news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has publicly accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of telling “shocking lies” about the National Broadband Network and the Coalition’s rival NBN policy, as election tensions continue to grow between the two major sides of politics over the issue of who’s telling the truth about the key project.
In a press conference in Brisbane yesterday, Rudd said: “… our new approach to the future is an NBN for the future, the other lot are saying they will disconnect the NBN … the National Broadband Network, we will connect it to peoples’ homes and businesses for free”.
“The National Broadband Network is there for all Australians and we will not have a divide between rich people and poor people, remote areas and inner city areas,” added Rudd. “We want to have fibre optic cable to lift peoples’ lives, to add productivity right across the country and we stand by our policy and are proud of it.”
It’s not clear what Rudd’s claim that the Coalition would “disconnect” the NBN was referring to, but it appears likely the Prime Minister was using the word “disconnect” as a figure of speech rather than as a hard technical term. The Coalition’s NBN policy features a markedly different “fibre to the node” rollout style, as opposed to Labor’s fibre to the premises approach, but the Coalition is not planning to disconnect any existing NBN infrastructure as part of its policy.
Rudd’s claim that connecting to Labor’s NBN will be “free”, implying that it won’t be “free” to connect to the Coalition’s NBN infrastructure, refers to a certain aspect of the Coalition’s policy.
The Coalition’s policy will see most of Australia covered by fibre to the node technology, where fibre is extended from telephone exchanges to neighbourhood ‘nodes’. The existing copper network will be used to deliver the last mile to home and business premises, but the rollout is expected to significantly boost broadband speeds and availability, with the Coalition pledging minimum speeds of 25Mbps by the end of its third year in office, if it wins the upcoming Federal Election.
Subject to certain conditions, one additional feature of the policy will see the Coalition offer Australians the choice to upgrade their connection to fibre to the premises as under Labor’s existing NBN policy. The Coalition believes it will be possible to offer this kind of service on a similar basis as it is offered in the UK, where wholesale telco OpenReach is offering so-called ‘fibre on demand’ extension services at a price depending on how far premises are from their nearby node.
According to OpenReach’s price list, costs for the fibre extension service include a £500 (AU$823) initial connection fee and ‘annual rental’ cost of £465 (AU$765), plus a specific charge ranging from £200 (AU$329) up to £3,500 (AU$5,762), depending on the distance premises are from local nodes.
Throughout the past several months, this has led a number of Australian Labor politicians, including then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then-Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, to claim that the cost of the Coalition’s FTTP on demand service will be $5,000, with the implication that unless Australians pay for this fibre extension cost, they will be getting broadband little better than that offered today on Telstra’s existing copper network.
However, the Coalition has strongly contested the claim, and in May, local fact-checking site Politifact agreed with Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the claim wasn’t true. Despite this, Labor politicians around Australia have continued to claim that the cost of connecting to the Coalition’s version of the NBN will be $5,000.
The Sydney Morning Herald has also published an article containing expert commentary backing the Coalition’s claims that Labor’s ads contain false information.
In a doorstop interview in Sydney yesterday, Turnbull strongly attacked Rudd directly for his statements on the NBN.
“In his first television advertisement, Kevin Rudd said he looked forward to a new, more considered style of politics,” Turnbull said. “But now on day two of the campaign, he has told two shocking lies about the NBN. He said that connecting to Labor’s NBN is free. That is a lie: It is not free. If you want to be connected to Labor’s NBN or any NBN – whether it is completed under a Labor Government or a Coalition Government – you’re going to have to buy a plan from a telecommunications company, Telstra or Optus or iiNet or someone like that. So it’s not free. Politifact, the fact-checking website, has found that statement – which Labor has made again and again – to be false. It is a shocking lie and the Prime Minister should correct it.”
And then later in Turnbull’s press conference: “Kevin Rudd knows what he is saying is false, so he’s lying. He’s not just getting something wrong, it’s not a howler, it’s not a blunder, it’s not a gaffe – it’s a lie. Kevin Rudd knows that broadband networks around the world typically have a range of technologies of the kind we are proposing. And if he doesn’t know that, he ought to. So what he is telling you about our policy is a lie. I don’t throw that word around lightly. But he knows what he is saying is false. He is saying it deliberately in the hope that people will believe him.”
Turnbull also heavily criticised Communications Minister Anthony Albanese, for having noted that NBN Co had some 4,500 contractors working for the company in August.
