It is indeed public money until it is repaid.’
So, if you let me money, I am spending your money? Or if I invest in a company, it is spending my money. No. I and it are spending the money that was lent or invested. obviously too subtle for you to grasp.
“There is no business case for it explaining how it will ever be repaid,”
There is. No one is more blind that those who don’t want to see.
“so we have to trust Conroy (the man who wants to censor the internet) that it will actually end up paying for itself. I for one don’t trust him at all, and I think you will agree that we have good reason not to considering his ambitions for implementing a fascist police state!”
No, I don’t have to agree and I don’t but what does the NBN has to do a the filter that was abandoned?
A fascist police state would have introduced it, regardless of opposition. In fact, such a state would not allow any opposition.
“The entire country wants to know how this is going to make sense. So far all that Conroy has come up with arrogant ranting and insults to avoid justifying it.
The entire country of Brendan L. So, you have spoken to everyone in Australia. You must have been pretty busy.
Have a look at the polls!”
I have. They have changed a bit in the last few days and, as far as the NBN is concerned they have been vastly in favour.
“I don’t know if the Coalition’s latest plan is any better either, since it is now locked into showering Telstra with billions of dollars for relatively little in return. Unfortunately the Australian public is now lumbered with that deal thanks to our hero Conroy.”
So now, it is Conroy’s fault that the coalition has developed their plan.
So, tell us O wise one, what should we do with communication and broadband in this country. Given your access to everyone’s point of view, it should not be too hard to tell us what the entire country wants.
“The money is not taxpayer’s money, it is a taxpayer’s loan. Nor is it to buy the copper network (looks like you have your plan mixed up). It is to buy the infrastructure (you know, pits, ducts, things that would cost quite a bit if you had to redo it). Part of the money also pays to transfer customers to NBNco when the network is retired.”
“So, if you let me money, I am spending your money? Or if I invest in a company, it is spending my money. No. I and it are spending the money that was lent or invested. obviously too subtle for you to grasp.”
NBNco is owned by the government. NBNco “borrows” money from the government and thus assumes the liability. However since NBNco is owned by the government the liability is still with the government! It’s a nice way of trying to make it look like the money isn’t on the government balance sheet, but it is still taxpayer money.
35 years is not a long time to rent Telstra’s infrastructure for. In 35 years time we’ll be held to randsom by Telstra in paying to use their infrastructure or else it’s lights out for our internet access! Maybe then we’ll be wishing that we had some sort of alternative, but Conroy made sure that we have none.
“No, I don’t have to agree and I don’t but what does the NBN has to do a the filter that was abandoned?”
You don’t agree that Conroy’s internet filter was a bad idea? No wonder you’re praising his work so much if you’re in league with him in his fascist ideologies!
“A fascist police state would have introduced it, regardless of opposition. In fact, such a state would not allow any opposition.”
I guess this is what your ideal world is then?
Fortunately we don’t currently live in a fascist police state. This is why we were able to collectively oppose Conroy and his fascist politics, although he did try to silence us by accusing us of being paedophiles in the process while his plans were in full swing. If he was successul, as he tried so hard to be, it would have been a foundation stone in implementing his police state dream.
We wouldn’t even be having this discussion here if we hadn’t stopped him, because this site and all its contravening opinions would have been added to the secret blacklist, which we would be incarcerated for so much as discussing.
“The entire country of Brendan L. So, you have spoken to everyone in Australia. You must have been pretty busy.”
Ok so maybe not the *entire* country wants to know. Unfortunately there are quite a few people here who seem quite content with remaining ignorant to the governing of the country as long as they get to download their movies faster. However they are not in the majority, and the fact remains that Labor under Conroy and Gillard were set for a wipeout at the next election. You can’t say that the NBN bungling and Conroy’s fascist filter had nothing to do with that and keep a straight face!
“So now, it is Conroy’s fault that the coalition has developed their plan.”
Yes, precisely.
“So, tell us O wise one, what should we do with communication and broadband in this country. Given your access to everyone’s point of view, it should not be too hard to tell us what the entire country wants.”
Well to be honest I do like the *idea* of the NBN, but the way Conroy has handled it has been a disaster. Overblown budgets, missed deadlines, fascist filters, the insistence of creating a monopoly, lack of business case, falling prey to Telstra’s superior negotiating skills… it all could have been handled much much better than that buffoon Conroy did.
“You don’t agree that Conroy’s internet filter was a bad idea? No wonder you’re praising his work so much if you’re in league with him in his fascist ideologies!”
