news One of Labor’s newest recruits to the broadband portfolio has accused Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull of “telling porkies” and “complete fabrications” with respect to the Liberal MP’s statement that businesses in key areas such as CBDs would not need to pay extra to have fibre connected to their premises under the Coalition’s rival NBN policy.
The Coalition’s NBN policy is largely based on fibre to the node technology, which will see fibre extended from telephone exchanges to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ and the existing copper cable used for the remainder of the distance to premises. In comparison, Labor’s current NBN project is predominantly based on an all-fibre premise.
However, Turnbull has regularly stated over the past several months that the Coalition would extend fibre all the way to premises in areas where it was sensible to do so — for schools, hospitals and universities, for example, as well as business areas which had greater bandwidth needs (especially for symmetrical upload/download speeds) than those commonly ascribed to consumers.
For example, in an interview on ABC Radio this week, Turnbull said the Coalition would “build fibre to the premises wherever there is a demand for it”. “So businesses, industrial parks like a VW or an Amazon, datacentres, greenfield sites, you know, schools, universities, whatever,” Turnbull said.
However, in a statement issued this morning, Husic accused Turnbull, who he described as “Malcolm in a muddle” of “telling porkies about his own broadband policy to try and hide the fact the Coalition is selling a lemon to the Australian people”, additionally describing Turnbull’s statements on fibre where there was demand as “a complete fabrication”.
Husic pointed out that there was no stipulation for such fibre extensions in the Coalition’s formal broadband policy released in April (PDF). Specifically, on page 7 of the document, the Coalition’s policy states that fibre to the premises “should be deployed in new (‘greenfield’) housing estates and wherever copper has to be replaced”. The document additionally makes provision for fibre on demand and co-funded fibre, where private parties or separate governments could help fund fibre to the premises in certain areas, but it does not appear to explicitly deal with the scenarios raised by Turnbull, where fibre could be extended to schools, and hospitals, for example, or city central business districts or business parks.
“Apart from premises already connected to fibre by Labor and a handful of unspecified areas with degraded copper, the Coalition will not connect any existing homes or businesses directly to fibre,” said Husic. “All other Coalition cases of connecting fibre to existing premises are either through fibre on demand, which slugs homes and businesses as much as $5000 each to connect, or “co-funded”.
“Malcolm is in a muddle. He has either not read his policy document properly, is deliberately misleading the public, or is facing a cost blowout. “I can understand he’s embarrassed about this massive flaw in the Coalition broadband plan, but he should just be upfront about it. Malcolm Turnbull should also stick to the facts when debating Labor’s NBN, not making up false figures to try and distract from his own defective plan.
Husic added that Turnbull had recently made the “outrageous” claim that it would take NBN Co as much as 50 years to complete the NBN rollout. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has recently claimed the NBN would take 80 years to complete in Tasmania. “This is despite knowing full well that the network is on track to be completed to all Australians by 2021,” said Husic.
“Mr Turnbull also keeps suggesting that none of the assumptions underpinning his exorbitant claims about the NBN’s cost had been discredited. Yet Mr Turnbull and I sat through the same session of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network when NBN Co put the Coalition’s claims through a shredder. NBN Co demonstrated that all its costs are on or below budget, they demonstrated that Mr Turnbull’s claims about the prices charged to consumers are wrong, and they demonstrated that NBN take-up rates are exceeding forecasts.”
“I can understand Mr Turnbull’s embarrassment at having to defend his inadequate plan, but he should do so without blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations.”
Delimiter has requested a response from the office of Malcolm Turnbull.
opinion/analysis
On the face of it, Husic is correct. I had a look, and I cannot find anywhere in the Coalition’s NBN policy document which directly backs Turnbull’s statements that the Coalition is planning to connect fibre all the way to the premises in areas such as schools, hospitals and business districts. Instead, the document pretty clearly focuses on fibre to the node, and ‘co-funded’ FTTP of some kind.
However, whether you agree with Husic also depends to what extent you believe that a political party’s policies are only enshrined in their policy documents. Turnbull has made this claim in public many times since the Coalition first released its NBN policy — it’s not a new aspect of the Coalition’s plan at all. And personally, I don’t just consider policy documents themselves to be the only standard when it comes to political parties’ policies. We must also consider the statements of the policymakers themselves. Turnbull has made this claim in public a great deal — and personally, I therefore consider it to be policy.
I would make two further points on this issue. Firstly, there is a wider truth to Husic’s statements. Turnbull does need to eventually codify the Coalition’s plan to make FTTP available where there is demand. A process will need to be put in place to correctly identify which areas will need FTTP and which will be OK with FTTN, and that process need to be formalised and codified so that the public can understand it. The alternative will be something like chaos — as individuals and organisations right around Australia, from tiny city councils to business parks and TAFE colleges to larger groups — clamour for FTTP. With no rules in place on this issue, the Coalition’s plan will flounder.
Secondly, there is the political angle. Husic’s been on board as Parliamentary Secretary for Broadband now for a month, and so have his Labor colleagues in the portfolio — Anthony Albanese, Kate Lundy and Sharon Bird. What we’re starting to see from Labor when it comes to the NBN is not just one occasional attack on Turnbull and the Coalition NBN policy, but repeated attacks from different MPs. Stephen Conroy was just one man as Communications Minister. However, now there are four Labor parliamentarians all attacking the Coalition on the NBN issue. And I have a feeling that even Turnbull, with his masterly media management skills, is starting to be a little swamped.
As I wrote in this morning’s profile of Husic for Delimiter 2.0 (paywalled), even Husic himself is quite a lot to handle, with his energy and experience. But four politicians on the NBN at once? Finally, Labor is starting to exploit the obvious holes in the Coalition’s NBN policy. I suspect Turnbull will eventually need some help to keep the Coalition’s head above water in this portfolio.
Husic did allow for the coalition policy being adjusted to include that – its his “facing a cost blowout” option. You can’t claim to be delivering a faster, cheaper network based on FttN and then also claim to deliver the benefits of FttP to a whole range of extra areas without accounting for that in the cost.
So either Turnbull is misleading the public about what they will deliver, or the coalition have an outdated policy document which is misleading the public about the cost and timelines.
I am glad you raised the subject of costs and timelines relating to NBN policy, the Labor NBN policy costs and timelines were changed from the original 2010 NBN Business upwards in the areas of CAPEX, OPEX and required funding and downward for rollout timelines in the 2012-2015 NBN Business plan.
The rollout timelines were again adjusted downward in April from the 2012-2015 plan, and too meet the June deadline the ‘premises passed’ had to be redefined.