“A few months ago in Senate estimates, the NBN Co itself said that by June 30 this year it would have 7,500 contractors employed,” said Turnbull. “So there are 3,000 fewer people working for the NBN Co today than they thought were going to be working for it by June 30. Now that explains one of the causes for the NBN co missing its targets, for so many contractors walking off the job, not being able to make margin, for subcontractors not being paid. And for the rollout schedule being so far behind.”
“This project is in crisis. It is failing.As with so many things with Mr Rudd there’s plenty of promise. But after four years, precious little is being done to deliver fast broadband. Right now the NBN Co has connections, active connections, to about 33,000 Australians on their fibre network. That’s four years work. At that rate, Australians will be waiting decades to get their broadband upgraded. Under our plan, everyone in Australia will have access to very fast broadband by 2016. Because we’re going to take a cost-effective, businesslike approach that will get the job done.”
Turnbull also alleged mismanagement of NBN Co in general, especially with regard to the company’s at-times-difficult relationship with its contractors.
“There’s an air of unreality about the NBN Co, if this was a private company the directors would have all been gone, the management would have been fired and they’d have the auditors if not the administrators in trying to clean up the mess,” said Turnbull.
The news comes as both sides of politics have dramatically ramped up the level of national dialogue about the National Broadband Network over the past several days, since Rudd called an election for early next month. Both sides have entered full campaign mode. Turnbull and Albanese have already agreed to a debate on the issue of the NBN; likely to be held at the National Press Club.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull
Pot kettle black! Turnbull likes to invent random figures on how much Labor’s NBN will cost based on flagrant assumptions such as … if labor costs double … and if equipment costs double … and if civil engineering costs double … then the cost of the NBN will be $90 billion.
Half truths, lies, distortion, avoiding facts, spin from both sides.
We must be having an election.
+1
The way I see it, Turnbull is being selective and disingenuous about Rudd’s statements, while Rudd is being very selective with his words such that he can leverage the emotional impact without crossing into being unfactual.
Let’s look at each one, paraphrased.
Turnbull: Labor’s NBN will likely cost 90 billion dollars.
Verdict: Turnbull is lying, there is no evidence that the NBN has blown out in costs, and current projections done by NBN Co indicate the project is on track, financially.
Rudd: Connecting to the NBN is free.
Turnbull: Rudd is LYING – you have to pay for the service and maybe a connection fee.
Verdict: Rudd is correct, connecting your house to the NBN will not cost you any more than not connecting to the NBN. Turnbull is also correct in the details, but his statement is irrelevant and misrepresenting Rudd’s position – everyone who would pay for a service is aware they have to pay for a service, just as when you get a mobile phone for ‘free’ on a 24 month contract, you still have to pay for the service.
Rudd: The Coalition will disconnect you from the NBN.
Turnbull: Rudd is LYING – the Coalition will not disconnect houses from the NBN infrastructure.
Verdict: Rudd is using a figure of speech but is correct, the Coalition will “disconnect” you from Labor’s FTTP vision – with Labor in power, you will be connected to FTTP, with the Coalition in power, you won’t be connected to FTTP. Turnbull is also correct in the details, but again his statement is irrelevant and misrepresenting Rudd’s position.
Turnbull: This is just a Labor party scare campaign.
Verdict: Turnbull is correct that it is a scare campaign, but not correct that it is ‘just’ a scare campaign – while Labor is using clever language, people are ultimately being scared with facts.
Rudd: Under the Coalition, it won’t be free, and can cost up to $5000, to connect to the NBN.
Verdict: Rudd is being selective with his words, and is referring to the NBN as Labor’s FTTP vision – under the Coalition, it may be possible to connect to FTTP, but connecting your house to FTTP will cost you more than not connecting to FTTP. Additionally, adding GST onto Openreach’s UK prices and converting based on purchasing power or comparative labour rates, results in prices that are very close to or greater than $5000 and with inflation likely will be. Therefore, Rudd is ultimately correct.
Turnbull: Labor’s NBN project is in crisis.
Verdict: Turnbull could be correct, or could be lying, but either way it’s mere conjecture on his part.
Turnbull: Extrapolating, linearly, the current 33,000 active connections over four years to the full 12 million premises, it will take decades to roll out Labor’s vision.
Verdict: Turnbull is mathematically correct, but is once again making a nonsense statement, as A) it disingenuously ignores the contract stage, design stage, testing stage, and backbone rollout that was part of the first 4 years (so the correct period should be much less than 4 years), B) it falsely posits that active connections is the metric for physical infrastructure rollout (so the correct number should be 207,500 premises), C) it incorrectly assumes that rollout rates are flat, not logarithmic.