First of all, I never said that I agree with Conroy’s filter. Secondly, show me where I praise this work. Thirdly, you are one of these people who will say anything just to be right. I want to share a secret with you: Your brain doesn’t wear out when you use it.
“I guess this is what your ideal world is then?’
Do you always make things up, when you have no valid argument?
As for the rest of you rant and your obsession (and misunderstanding of what fascism is), iy id not even worth responding to. Anybody with common sense can see that your thinking is all over the place. You (what happened to the entire country on this one) like the “idea” of NBN but not this one.
And don’t forget to look under the bed for the red fascists. I am glad we have you to make sure we are safe.
What’s wrong with liking the general idea of a project but criticising the handling of it? Does it have to be all or nothing according to you? The topic here is not the pro’s and con’s of the NBN. It is the evaluation of Conroy’s performance, which I find to be absolutely lamentable.
I understand the definition of fascism only too well, but it appears that it is you who doesn’t. You’re the pot calling the kettle black here. Let me provide the definition from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism:
“fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.”
Now let’s take a look at some of the finer details of the filter that Conroy tried to implement:
From: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/27/1237657133829.html
“Sites on the list will be blocked for all Australians when the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, implements his mandatory internet filtering policy.
But while the policy was originally aimed at combating “illegal” material, the leaked blacklist has revealed scores of innocuous sites such as a Queensland dentist, a school canteen consultancy, an animal carer, euthanasia sites, abortion sites, fetish sites, gambling sites and regular porn sites.”
“Sources said that ACMA read the riot act to filtering software vendors, warning them against leaking the blacklist in future.”
Now let’s see how this relates to the definition of fascism above:
“a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”
Centralisation of authority under a dictator (Conroy, the man who controls the secret blacklist and legislates punishment of discussion or distribution of the list)? Tick!
Stringent socioeconomic controls? Tick!
Suppression of opposition through censorship? Tick!
Filtering conversation around “illegal” activity, which could include such topics as gay marriage in Australia, is therefore a form of fascism. To deny this is either ignorance or conformance.
You’re right. I see the errors of my way. I forgot that that we had a dictator suppressing the opposition through terror and censorship, who was also a belligerent nationalist and racist.
In my defence, you must agree, its highly unusual to have a minister being the dictator in a government. Usually the dictator tends suppress the opposition to his ambition through terror and censorship. Anyway, I guess you learn everyday. Thank you for making me see the light.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-us/media/news/nbn-co-and-telstra-sign-binding-definitive-agreements.html
‘We have been here many times and this ridiculous repeated and repeated statement easily rebutted, at which point you have no answers and disappear, only to pop up at the next article sprouting the same nonsense…’
No you make a response, that doesn’t mean it’s rebutted, and once again you have just responded, and you are correct the cycle continues.
So finish it by answering the simple questions!
I rest my case…
As someone who has worked wiyh Conroy sonce 07, spot on!!!!
He leaves the former Minister ( Peta Credlin) and her hand puppet (Coonan) looking like rank amateurs. It is because of this experience I fear for Comms under Abbot.
I know. What a complete travesty. Minister Credlin should have nationalised the fixed line sector years ago, and hand out tens of billions of dollars to Telstra and Optus to shutdown competing infrastructure. After all, this is what regulatory authorities all around the world are advocating. Thanks for your contribution to reversing all the decades of painstaking competition reforms in Australia. You obviously put your PhD to great use.
You think that they should have done that? Not even Conroy is doing anything so stupid.
Or are you just lumping all the money paid to Telstra for pits, ducts, exchange, usage and backhaul as well as moving customers over, doubling it, and just plain exagerating?
“After all, this is what regulatory authorities all around the world are advocating.”
Tell us, what are they advocating? Many were praising Australia for skipping FTTN and going straight to FTTH, what else?
“Thanks for your contribution to reversing all the decades of painstaking competition reforms in Australia”
LOL ROFL HAHAHA, good one.
Oh btw, speaking of hand puppets…. despite the attempts of some to construct new political myths, any fool watching your boss Conroy dribble on TV can tell the guy is just a union thug / machine man who has the intellectual capacity of a squashed tomato. Any credit for the policy architecture behind Labor’s NBN goes to the hard work of behind-the-scenes policy advisers, departmental bureaucrats, senior NBNco executives and even industry lobbyists, and not this clown Conroy who’s just regurgitating slogans whispered into his ears.