So if the Coalition NBN Co does the same and have a ‘whiteboard plan’ and adjust it as they go to meet revised deadlines and costing, that’s all ok I take it?
Hey Renai,
I guess we’ve found Malcoms Little Helper now.
He should help this get over 100 comments over the weekend easily.
Fibroid, this comment is … I have to say … just obstructionist. I am getting a lot of complaints about your comments recently. Argue the issue intelligently and don’t go off into random aggravating topics, or I will ban you for a few weeks.
Not really seeing anything wrong with Fibroid’s comment here..
I would like to say that I believe the NBN time frame and costings have indeed been misleading since day one and it does seem to have had schedules altered constantly throughout the build.
If this were an IT company rolling out an internal network for a private business then there would be hell to pay for the constant ‘re-assessing’ that’s been going on.
My source = I am the public and this is my perspective on the matter.
“My source = I am the public and this is my perspective on the matter.”
Incorrect. You are a member of the public not the public.
Also, this is hardly scientific.
Projects that don’t alter those things during their roll out are the ones you should be worried about…
Indeed, so you must feel quite comfortable with this sort of statement.
“For example, in an interview on ABC Radio this week, Turnbull said the Coalition would “build fibre to the premises wherever there is a demand for it”. “So businesses, industrial parks like a VW or an Amazon, datacentres, greenfield sites, you know, schools, universities, whatever,” Turnbull said.”
So after adopting FttN (fraudband as they dubbed it themselves) some six years after the current government did (i.e. 6 years too late), they may also now finally adopt FttP too…?
But shhh, don’t tell anyone the other’s must have got it right after all…
“For example, in an interview on ABC Radio this week, Turnbull said the Coalition would “build fibre to the premises wherever there is a demand for it”. “So businesses, industrial parks like a VW or an Amazon, datacentres, greenfield sites, you know, schools, universities, whatever,” Turnbull said.”
Thanks for pointing out another hole he’s trying to patch up…with provisos of course though :)
Nice article once again Renai.
““build fibre to the premises wherever there is a demand for it”. “So businesses, industrial parks…” What about those people who run a small business from their home? My wife has for many years and I wonder if that would count? :|
“However, whether you agree with Husic also depends to what extent you believe that a political party’s policies are only enshrined in their policy documents.”
The Liberal party by it’s own admission only stands by carefully written statements.
If it’s not in the document, then it’s not the ‘gospel truth’ as said by the leader of the party himself.
“Turnbull has made this claim in public a great deal — and personally, I therefore consider it to be policy.”
What, like it will cost $94B to complete the current NBN? Like it ill take 50 years? C’mon Renai! Turnbull is a serial liar who bluffs and blusters and bullys his way out of any sort of hard query about his ‘proposals’. And, lets be clear, it’s wildly unfair to label them a ‘plan’ They are thought bubbles. A dream. And, if the facts are known, unlikely to ever be put in place – at least not by a LNP Government. Maybe by Telstra……? Which means we can probably add tacit corruption to the sad and sorry mix.
My terminology wouldn’t be that strong, but yes I must say old Mal has really dirtied himself of late. My trust in what he says is much less than it previously was. I don’t think it is completely his fault. I think that he is being pushed to engage, and it doesn’t matter how dirty they get doing it. But I expect better from someone I would consider as a potential prime minister.
You can knock Rudd all you want, but most of the mistruths from his mouth tend to be poor info rather than blatant confounding. Can’t say as much for Mal. His smoothness plays against him in my opinion.
So what about people like me living in a townhouse where there is no HFC connection to any of the properties but the cable runs down the street to every other house?
Will I be without both HFC AND FttN?
Yes.
Look at the plus side… you will be w/ the much more superior 3g wireless! and 4g once it’s fully rolled out! :D
Any suggestions on who this might be? Will they bring back the megabyte thieves?
I suspect that Turnbull would rather no one else in the Coalition butts in, if his experiences trying to cover Abbott’s and Hockey’s arses are any indication.
The more pressure that’s applied on Turnbull for details, the more the cracks appear and the greater the bullshit and spin he has to create.
In the so-called debate in Sydney yesterday, when asked by the masses why not just do wireless, Turnbull again showed his lack of knowledge about why wireless can’t replace fixed line services.
It doesn’t matter how many APs or whatever are used, the limitation is the surrounding RF.
Turnbull panders his responses to what he thinks his audience want to here.
When you’ve been caught in a lie, tell a bigger lie…
i think hes already looking into exit strategies. from over at ZDnet, this portion of one of his grafs sang out at me:
“I’m not arguing that fibre to the premises is a bad technology(…)”
i also had a good belly laugh with this one:
“He said that he believes this would only take 60 days, because staff in the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy as well as NBN Co would already be working on it.” assumption is the mother of all… well i put it to you: does anyone here seriously believe the DBCDE and NBNco are ‘working on it’? well lets back it a bit, working on it with any serious intent considering everything else on their plate already?
iunno about you lot but i’d be saying ‘deal with the shit we have to deal with today, today. that shit can wait til after the election….’ and just put a token effort on the board. even if im badly wrong and they are working on it with serious intent i think the 60 day belief – hope maybe? is ambitious and – if its a word – more failable than achievable.
“I think if we do win the election, we won’t be presented with a blank sheet of paper; there will be a fair bit of work done already.” he says this, but im not sure he really understands that means things are going to be more difficult to work through than the blank sheet scenario. again, i ask you lot – does the work already gone through process make the full enactment of his (low detail) policy easier? considering the process is going to be upended and rejigged into what is in some areas a rather different policy…. i think hes far too sanguine of his prospects. ive heard it said with technology “underpromise, overdeliver’.
i.e. set the bar so its achievable, but leave it low enough that its possible to clear the bar, maybe even jump it with serious extra goodies if you are lucky – the opposite case would be the folk who promise the world then only deliver a small chunk of it…. id regard those a lot less kindly, and historically that is usually the case. if i were him i would be more cautious on the claims made…..
“I had a look, and I cannot find anywhere in the Coalition’s NBN policy document which directly backs Turnbull’s statements that the Coalition is planning to connect fibre all the way to the premises in areas such as schools, hospitals and business districts.”
And the reason why you won’t is because something has to give. Either he does it and the plan cost a lot more than $29.5 billion or he doesn’t the the cost is more accurate.
Add to this, his suggestion today that NBNco could take over the HFC network. Doubtless, he would tell us that Telstra would give it away for nothing.