Turnbull: Under the Coalition, everyone will have access to minimum 25Mbps broadband by 2016.
Verdict: Turnbull could be correct, but is more likely lying as it seems highly unlikely that in the 3 years between 2013 and 2016, Turnbull’s NBN Co will: be able to negotiate with Telstra for the CAN; design and test the network and the technology; and roll out ALL of the node cabinets and the fibre to every cabinet; while somehow finding extra contractors to roll out FTTN, due to honouring current FTTP rollout contracts that continue to 2016, despite acknowledging the current shortage in appropriately-skilled contractors.
Turnbull: Minimum 25Mbps is ‘very fast’ broadband.
Verdict: 25Mbps is not ‘very fast’ in 2016; Cisco forecasts the average fixed broadband speed to be 34Mbps in 2016; ‘very fast’ in 2016 would therefore be an absolute minimum of 34Mbps.
I agree with most of what you say but I can’t agree about Rudd statement. It is bullshit. So, there is no point spinning it. Being in favour of the NBN shouldn’t make us blind to the fact that both side of politics will minimize the negative and overemphasize the positive. Rudd and Labor are just as good as this game as Abbott and the LNP. It’s a pity but remember they are not pitching their message at the informed and the reasonably intelligent, They are pitching their message to the “low information’ and/or not too bright voters. Those who believe there are simple solutions to complex problems or those who think that politicians have all the answers and, therefore, deserve all the credit or blame.
On the “free” or the “disconnect” statements? Or both? The “disconnect” statement is definitely stretching it, and I do agree that it would mislead the least-informed. But as for the other statement, if you compare the cost to the consumer of versus , it’s pretty clear that under Labor it’s “free”.
>Wrong brackets.<
On the “free” or the “disconnect” statements? Or both? The “disconnect” statement is definitely stretching it, and I do agree that it would mislead the least-informed. But as for the other statement, if you compare the cost to the consumer of [connecting to FTTP under Labor] versus [connecting to FTTP under the Coalition], it’s pretty clear that under Labor it’s “free”.
Yes. The disconnect statement. It is meant to mislead those less informed. Remember, however, that most of us are not well informed about some areas of policies and, therefore, would prefer to be told the truth than bullshit.
You’re right. I personally like to do the research into the factors on which I’m going to base decisions (i.e. research the policies on which I’m going to decide who to elect), but not everyone has that kind of time or commitment, I guess. But I do think it’s dangerously silly to make a decision based on a “tipping point” factor despite little knowledge about that factor (i.e. to choose to vote for one party or another because of a policy you have no idea about), in which case, you’re kind of fair game. It’s a lot like… someone choosing to buy a car because it has ABS brakes, despite not knowing what ABS brakes are.
Renai,
Great article presented in an unbiased manner. You certainly have the journalistic integrity that a number of the newspaper journos lack.
That said, what do you think? Aren’t both sides just politicking rather than “lying”? Rudd saying the Libs will disconnect the NBN is surely just a figure of speech. It means one won’t be connected to the fibre network Labor is proposing to build.
Has anyone revealed how much it will likely cost to get fibre to the home with the Liberals’ plan? I doesn’t really matter if it’s $2,000 or $5,000. Most low and middle income earners will find that hard to reconcile.
Is Turnbull lying when he says, “everyone in Australia will have access to very fast broadband by 2016” under their plan. No, he is just playing politics, even though most of us that regularly use the internet would agree that 25 Mbps is hardly, “very fast”.
A bit of editorial licence to you Renai… your thoughts?
For a long time now I’ve been wondering how on earth Turnbull expects to achieve the oft stated 25Mbps for all in just 3 years?
But after reading the above article where he claims the free fibre connection is a lie as one still has to pay for an actual ISP service I note he apparently likes to play legalese in the fine print.
Subjecting his claims to similar scrutiny then the statement that “everyone in Australia will have access to very fast broadband by 2016″ will depend entirely how he defines ACCESS.
Although I’m on crappy copper that struggles just with phone calls, even now I already ‘have access to very fast broadband’ if I wander down to my local library or internet cafe etc.
My nearest Node at the local exchange some 6K distant would also provide “access” but having access is still a far cry from achieving that 25Mbps service at my residence so what can we actually expect them to deliver over the next 3 years?
Indeed that “access” line is what occasionally worries me..
When my suburb first got ADSL activated every one was sent mails by Telstra we now had access to “fast internet” via BigPond. Ironically this was sent the very day after I got my upgrade was placed on hold because of the RIM.
Fastforward to today… and Telstra has upgraded our area to finally get ADSL2. Except I can’t get it because there are no open ports for ADSL2.