Not according to the editor of Delimiter… Deep Thinker.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/27/vale-stephen-conroy-australias-greatest-ever-communications-minister/#comment-614726
Surely you aren’t suggesting he’s a liar or Labor stooge, are you?
“who has the intellectual capacity of a squashed tomato”
Hey mate … frankly this is getting offensive. Provide evidence or pipe down.
“any fool watching your boss Conroy dribble on TV can tell the guy is just a union thug / machine man who has the intellectual capacity of a squashed tomato”
And you, of course, are a self proclaimed genius and master of irony.
Let me tell you that anyone who is regurgitating political insults and didn’t notice Rudd and Bishop having a friendly hung and kiss before question time yesterday is certainly a fool.
Hopefully, you may come to realise that politicians put a show for naive people like you . Behind the scene, most of them are pretty good mates.
Dude, take a chill pill. I was merely responding to the insult that Coonan was a hand puppet by pointing out all Ministers rely heavily on behind-the-scenes advisers; Conroy more so than any other. Do you really think the current iteration of the NBN was systematically thought up by Conroy in a deliberate fashion while sitting behind a writing desk with a quill in his hand stroking his chin? They bumped from one blunder to another… first the botched FTTN tender… then Rudd/Conroy made up the current policy on-the-run. Structural separation wasn’t even originally in the plan until they realised the FTTH NBN would not be viable at all without buying out Telstra’s copper… hence the change in tack resulting in decade-long “structural separation” by switching off copper (due to customer migration), not by forcing Telstra to divest.
I am pretty cool. You are the one getting your knickers in the knot. Not only do you like irony, you are also the fearless defender of (liberal) damsels in distress, as well as being the judge and jury on people intellectual capacity. What a package! The more you reveal of yourself, the more fascinating it becomes.
Anyway thank you for sharing with us with your LNP coloured view of the history of NBN. I hope you feel better.
Also, funny how you chose to ignore my comment about Rudd and Bishop being very nice to each other when the show for the masses is not on.
Mate you are forgetting that these days the LNP is just a front for Rupert and Gina’s IPA! They tell the inaccurately named “Liberals” what they are allowed to think.
“the LNP is just a front for Rupert and Gina’s IPA”
Prove it!
Who where the two guests of home at the IPA birthday bash? Gina and Rupert!
Who’s policy wish list items keep showing up in the Liberal party pamphlets? The IPA’s!
Not hard to join the dots!
Doh, typo “guests of honor”
Glad you’re not a lawyer! :)
Yeah me too!
@ Deep Thinker,
“…all Ministers rely heavily on behind-the-scenes advisers; Conroy more so than any other you really think the current iteration of the NBN was systematically thought up by Conroy in a deliberate fashion while sitting behind a writing desk with a quill in his hand stroking his chin?”
Hmmm, how curious… according to the perpetual NBN naysayers, it was all done on a flight and written on the back of a napkin…
Thanks for dispelling yet another anti-NBN myth.
i’d rather adsl2+ with as it was than conroy’s nbn if he was to implement his fascist “internet filter”.
censorship is like cancere on a society, it is such an immense threat that if conroy tries it again, he can go jump off a bridge as far as i’m concerned
As would probably most of Australia, which is why Conroy wasted $11 billion on ensuring that Australians have no alternative to using the NBN!
We’re just very fortunate that Rudd got back in and scared Conroy away. If he was still in power we’d be in serious danger that controversial political discussion and alternative views to Conroy’s would be censored in his fascist police state utopia.
Nice to see you have found a soul mate. 21 999 998 people to go.
I say to you (as I said to your soundalike above)…
I currently have no choice for fixed, but copper. If the Coalition are elected I will have no choice but FttN…
As such your NBN only rule regarding no alternative in relation to FttP is flawed and invalid.
“We’re just very fortunate that Rudd got back in and scared Conroy away.”
I’d say it’s more fortunate that the coaltion clowns decided to make this election about personalities rather than policies…
Of course Labor never engaged in personality politics.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/julia-gillard-attacks-abbott-of-hypocrisy/4303634
With every comment it becomes clearer :(
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/18/chaos-coalition-a-total-shambles-on-nbn-policy/#comment-580073
Anyone else noticing the tone of desperation coming from the right wingers now that Kev has Abbott on the run?
Galaxy Poll Preferred PM: Rudd 51 (+18 compared to Gillard) Abbott 34 (-3)
From Centerbet:
For reference, Mark Latham was at $4.00 a few days out from the election. Mind you with Rudd claiming that we are about to declare war on Indonesia, you have to admit he isn’t showing any sign of winning anything.