I’d like to comment but there is no link to Ed Husic’s (full name) statement. As such it’s a little hard. ;)
Ah well, given the above I will go out on a limb and say that I would be inclined to agree with him. Imo Turnbull has been very fast, loose, and Liberal with the truth regarding the existing NBN and their own broadband policy. The lack of detail has hardly been encouraging and given the above, I wouldn’t trust him or the Liberals as far as I could spit. There are far too many unknowns and variables which either haven’t been explained in enough detail, openly contradicted, stretch the bounds of credibility, or appear to be statements made that are purely political motivated/band aid in nature, to be believed.
The current NBN is the result of consultation, planning, legislative changes, and implementation over more than 5 yrs. To expect voters and the nation to opt for an alternative at this stage should require far more detail and firm commitment than Turnbull has yet to deliver.
<cite. Turnbull has made this claim in public many times since the Coalition first released its NBN policy — it’s not a new aspect of the Coalition’s plan at all. And personally, I don’t just consider policy documents themselves to be the only standard when it comes to political parties’ policies.
I understand where you are coming from Renai, but as you point out, Turnbull has been making this claim almost from the time of the policy launch.
Given that is the case and that FTTP has the massive cost impost he is claiming I think it stands out that it isn’t documented, particularly given the impact on his bottom line. You have been warned by Tony Abbott as well, if it isn’t written down then it is effectively BS. ie You can’t rely on it.
This is also why the fibre on demand is questionable IMHO, the policy doc and/or background document makes it clear that there are significant caveats.
Also, what about businesses in areas that are not industrial parks or similar? Anyone that thinks tech innovators start in industrial parks or whatever are not paying attention to what actually happens in Australia.
It appears to be at a direct conflict with what Turnbull has been saying in the past when their policy was launched, namely:
– 22% of premises will be covered by FTTP, which includes the approx. 10-13% Turnbull believes will already be contracted and beyond movement/completed plus the 9% Turnbull has publicly stated they have left as a “what if” in the case of degraded copper. I cannot find the actual statement on this (I think it MIGHT have been Lateline?) but those are the numbers he actually explicitly expressed.
There is no room in that number for “business, universities, hospitals, medical centres and schools”. It would be some 5-10%, minimum, of premises overall. Taking FTTP to close to 30% of requirements….not to mention, you’d probably pass ANOTHER 10-15% of premises minimum GETTING to those areas, which makes it pointless to do FTTN to them….
There’s a big technicality here & like Albanese’ one the other day, the Labor team are now engaging Turnbull directly on these holes. Turnbull is going to find himself on the back foot very soon.
Phil Dobbie’s recent Crosstalk podcast already fairly much blew a hole in the idea of 50 000 nodes (with help from @sortius (who I might say is prone to exaggeration, but nonetheless made some good points) and 2 industry analysts), suggesting anything up to 25% of premises on Turnbull’s “average 500m from the node” premises would be FURTHER than 800m from nodes, pushing up the number of nodes and therefore cost, substantially.
NBNCo. are starting to legitimately show their ramp up now (from <400 in March to over 1000 premises a day now), Turnbull's own policy is missing vital information that will greatly change its' timeframe and/or costs, not to mention possible performance and Turnbull himself still refuses to engage when questioned on said holes, simply preferring to divert the conversation by saying "look at BT, look at DT!" or attacking the questioner wholesale.
So big deal, the Coalition ‘adjust’ their pre election figures after they gain power, just like Labor did post 2007 and 2010 elections, we are up to revision four and counting of adjustments, with Number one at the top of list being the major ‘adjustment’ from FTTN to FTTP.
Key difference, the Coalition policy is using cost as one of its major arguments to make up for its technical lack.
If these changes mean that the coalition policy has a higher cost that makes a significant difference to one of their primary arguments.
You are correct, but we won’t actually know that until 2019.
@Fibroid
You can measure the cost likelihood LONG before 2019- NBNCo. have shown NOW they are in the correct ballpark to remain on budget. Yes, it may fluctuate, but not wildly.
Any FTTN Coalition plan that went ahead would be measurable for cost after only a few hundred thousand premises, same as the NBN.
Yes we know how you remain in budget, you change the budget.
Well that was childish.
So using that logic, the NBN hold ups aren’t occuring, because we won’t know the actual timeframe until the completion?
Got it.
No. You’ve got it wrong. Here is the real trick.
If your solution only cost 900million more, you treble Labor’s cost so you can claim that your policy cost a third.
That’s fine if the difference was $900m it isn’t so the point is irrelevant.
In planned government backing it is. That is to say the government, therefore the tax payers, are only risking $900 million more. All other contributions are going to be raised by private debt.
And since we’re talking about a policy decision here, what the government promises to back is significant, not the total CAPEX of the project.
Required total funding for the Labor NBN is $44.1b from their 2012-2015 Business plan.
Required total funding for the Coalition NBN is $29.5b from their Policy document.
Subtracting $29.5b from $44.1b doesn’t equal $900m.
Required total funding != government backed contribution.
This has been repeated to you so many times and you still don’t seem to understand it. I can only, therefore, conclude you are deliberately ignoring it.
@Fibroid
Total PUBLIC Funding. Read the policy again.
Fibroid
“Subtracting $29.5b from $44.1b doesn’t equal $900m.”
That is correct. Unfortunately, you have the wrong numbers. However, using the correct numbers, $30.4b less $29.5b = $900m. See, now, that wasn’t hard was it?
Anytime, you need some help with arithmetics, just give us a yell. I’ll be happy to help.
Yes got all of that, but the outcome doesn’t change unless either side of politics adjust their figures as given, the total funding difference between the two rollouts is still not $900m.
You guys appear to have a good grasp on the finance side, certainly better than me.
From what I understand 30.4billion is Public funding, then the rest of the 44b is made up in project funding(presumably monies earned as the rollout continues) and financial markets(private funding).
Does the coalition have the same plan for their 29.5billion? Or has that not been factored in to the total?
I presume even if they did the amount that they could account for would be less as a result of a worse potential ROI.
Fibroid is delibrately obfuscating the debate, by trying to use total funding to make his point, when all we should care about as taxpayers is how much of our money they are spending. Which is $29.5b versus $30.4b.
$29.5b versus $44.1b is NOT a fair comparison, and is a muddy debate at best.
Would you prefer to get a taxi to an event by yourself for $29.50 or share a ferrari with someone, where your share of the cost is $30.40?
Fibroid at his best.
1-Make statement
2-Gets corrected with facts.