In both cases on paper it says our area has “Access” but in reality means crap all =/
Yes, having “Access” does not mean you will even be “connected” let alone free of additional conditions & charges.
Some 25 years back my local council informed me we now had “access” to their town water supply for our property.
But when I applied to connect to that supply I also had to pay for (& continue to maintain) the 500 meters of trench & water pipe down my pubic road as well as a $1200 service connection fee.
“Has anyone revealed how much it will likely cost to get fibre to the home with the Liberals’ plan? I doesn’t really matter if it’s $2,000 or $5,000. Most low and middle income earners will find that hard to reconcile.”
No one has stated any prices. Turnbull has stated something along the lines of: “I envision Fibre on Demand being offered on terms similar to those provided by OpenReach in the UK”
Openreach provide access on the terms as specified by Renai in the article above.
“According to OpenReach’s price list, costs for the fibre extension service include a £500 (AU$823) initial connection fee and ‘annual rental’ cost of £465 (AU$765), plus a specific charge ranging from £200 (AU$329) up to £3,500 (AU$5,762), depending on the distance premises are from local nodes.”
That is:
$823 (base)
+ $329 (minimum) upto $5,762 (it is based on distance and difficulty, there is no maximum price)
In addition to those once-off fees there is a
+$765 fee
It is my understanding that these fees (either are or would be in australia) are “wholesale” fees. They do not include taxes (in Australia that would mean you have to add +10%).
Since they are wholesale, they would be sold to your RSP.
Which means they could juggle the numbers around, maybe your RSP would spend the whole ~6500 upfront for you, and then just charge you 2000 dollars each year on your plan until you had paid it off.
Malcolm Turnbull is a fool. Getting connected to NBN is free under Labor, not so under his solution, expect $3000+ to get equivalent connection under a coalition solution. Good luck with that!!! Ongoing monthly costs for Internet are not expected to change. Probably get cheaper in the long run.
Renai as stated in your article for both policies you will be up for the cost of the plan of your choice, this is a given and always has been and will be. The Labour NBN provides a free NTD (like modem) so you can directly connect your existing equipment for FREE. The Liberal plan does not provide anything, you will need to purchase a VDSL capable modem, possibly install splitters and only then can you connect to your existing equipment (cost ~$300 maybe more). The Liberal Fibre on demand is an entirely different issue but yes as you mentioned it will cost an arm and a leg. I really don’t understand why the purchase of a modem and installation on the Liberal plan is not mentioned in your article at all.
I enjoy that Turnbull has told a bunch of lies himself in his criticism here, like “Politifact, the fact-checking website, has found that statement – which Labor has made again and again – to be false” and connection’s not free because “you’re going to have to buy a plan from a telecommunications company” (connection is free, and you don’t buy plans you agree to pay for access.)
Sorry , u lost me at ““The National Bullsh#t Network is there for all Australians and we will not have a divide between rich people and poor people”
Hardly surprising you got lost.
Amusing since… we already have a divide anyway thanks to the joys of RIM Hell estates…
The FTTN just dramatically increases that divide in the midterm. Then again most people probably won’t care in the midterm as long as their speeds “improve”. I do however look forward to the same cycle of the internet speed “not cutting” it in about 10-20 years when FTTN/HFC’s connections cannot keep up w/ the ones on FTTP…
Please don’t feed the trolls
I love that people think that the Labors NBN is free to connect, they are building it from our taxes… the politicians have discovered they can bribe us with our own money…
“they are building it from our taxes”
Wrong.
” the politicians have discovered they can bribe us with our own money…”
You mean like the Coalition did under Howard, giving tax cuts before every election. Incidentally, this goes a long way towards explaining why there is a problem with revenue today.
No Paul, the NBN (I love the way some refer to it as Labor’s NBN) isn’t coming from our (income) taxes…
This has been explained many times here at Delimiter…!
I don’t believe your comment is factually accurate, can someone confirm this!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+are+we+paying+for+the+nbn
+ lots… lol
“…they are building it from our taxes…”
With a 7% rate of return, so in total it is not only budget neutral, it actually makes money…
Also:
– this is why it is off-budget.
– Malcolm will also build his version with “our taxes”, and generate return, in precisely the same way.
Funny how critics ignore these points…
Not funny when you have to explain it time and again to people misinformed in the same way.