Iirc the betting agencies all had Romney pegged to win the US elections and how did that work out?
I look forward to this type of quality debate on the NBN from Kevin07.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/chinese-tourists-will-need-nbn-rudd-20130416-2hxxw.html
No doubt like most tourists they use existing wireless 3G or 4G if available, or a Wi-Fi hotel/public hotspot.
I’m not sure if the tourist buses run to already active residential areas so tourists can knock on doors so they can “check on their home and business while travelling in Australia” and get a taste of our true blue ‘Aussie NBN’.
I’ve got a new campaign slogan for you Kev, ‘Tourists will stay away from Australia if we have FTTN’ .
:)
Nice to see you are trying to help Kevin with a slogan. Does this mean you’re a closet fan?
I think you will find that other betting agencies have suspended the odds.
Also, Galaxy has Rudd 51%, Abbott 34% and 15% undecided.
As you said not looking to good for…..have a guess.
That Indonesian war scenario public remark is simply astounding. While everyone knows Kev747 knows nothing about economic policy, I was always prepared to assume that he is a genuine foreign policy expert being a career diplomat. But after the stupid decision to lecture the Chinese on Tibet in Beijing, an incredibly sensitive political issue in China which p-ssed off the Chinese Politburo…. now this crazy speculative Indonesian war comment…. you really have to wonder about his foreign policy credentials…. if Australians are st-pid enough to elect him as PM after the candid revelations about his flawed character by his own handpicked Cabinet… dare I say we deserve him.
Your just being willfully ignorant as usual, he said diplomatic conflict in the very same press conference and never used the word war!
Getting worried, are you?
Worried about what? Rudd and Carr now calling asylum seekers “economic migrants”? Wasn’t that Afghan Bob’s deplorable line in Parliament? rofl… love Labor’s flexible political conscience..
Children overboard. Rings a bell?
Better to call them terrorists, hey?
Anyway, I meant worried about the election result.
lol… why would I be worried about election result? I’m not running for office… I’m not going to lose my seat… Seriously mate, I voted for Kevin Rudd in ’07 without flinching after the souless, grim, dark, dog-whistling Howard years… was thrilled to bits when Johnnie got unseated by Maxine… Of course, seeing what Labor has to offer in the last two terms, gimme the miserable decade of Howard rule anyday… at least they are not fiscally profligate and trying to overturn the reform achievements of Hawke Keating like the current crop of ALP clowns. You really should stick to debating the issues, and stop engaging in personal attacks and slurs against other posters you know nothing about.
Says you “now”… following my other comment here, 30 mins ago, suggesting complete partiality…
So I suppose you’ll be ecstatic then, that Rudd (the guy you wanted as PM) is back and the so called, deadwood gone/fresh people in the ministry… so you can again vote for Kevin…
No I thought not.
*rolls eyes*
Newsflash, IMO FttP is good policy, whether it comes from Labor or the Coalition… and if FttP was Coalition policy/FttN Labor, I’d still be here promoting (the Coalition’s) FttP policy and bagging (Labor’s) FttN stupidity
And I bet, you’d be here, supporting me…
+1
If the LNP had FTTP and ALP had FTTN I’d be praising the Lib policy but that’s not the case!
The LNP policy has FTTP.
22% is not an FTTP policy!
@ Fibroid…
Thad’s be the same FttP “you” previously told us we don’t need to homes, would it?
But let’s not ponder on your never ending contradictions…
So please continue to exclude basic common sense (Libs policy is based around FttN, which everyone knows and accepts) and not let said common sense stand in the way of simplistic, childish, nit-picking, based around your own immovable and now indefensible, political bias :(
@djos
‘22% is not an FTTP policy!’
Oh you changed it, that’s not what you said which is:
‘If the LNP had FTTP’
I repeat the LNP policy has FTTP.
BTW chances are the Labor policy will have FTTN also, as you know the NBN Co are reviewing using existing copper in apartment buildings, which makes up about 30% of Australian residences.
Now you’re just being an F’wit!
@ Fibroid…
http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/
* Obvious and repetitive trolling to get a reaction
* Comments which display a lack of rationality or reasonableness. For example, a number of commenters on Delimiter over the past year have engaged in the debate, but consistently avoided acknowledging substantive issues raised by other commenters in relation to their argument. Instead, they have deliberately diverted the discussion down another path, annoying many other commenters.