3-Ignore fact
4-Persist with same point to the point of exhaustion
Well done Fibroid keep up the good work. Maybe you should replace the Coalition member for Greenway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W07iytEr9lY&list=PLUmtx7w-ZeyWY658h60B5VzcEzBnsX4kJ
Indeed Observer,
All we have to do is note Fibroid’s comments here at this one article… a blunt refusal to ever accept the government spends comparison, the claim that MT’s plan can’t be judged prior to 2019 completion and that Kohler didn’t say ‘work will stop’ (whether MT did or not) when it’s written clear as day in his article for all to see…
For you to respond to Renai here…
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/30/albo-slams-turnbull-fttp-on-demand-lottery/#comment-618828
Yes Alex.
Poor Fibroid is a kind of Don Quixote. Instead of fighting windmills, he is trying to singlehandedly combat all these socialist NBN lovers. Nothing will stop him in his quest. Like a robotic Chinese table tennis player, he will stubbornly block any criticism of his beloved Coalition. You have to, nevertheless, admire his dedication in fighting an increasing losing battle.
Agreed Observer…
Without singling anybody out here, I do indeed find some people’s loyalty to their politics on the one hand admirable… but on the other hand looking at some of the blinded by propaganda comments, also pitiful, when the politics overwhelms the more important big picture.
:(
Fibroid.
Well done. True to form. Perhaps you should change your name to Teflonoid.
You are correct, but we won’t actually know that until 2019.
You, sir, are a hypocrite.
When I will pay for fibre to rented premises
When I leave will I be able yo get my money back or next renter will pay me for it?
Labor’s memory comes up short when it accuses the Coalition of not having certain specifics stated to the media later that were not spelled out in detail in the April policy.
Labor’s pre election policy before the 2007 election was for FTTN, after the election they changed it to FTTP for 93% of residences, apparently they can change their policy 180 degrees AFTER an election, but any clarification of policy by the Coalition and keep in mind this is well BEFORE the election regarding policy about FTTP to hospitals, schools, universities etc is not allowed and not to be believed.
Who knows the Coalition might do another Gonski type of back flip and decide to copy Labor’s policy and go FTTP.
Indeed they could, backflips with a double twist are a common political theme when it comes to NBN policy.
:)
“Indeed they could, backflips with a double twist are a common political theme when it comes to NBN policy.”
Hey mate,
can you please provide some concrete examples to justify this blanket statement? I’ll be examining your response carefully for rationality.
Cheers,
Renai
The Labor policy change election 2007 from Fibre to the Node to Fibre to the Premises after that election.
I anticipate a major policy flip of that kind from the Coalition if Telstra and the ACCC don’t play ball with FTTN, the ACCC especially will look very closely at Telstra’s role in any copper /NBN Co partnership if that is what is the proposed outcome of ‘this is how will implement FTTN’ discussions.
If it all get’s too hard and time is dragging on and the Coalition are getting too much flack about the delay keeping in mind the Labor FTTP contractual build obligations is happening in the meantime well into 2014-2015, the Coalition could decide to shelve FTTN and go FTTP.
The Coalition ‘achilles heel’, is not so much that FTTN technically is not possible or that technically is FoD, but the problem of how far advanced the Labor FTTP rollout will be when all existing build contracts have expired.
@Fibroid
keeping in mind the Labor FTTP contractual build obligations is happening in the meantime well into 2014-2015
Not according to Turnbull:
He will complete a cost benefit analysis and review of the NBN within 60 days of taking office, and while that is happening,work will stop.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/2/technology/turnbull-has-more-nbn-twists-telstra
PS:
I realise that partly contradicts what Turnbull has constantly dais- that they’ll abide by all contracts. But he HAS said according to Kohler, during the reviews, work will stop.
I have just read the full transcript of that interview, where did MT say that?
Try “Ctrl-F”, it’s there….
@Tinman_au
Awww, I was gonna give him something to do for a Saturday afternoon…. :p
@Fibroid
Ask Kohler, not me. I merely quoted his article. If you believe he’s incorrect, take it up with him. Kohler has reported fairly reasonably before on what Turnbull says, so I’m not sure why he’d outright make something up. It was fairly clear.
Copy & paste the statement where Kohler said that.
No.
You read the article, note the authour, and if you still can’t see it, do a page search for “work will stop”.
And also, while we’re at it, until you can do something as simple as read the sources presented to you, and then find an alternative source that either contradicts the premise of the point made by the one who procured the source (e.g. “because cows are only feed corn they don’t make milk; and Fred said they’re feeding the cows corn” would be countered with a source showing that cows can produce milk while eating only corn) OR an article that establishes what the source says to either be incorrect or misrepresentation (e.g. the same statement could be countered by another article that shows Fred is also feeding the cows hay), and many other logical fallacies and argument failings you just happen to engage in, I’m going to suggest Fibroid, you stop commenting on the topic of the NBN*.
*NOTE: This does not mean I think you are wrong whenever you do this, only that you are arguing badly. To assume because you are making fallacies you are wrong is, in of it self, a fallacy.
oops I meant to say Turnbull.
7T
“while that is happening,work will stop.”
60 Days
Look at what has been happening to the contractors and subbie’s with the asbestos halt,
e.g Tassie
How many will he intentionally cripple financially with that stop
“but the problem of how far advanced the Labor FTTP rollout will be when all existing build contracts have expired.”
If one stops insisting how far behind NBNco is. One only has to look at the planned rollout. It may not be a perfect plan but it certainly can be worked out fairly closely. The reason MT is not considering it is because the answer may be that will be too late anyway and he would have to stop tell us how slow the rollout is and will be.
“Indeed they could, backflips with a double twist are a common political theme when it comes to NBN policy.”
So the sole reason for making this statement was the alterations made post 2007 by the PoE and taken onboard by the government?
Not common and hardly compelling imo…
@Fibroid
You appear to also have a short memory- Labor promised FTTN IF the RFP tender to determine the best possible network cost/design came back favourable. It didn’t. It came back saying “Build an FTTP network”….so they did.
It was also a backflip to a more expensive proposition, when Labor never set out to cap the spending on the network- simply to build a NBN to improve broadband to a minimum of 12Mbps for 90% of Australians. The choice of FTTP simply extended that speed to 1000Mbps by the nature of the technology.
The Coalition HAVE put a cap on spending for the network- $29.5 billion. Unless the FTTP to all these extra premises fall inside this cap, they have blown their own policy AND their own rules of costing less than the NBN for the same goals….and please don’t start on the $29.5 vs $44.1 billion. The $44.1 billion is irrelevant to a political party in government as it doesn’t have to spend this $13.7 billion in extra money and thereby borrow it/take it from Budget.
And if you’re happy for them to “adjust” their figures after the election, then why do you have a problem with Labor doing so on the NBN?
Contradiction much?
Because one is conjecture that the Coalition MIGHT adjust their figures, the other is Labor have actually adjusted their figures.
If the Coalition release a Business plan and start adjusting targets and costs after the rollout has started they should be held to account just like the Labor NBN Co should be, they cannot be criticised in that area yet because their rollout has not started.
@Fibroid
Wait, so you’re banking on the idea that the Coalition WILL NOT adjust their figures at all and therefore because they won’t, they’re more trustworthy?? And before they do or don’t adjust their figures, they’re automatically more trustworthy….because they haven’t had the chance to do so??
I’ve got news for you- if you’re trusting ANY political party, you need to be looking at your sense in politics. I don’t trust Labor. At all. I trust they’ll do what is politically expedient or easiest. The NBN happens to be both now that it’s going. I also trust NBNCo. to show how and why their figures have changed. They haven’t always been immediately forthcoming, but they have produced all numbers and reasoning….something the Coalition policy is severely lacking.
@Fibroid, sorry but unless Telstra gift the CAN to NBNco, and or take full responsibility for all copper remediation, the numbers will change. They have to. It’s illogical to presume that they’re static when half of the figures are missing from the policy.
Turnbull has set a budget, but that does not mean the input costs will also be static. Something will have to give.
Strangely Brendan… some seem to question and put a negative slant upon each and every aspect of the FttP based NBN, but will accept with open arms, everything said (and even claim positives unsaid) about the obviously inferior and similarly priced (government spend wise) FttN alternative, based around obsolete copper…
Because one is conjecture that the Coalition MIGHT adjust their figures, the other is Labor have actually adjusted their figures.
“MIGHT”….lol. That’s a good one.
I have to laugh at all the anti-Coalition posturing that goes on because Turnbull has made a statement about FTTP for hospitals, universities etc that is not covered specifically in the policy as given, so therefore it will cause changes in their NBN budget purely because there seems to be a higher percentage of FTTP than first indicated.
I suppose this is tacit acknowledgement that FTTP does cost more than FTTN, which sort of defeats the argument put forward by many in the pro Labor NBN anti-Coalition lobby that the costs are about the same so you might as well roll out FTTP anyway.
Also do you think the the amended NBN Business Plan 2012-2015 which was amended again only in April this year has figures in it that will never be changed again in the 2015-2018 Plan when the latest plan expires and that the proposed end game figure of $44.1 billion which was changed upward from the 2010 Plan is set in concrete never to be changed anytime up to the proposed rollout finish year in 2021?
Tangent, much?
Figures are missing from Turnbull’s policy. Telstra has not yet announced it has gifted the CAN to NBNco. So, again, something has to give.
It’s not really that complicated. And to argue the entire thing cannot change post election, is naivety to the extreme.
I’m NOT arguing the whole thing cannot change post election, what do you think all of this post means?
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/02/malcolm-in-a-muddle-husic-accuses-turnbull-of-fttp-porkies/#comment-618881
@ Fibroid.
So FttN may in fact cost more than FttP then?
And looking at the comparative ‘government spends’ (yes the one’s you avioid like the plague) one could suggest it is almost inevitable that the opposition’s FttN will cost more ‘governmental monies’ than the current governments FttP?
Fibroid, this back-flipping of yours has left me quite confused about where you stand.
Up until now you were committed to FTTN because FTTP was ‘unnecessary’ or ‘too expensive’ or ‘too slow to roll out’, but now you “anticipate a major policy flip of that kind from the Coalition”.
Originally, you state that the LBN will cost less than the NBN, but now you acknowledge that the LBN will probably cost more than before and could potentially cost as much as the NBN, but that it’s just not in the policy yet.
But we’re going to an election soon – shouldn’t the Coalition policy be adjusted to account for a change in scope? How are Australian voters supposed to make an informed decision about Broadband policies when the Coalition have not properly finalised, let alone costed, theirs?
One final question, and this is the most important one and I want you to answer it. If, tomorrow, Malcolm Turnbull were to “do an Abbott” and say “Minister Albanese and I are on a unity ticket with respect to the NBN”, and the Coalition were to adopt the Labor vision – where would you stand then? Of course, Turnbull would be wrong, wouldn’t he?
This is genuine question. Don’t you get tired to push the same nitpicking points ad nauseum?
It would be nice if you could elevate the debate by genuinely discussing issues rather than trying to score points every second of the day. There are issues with both policies but, according to you, the Coalition is either perfect, or if it has a weakness, it’s “but look at Labor’s”.
Whether you are prepared to admit or not, makes no difference. If MT suggest additional work or technologies, it will have a impact on the cost of his policy. To pretend, as you do, that it is no important, only serve to avoid the fact that the cost differential disappear and that coupled with MT’s admission, that fibre is the best technology, we are left with a valid question: What is the point of spending the same amount to end up with the worst technical solution?
Probably no, well, not while the meter is ticking ;)
Withdrawn, your honour :)
@Observer
‘If MT suggest additional work or technologies, it will have a impact on the cost of his policy.”
But you don’t know that yet, the cost of putting FTTP in areas that MT mentioned could easily be offset by cost savings in other areas, there is no reason many of these areas like Business parks for example cannot be co-funded, so the Coalition only have to meet 50% of the FTTP roll out cost
‘What is the point of spending the same amount to end up with the worst technical solution?’
Because until the Coalition blow their stated $29.5b total spend and are forced to add to it so it equals the Labor $44.1b to complete their version of the rollout, ‘spending the same amount’ is total conjecture in August 2013 a month out from the election they might win and before a Coalition rollout has even started.
@Fibroid
Because until the Coalition blow their stated $29.5b total spend and are forced to add to it so it equals the Labor $44.1b to complete their version of the rollout, ‘spending the same amount’ is total conjecture in August 2013 a month out from the election they might win and before a Coalition rollout has even started.
So….why are you even talking about it???
err what?, it’s not just me is it seven_tech?
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/02/malcolm-in-a-muddle-husic-accuses-turnbull-of-fttp-porkies/#comment-618869
@Fibroid
I started out explaining why the NBN as it stood in 2007 is not relevant to how it stands now, in terms of how the current Coalition policy should be viewed.
All you’ve done since then is say “but Labor did it, why can’t the Coalition???”
That’s not a rational argument for why they SHOULD do it. It’s a rational argument for why they CAN. Even politics is supposed to improve over time. By suggesting the Coalition can make the same “mistakes” as Labor 5 years ago (which weren’t actually mistakes, simply following the RFP tender process conclusions) you’re not adding ANYTHING to the discussion. All you’re doing is giving them an excuse to say whatever the hell they want before the election and change it afterwards.