BTW Fibroid, FttB is not FttN… it’s FttP
But this has all been explained to you, with the subsequent links as evidence before. Yet you refuse to accept the evidence and keep trolling for a reaction, by making the same incorrect statement :(
So I again point you towards clauses 1 & 3 (as I outlined above) of the Delimiter policies again, as well as #4…
“Comments which inject demonstrably false information into the debate…”
So once again…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTTX
“FTTP (fiber-to-the-premises): This term is used either as a blanket term for both FTTH and FTTB, or where the fiber network includes both homes and small businesses.”
Please start to correspond in a meaningful and sensible manner… thank you.
Clarification: 30 minutes before your claim :)
22% is not an FTTP policy!
You know what’s ironic…
I used to suggest the usual suspect NBN naysayers (the three amigos here) were simply politically motivated in their NBN hatred.
What ever was I thinking.
Hey this is slightly off topic, but it highlights the stupidity of the comms debate in Australia. I dropped from an iiNet naked-DSL $100 per month “business” plan (which is not truly suitable for business) down to a $50 per month TPG bundled consumer plan (which is also not suitable for business, but makes no pretence otherwise). What I noticed is that this morning the TPG packet loss is exceptionally high:
— 10.20.21.193 ping statistics —
50 packets transmitted, 35 received, 30% packet loss, time 24580ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 21.409/57.205/101.416/20.966 ms
I’m pinging the first hop router inside the TPG network. Now, I will say that it is raining and also, it has been raining for a week. I took a peek in the street out the front and although things are wet, they are nowhere near flooded. What’s more, those ping times are highly variable, which is suggestive of congestion somewhere upstream.
Just to be sure, I set the modem to a highly conservative rate. The modem runs on BCM96338 chipset and it’s very basic, it claims:
Down Up
Max(Kbps): 11356 1248
Rate (Kbps): 9573 1020
SNR (dB): 16.1 13.6
Attn(dB): 32.0 15.7
Bit Errors: 0 0
If you let it run on default, the Downstream rate goes up to around 13M. Anyhow, I would have thought the SNR I’m getting is quite adequate, more than adequate, and the modem claims no bit errors. Thus, I’m concluding the copper is not the problem here. So you average user simply is not going to spend much time doing diagnostics, they will just latch onto the idea that government is going to give them NBN for cheaps and no one will get that idea out of their head. The great effort spent on last mile technology is just going to detract from fixing the real problem which is congestion further upstream.
On the off chance someone from TPG reads this, well, you know what to do don’t you?
Not surprised. It is TPG after all. You don’t over subscribe your network with every leech in Australia and not get some packet loss.
With Respect Tel
TPG is a budget isp, so does cut costs, so a higher level of contention than the premium isp’s is to be expected.
However being a competitive environment as demands and volumes grow the RSP’s will need to upgrade
Well hasn’t this topic wandered off topic into a right vs left political slanging match.
Bit like parliament really.
As one who has actually built Telco infrastructure (no, not in NBN):
1. NBN is visionary. Like a Very Fast Train (FFT) linking the big capitals.
2. Liberal NBN is almost visionary. Better than what we have but probably not worth building (Shannon’s law states, inter alia, radio can’t carry much data!!)
3. If the internet filter controls kiddie porn, then I’m all for it!!
You said:
. “If the internet filter controls kiddie porn, then I’m all for it!!”
But it doesn’t!!
All it does is hide its existence and leave the kiddies open to even more exploitation.
Anyone who supports filtering should be hanged by the neck until dead. No bloody exceptions.
His internet filter was a douchebag move. End of story. We can’t EVER allow such a thing, the free flow of info via the internet is like fresh water, it is nourishing and helps us grow
Now what is it that you’ve gone and stuffed in your pipe then?It must be very strong to get you to flip out like that.Get real for Chrissake.Conroy was the most loathed and inept polly during both Rudd AND Gillard’s terms.To say he was anything more than just elected is being generous- exaggerating to “greatest ever” (communications minister) is totally disgraceful.
Brady
“Conroy was the most loathed and inept polly during both Rudd AND Gillard’s terms.”
Cory Bernardi.
Haven’t visitied Delimiter for months. This was the first article I saw and it reenforced why I left. Labour party shilling.
*shrugs*
“Labour party shilling.”
Says Coalition supporter who does not understand that someone can disagree with their point of view.
We’ll miss you.
Comments are closed.