It is, in your own words, conjecture and nothing more.
“Because until the Coalition blow their stated $29.5b total spend and are forced to add to it so it equals the Labor $44.1b to complete their version of the rollout, ‘spending the same amount’ is total conjecture in August 2013 a month out from the election they might win and before a Coalition rollout has even started.
Incorrect…
Once MT’s plan passes $30.4B the same government backed monies being spent on the current NBN, FttN becomes more of an impost to average Aussies…
Just like average Aussies don’t care how BHP or CBA spend investor dollars, we don’t care how NBNCo spend the over $30.4B investor dollars either. It’s their risk…
But please keep trying to avoid the very similar government spends of both the vastly superior FttP NBN and the dependant upon obsolete copper, distant second FttN plan… especially having previously harped on about the poor taxpayer, who you now (via FttN) have no empathy for whatsoever.
See my previous comment
Keep it up Fibroid.
I have to laugh at all the anti-Coalition posturing that goes on because Turnbull has made a statement about FTTP for hospitals, universities etc that is not covered specifically in the policy as given, so therefore it will cause changes in their NBN budget purely because there seems to be a higher percentage of FTTP than first indicated.
Yeah, it’s not like the Liberal Party ever release uncosted policies, or policies that aren’t actually costed correctly, is it? ;o)
So?
Thank you for that informative comment.
No problems.
If you are curious as to what I was getting out however. I don’t honestly see the relevance of
“Labor’s memory comes up short when it accuses the Coalition of not having certain specifics stated to the media later that were not spelled out in detail in the April policy.
Labor’s pre election policy before the 2007 election was for FTTN, after the election they changed it to FTTP for 93% of residences, apparently they can change their policy 180 degrees AFTER an election, but any clarification of policy by the Coalition and keep in mind this is well BEFORE the election regarding policy about FTTP to hospitals, schools, universities etc is not allowed and not to be believed.”
When we are discussing Husic pointing out Turnbull’s comments on various elements that are not in the policy documents. The coalition very well may do a 180 AFTER the election, Or Not. This doesn’t change the fact that right now Husic is pulling up Turnbull on comments that directly relate to the Coalition arguments for their Broadband plan. If they intend to provide FTTP to certain locations, that absolutely HAS to affect the budget estimate that they are providing. Unless it is already factored in. But if it is factored in, why isn’t it mentioned anywhere.
Therefore if Turnbull is saying these things, then it will A) affect the cost of the Coalition plan, thus making it more expensive, and therefore making it less attractive, or B) is targeted at reducing concerns of those groups that believe FTTP to these locations IS important. In which case it is political spin and needs to be outed as such.
At the moment the major arguments the Coalition are bringing to the NBN debate is that theirs is faster to deploy and cheaper. If suddenly something changes that calls into question either or both of those arguments, it is very important for it to be known.
The coalition very well may do a 180 AFTER the election, Or Not.
If they do a 180 then their current plan isn’t actually very well thought out, is it. They need real policy, not “faux policy” to fill in policy gaps, that’s where Joe’s $70b black hole came from last time..
I have already explained my reasons why this could happen, the Coalition are not in a position of power yet to say Telstra have agreed to let us use the copper for FTTN, neither has the Coalition NBN Co been formed when one of its first tasks will be making a submission for ACCC approval of any Telstra agreement in this area.
.. so — are you saying the costs for the LNP Policy are, or are not, subject to change?
You can’t really complain, that we’re asking questions about costs when, several comments later, you’re happy to claim the current NBNco build has changed; yet, somehow, magically, Turnbull’s policy simply cannot.
Despite now claiming they (LNP) are not in power, so somehow that justifies both no change, and a change.
It’s like Obi Wan explaining Anakin Skywalkers death all over again — from a certain point of view.
I have never said that ‘yet, somehow, magically, Turnbull’s policy simply cannot.’, quite the opposite if you care to read my posts.
So if the governmet spend for FttP is (iirc) $30.4B and the opposition’s government spend for the vastly inferior FttN is (iirc) $29.5B and you admit FttN could infact cost a Coalition government more, why the hell would you keep blowing the FttN trumpet 24/7…?
@Woolfe
‘This doesn’t change the fact that right now Husic is pulling up Turnbull on comments that directly relate to the Coalition arguments for their Broadband plan.’
But you have to keep in mind the motivation for Labor doing this, what Labor is trying to do is criticise any aspect of Coalition policy verbally made or otherwise that makes their policy more ‘Labor like’, that is it has a higher FTTP component.
Labor is concentrating on the copper part of FTTN and ignoring the fibre part and emphasising that FOD is all about ‘it will cost ya’, so it doesn’t need any positives like FTTP to hospitals, universities etc type of mutterings by the Coalition that detracts from that negative message.
‘If they intend to provide FTTP to certain locations, that absolutely HAS to affect the budget estimate that they are providing. Unless it is already factored in. But if it is factored in, why isn’t it mentioned anywhere.’
Indeed it might, but so what, the Coalition have plenty of slack between their and the Labor budget costing figures, and just like Labor they can adjust their figures anyway later if needed.
‘At the moment the major arguments the Coalition are bringing to the NBN debate is that theirs is faster to deploy and cheaper. If suddenly something changes that calls into question either or both of those arguments, it is very important for it to be known.’
I don’t think Coalition NBN FTTP for the likes of universities, TAFES and hospitals of which many especially the larger ones have their own fibre communications infrastructure in place already is of any significance in terms of blowing holes in the Coalition NBN budget one way or the other.
Labor have to desperately downplay any ‘extra’ FTTP component in Coalition policy before our rapidly approaching election in four weeks.
“Labor is concentrating on the copper part of FTTN and ignoring the fibre part and emphasising that FOD is all about ‘it will cost ya’, so it doesn’t need any positives like FTTP to hospitals, universities etc type of mutterings by the Coalition that detracts from that negative message.”
And so they should, because the copper part is the dumb part…!
And FoD will cost ya…!
And yes FttP to hospitals etc is positive… but I find it most humorous how some “now say FttP has some merit afterall” … BUT conveniently, only in the areas the Coalition mention/target…!
So… :/
“‘This doesn’t change the fact that right now Husic is pulling up Turnbull on comments that directly relate to the Coalition arguments for their Broadband plan.’
But you have to keep in mind the motivation for Labor doing this, what Labor is trying to do is criticise any aspect of Coalition policy verbally made or otherwise that makes their policy more ‘Labor like’, that is it has a higher FTTP component.”
No I do not. No matter the reasoning behind the criticism, it is valid. That is all I care about.
The coalition have not accounted for the FTTP component that we are discussing. From the impression I have they have only accounted for re-mediation, and honestly I am not even sure how much of that.
“Labor is concentrating on the copper part of FTTN and ignoring the fibre part and emphasising that FOD is all about ‘it will cost ya’, so it doesn’t need any positives like FTTP to hospitals, universities etc type of mutterings by the Coalition that detracts from that negative message.”
Yes, and that is correct. In the Labour plan, it will cost ME as an individual nothing extra. Under the Coalition plan it will cost ME extra.
As many have pointed out the fact it is ‘Fibre’ to the node is meaningless when the issue lie from the node to the premise.
FTTP to hospitals universities etc, being paid for as part of the coalition plan, is fine, great even. Assuming of course it has been properly accounted for. Otherwise it is just mis-truths. Either they intend to do it, but haven’t factored it in, or they don’t intend to do it.
“‘If they intend to provide FTTP to certain locations, that absolutely HAS to affect the budget estimate that they are providing. Unless it is already factored in. But if it is factored in, why isn’t it mentioned anywhere.’
Indeed it might, but so what, the Coalition have plenty of slack between their and the Labor budget costing figures, and just like Labor they can adjust their figures anyway later if needed.”
I disagree with you on that. Whilst the figure for the Labor NBN is higher, the potential ROI is better as the competitive factors reduce the likelihood of overbuilds. Unlike the Coalition plan where the ROI will be impacted by overbuilds and competition. The whilst the difference in raw dollars is higher, the potential to pay it off faster offsets that greatly. Whereas in the Coalition plan assuming they do put in place the additional FTTP locations, that cost will be additional, and any potential ROI may be less if a competing option becomes available in the area.
“‘At the moment the major arguments the Coalition are bringing to the NBN debate is that theirs is faster to deploy and cheaper. If suddenly something changes that calls into question either or both of those arguments, it is very important for it to be known.’
I don’t think Coalition NBN FTTP for the likes of universities, TAFES and hospitals of which many especially the larger ones have their own fibre communications infrastructure in place already is of any significance in terms of blowing holes in the Coalition NBN budget one way or the other.”
Perhaps. Although if you apply it to all of regional Australia I would likely disagree.
I’d also point out the affect the NBN has
“Labor have to desperately downplay any ‘extra’ FTTP component in Coalition policy before our rapidly approaching election in four weeks.”
Please don’t reference useless conjecture on political point scoring. I don’t care about that. I am merely concerned with the details of the issue. In this case, if they are intending FTTP to areas, then why isn’t it accounted for correctly.
Bugger.. I appear to have missed something, and I can’t recall what it was.
“I’d also point out the affect the NBN has”
Also I spelt Labor wrong. Stupid incorrect spelling of Labour. Always bugs me about Labor.
I once made a comment on MT’s website. It seems by doing that I subscribed to MT’s monthly newsletter….newsletter should probably not the right word… um, propaganda spam is probably a better description.
This is the last paragraph of his “July eNews”:
To learn more about our broadband policy – completing the NBN sooner, cheaper and more affordably – download the policy from my website here and read the background papers here. You will see there why Labor’s plan is likely to cost $94 billion and ours will be completed for $64 billion less and much more quickly.
I must say that MT’s pledge of truth in politics is and was a load of codswallop.
Truth in politics, my arse. I hate to say it, but both Labor and Liberal are as bad as each other nowadays.
I do agree that Labor’s NBN policy is better for Australia’s future, however I find myself increasingly disillusioned by both sides of politics.
If there really was truth in politics I would pay attention, but the current situation is a disgrace to both sides of politics.
I think where Malcolm is becoming unglued, and where Ed is right, is that Malcolm is trying to make the LBN “All thinks to all people”…
Dear Mr Turnbull,
I need to run a reliable pc server from home for my business as i cannot afford the expensive costs of a dedicated server or renting a business premises.
Would you be so kind to give me the 3-5k needed to make the connection under your NBN policy. I am not rich people so your help would be much appreciated.
Zak
“I need to run a reliable pc server from home for my business as i cannot afford the expensive costs of a dedicated server or renting a business premises.”
For what purpose?
I know people that run email servers at home for their work domain. Much cheaper to roll your own and self-host if you have the spare hardware (sell computers), know-how (manage/sell small business mailservers for a living).
There is no doubt that an ADSL2 connection can run that mail server (for 1-2 users) flawlessly.
There is little doubt than a VDSL 20/5 connection can run that mail server for 5-10 users flawlessly.
But; if you have a poor copper cable, then that VDSL connection may not be 20/5 all the time.
“Much cheaper to roll your own”
Given the economies of scale … I severely doubt that.
I imagine it’s because he’ll be able to do it ‘at cost’ rather than ‘at price’ (with labour costs and company profit attached). Additionally, renting a dedicated server may be too expensive because it could simply be excessive for his purposes, and would potentially cost more in the long run. Maybe he doesn’t need a big machine, but does need a big pipe. Maybe it’s simply the case that he needs to shop around more. I don’t know. Not sure why we’ve singled this guy out though. People give the argument that if you need it, you should be prepared to stump up the extra $3k-5k, not rely on a “government handout”, and that sounds fair, except it’s nonsense: we DO still pay for it, we just pay for it over 20 or so years, that’s in the NBN Co Corporate Plan.
If you need to run a server and reliability is a concern then it should be hosted. I’ve been on NBN fibre for 12 months in two locations and it is more reliable than any service (ADSL, cable) I’ve had in the past. However, there are still issues and it won’t protect you from local power outages, RSP server outages or problems with your pc.
Turnbull has had a fairly easy ride leading up to the election.
What he and Abbott seem to have forgotten, in the relative comfort of opposition, is that you’re not really going to be interrogated. You will be, though, in government.
They’ve gotten used to people just swallowing, wholesale, their policy rhetoric. That is changing as we head into an election, and hollow echo chamber comments won’t cut it.
Turnbull is trying to build the current NBN, only without Fibre. Which is why every other week, there’s another “laboratory” example of how copper can be made to sing.
There is no cohesive, well thought out policy. It was a knee jerk reaction to a policy hole, that is now seeing revision after revision.
As we head into the Election, I’m pretty sure we’ll see a lot more “we could do..” comments. So much for can do.
There is plenty of fibre both FTTP and FTTN in the Coalition policy, it’s Labor that avoids mentioning it.
Actually there’s quite a bit of discussion around fibre (which you keep telling us we don’t need, that both it does and doesn’t cost depending on the argument being made) deployment costs to the end consumer.
The only person who doesn’t seem to like that discussion, is the guy spearheading the Policy.
What isn’t clear is how said fibre will be rationed out. Apparently, much like food stamps, we need to meet some arbitrary value of “acceptable” and, magically, Turnbull will bless the install of FoD; money helps, but unless there’s some kind of genuine policy around this, absolutely no guarantee you could order it, regardless of whether or not you’re in the right footprint to do so.
And there will be a build queue. Possibly a long and slow one.
But that doesn’t actually respond to my point, does it. That the LNP cannot be seen to be building the (basically) same thing as Labor, regardless of which makes more sense.
‘But that doesn’t actually respond to my point, does it. That the LNP cannot be seen to be building the (basically) same thing as Labor, regardless of which makes more sense.’
What would be nearer to Labor policy is dropping HFC and FTTN for residences and taking up FTTP almost exclusively, so it is somewhat closer to the 93% footprint Labor target.
I don’t think you would call policy that targets FTTP for hospitals, business parks etc as coming anywhere near to 93%.
‘But that doesn’t actually respond to my point, does it. That the LNP cannot be seen to be building the (basically) same thing as Labor, regardless of which makes more sense.’
That’s because your point is invalid…FttP and FttN are different…
I note too, in another comment above you admitted FttP is “positive”. I coud now use your logic and argue you just admitted FttN is negative… but I don’t need to reciprocally reduce the correspondences to the lowest level.
Interesting how you continually have unending confidence in the Coalition’s projected plan (even with all the holes – copper ownership/cost, condition, maintenance, complete inferiority and governmental cost which is about the same as the NBN) whilst even as it rolls out you refuse to accept the current NBN whatsoever…
Coincidence… I think not :(
Another tangent. Another example of how, despite being different, they could be the same, if the Coalition did the same thing as Labor. But of course they aren’t.
This (again) is my point. The Coalition’s costings are liable to change, or the build will have to. If you accept that that might happen (which is what you’re now saying?) then why the protestations over NBNco?
Look, we all expect NBNco to get the job done. And there’s a mountain of pressure on them to deliver. Every last cent is being tracked and every change micro-analysed for the potential that Cthulhu is going to murder everyone as a consequence.
But to respond to (frankly) genuine concerns over Turnbull’s policy, with “but NBNco!!!!1” doesn’t really address those concerns now, does it.
Indeed Brendan…
It is very sad when people come here (or other blogs/forums) for meaningful two-way exchange of ideas and the comments section is inevitably infiltrated by those on an obvious political crusade, who are immovable in their thoughts, regardless of right/wrong, fact/bullshit…
I support the NBN after having weighed all options… no the NBN isn’t perfect, nothing is, but it is clearly the best option IM(apolitical)O. No I don’t care that it is Labor and I would support it just as fervently if it was Coalition policy…
As such, I actually threw my hands in the air at ZD and thought why bother, when corresponding with my old mate (ahem) Rich, the CIO…
We were discussing the pit/asbestos issue and I suggested it was Telstra’s responsibility. But of course Rich said, he won’t be agreeing with me (surprise, surprise) because he won’t be blaming Telstra for NBNCo’s typical mismanagement ….
But, in the next breath he said, “no one denies it’s Telstra’s responsibility”…
When I quizzed him, of course I was taking him out of context, that’s not what he said… blah, blah, blah, deflection, change the subject, argue the strawman… sound familiar?
WTF, are we here to genuinely discuss the best comms for all of us or are we here to bow to a fucking political party 24/7…?
Sorry Renai… rant over!
@Brendan
‘This (again) is my point. The Coalition’s costings are liable to change, or the build will have to. If you accept that that might happen (which is what you’re now saying?) then why the protestations over NBNco?’
Well the protestations over missed rollout targets by the NBN Co and the changing of the definition of premises passed to meet the June deadline was not just me going solo, the criticism came from all forms of media outlets, including this one, no doubt if the Coalition miss targets and redefine parameters they be will criticised in the media when that happens as well.
‘But to respond to (frankly) genuine concerns over Turnbull’s policy, with “but NBNco!!!!1″ doesn’t really address those concerns now, does it.’
You can be concerned about all sorts of things when it comes to the NBN from both sides, I appreciate you and others don’t like concerns about the reality of the Labor rollout being brought up and would much prefer a one way anti-Coalition NBN bash to carry on without any critique whatever, but a proper balanced discussion should not work like that.
No….
We have all admitted the hold up’s are concerning, but not the end of the world, considering the reasoning (ignored by those like you). So, just because ‘you’ keep saying it, doesn’t make it so… much like pretty well all you say, IMO…
Do you have any other gripes about the NBN… considering the scope of this build…? No not any more… that’s right, now that the Coalition’s plan is on the table, 90% of you previous repeat FUD is out the window as it also applies to their plan… *sigh*.
In reality the hypocrisy doesn’t lie with us, it lies with those such as you who, when the Corporate Plan was first announced screamed, they are only estimations and as such wanted to totally discount these estimations as meaningless (much like you did atop the page to excuse MT’s swiss cheese plan)… Of course we again said, the estimations aren’t set in stone, but still, you cried meaningless.
Yet completely contrary to this initial we need to wait, they are just meaningless estimations, you now daily scream, they aren’t reaching these estimations…. yes the same estimations you said were meaningless before.
Seriously :/
Quote “The only reason Rudd/Conroy were forced into creating the only Government built National Broadband Network in the world, is because of over a decade of dysfunctional management of Telecomms by the Howard Government.
For Turnbull to now argue that “Labor has got it wrong” would be side-splittingly hilarious, if not so expensive and serious for our National economic viability over the next 50 years. The real achievement of Turnbull is not allowing this facet of the National Broadband story to be debated.”
Source
http://stevej-on-nbn.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/nbn-time-for-turnbull-to-put-his-partys.html
Turnbull doesn’t control the debate.
You are correct. He more shouts over the debate.
That makes him blameless, does it?
Fair Dinkum = Upload Speed : It’s all about productivity in the end, isn’t it!??!
“ISPs will set download speeds.” Is the most recent quote I’ve seen from Malcolm Turnbull.
This elicited quite an amusing response from ISP folk. Note that it never mentions upload, just like The War.
Hey all, I’ve just enabled a fairly simple new caching system on Delimiter; let me know if you see any weirdness in terms of the site not updating properly and so on. I’m posting this comment on a couple of active threads right now.
All good here Renai, working fine :)
Yeah, seems to be loading OK for me too
Comments are closed.