Here’s my problem with the whole 7% return issue. Labor’s vision is fibre all the way, something that will be a key telco infrastructure for 30-50 years. Liberals vision is to the node, a telco infrastructure for 3-5 years…
How do the Liberals plan on getting the return on investment when their rollout is replaced? If I install fibre on demand, I better not be also paying for the FttN network on top of the FttH rollout I personally invest in.
Labors vision has the timeframe to achieve the return on investment, the Liberal one doesnt.
You also need to consider the lower revenue caused by NBNco being opened to competition.
And the increased operational costs reducing profitability, combined with overall lower marker demand for an inferior product. Not only will the Liberal network not return anything like the same ROI, it will be extremely lucky to not make a net loss year-on-year. Infrastructure that costs the government (and tax payers) will have little commercial value and thus the only way for the government to divest itself of the costly liability black hole like this will be to massively incentivise the sale by, you know, selling it for much less than it cost to build in the first place. But we’ve covered this all before…
The Liberal plan cannot be justified using even basic economic modelling, quite apart from the glaring inequity demonstrated by a comprehensive analysis taking into account environmental impact, impact on the economy and innovation, inability to support crucial emerging services in Health and infrastructure management etc etc etc
Yeah, definitely other things to consider as well, I’m just putting my issues with the 7% RoI for the Liberals in the simplest way possible. My approach when debating Labor v Liberal these days is to use small words, preferably monosyllable, and to keep the arguments as simple as possible. It seems to be the only way to get through.
So with RoI, I point out, using simple math, that our needs will be beyond what the Lib’s are offering by the time they finish. Then point out the cost versus Labor, and ask how they expect to recoup the money. And wait for a response.
I’m having a similar debate with someone here at work with Lib v Labor for the upcoming election. I’m in a VERY safe Labor seat, so my vote is relatively ineffective, as is his (think he’s very safe Liberal) so we talk the differences. People have problems with Labor, and fair enough, but I just ask them to look at the alternative.
Abbott is cutting taxes – mining, carbon levy, and now company tax. Great, if you benefit. But how is that loss of revenue being funded? Increases elsewhere? Cut’s elsewhere? Magic bucket of gold under TA’s bed? People look at the economy and whine about our deficit. How does the Liberal party make it any better when they cut tax income by $10b, which they have to cover before reducing the deficit?
Look at these two parties, and as an extension comparable policies like NBN, and compare what each party offers with open eyes. Dont just toe the line for the party you prefer, be honest and brutally judge what each can realistically deliver.
The 7% RoI should be something that you can un-politicise, and look at in simple terms. There is little risk with Labor’s RoI plan, can you rationally say the same with the Liberal plan? Competition alone, as you say, muddies the water enough that you cant be certain it will deliver.
@GongGav
‘The 7% RoI should be something that you can un-politicise, and look at in simple terms.’
The 7.1% is just a prediction and like all figures in the Business plan it can be changed if it looks as if that target cannot be met in the timeframe as given, if Labor get in again you may find that the 7% is adjusted down in the next Business plan when this one expires in 2015 because revenue flows are not as predicted.
‘There is little risk with Labor’s ROI plan,’
I suggest you get hold of the Labor NBN Co SAU and look at the items listed under significant risk before you make statements like that.
‘ can you rationally say the same with the Liberal plan?’
I don’t see there is anymore or any less at this stage than Labor, one of the risks identified in the Labor NBN Co SAU is wireless, that would apply to the Coalition as well or any new fixed line deployment ROI anywhere in the word.
And if the Coalition are elected you may find that their $29.5B government funded FttN project (which incidentally is only $900m less than the vastly superior government spend for FttP) may be adjusted upward… making a stupid plan, even stupider…
But hey as long as our team builds it, that’s ok…
*rolls eyes*
Ooh, how about you tell us about the Coalition’s planned ROI, please?
Wow. Just… wow. I sense you missed the point. First, the 7.1% is not a prediction, its a goal. And as a goal, they can take as long as they need to get there – I believe the current intent is some time around 2030, willing to be wrong on that. Now if you had commented that they can change that expected time frame, I might agree with you, but the 7.1% return is hcardly something they will hange.
But back to the point. Mainly, Labor has listed their intended method of recouping the costs. And its very simple. Every person connecting is charged a small amount, and with 10,000,000 homes having no choice but to connect, you can calculate how much money it will generate.
Thats the beauty of their plan – with people having little choice, the return is very predictable. And because it takes that extra step of fiber all the way, any need to upgrade is kept to a minimum that only needs to be done at the exchange. Its as future proof as you’re going to see, and allows them to plan to take 20 years to get that 7.1% RoI.
None of which you can say about FttN. None.
Their plan WILL need upgrading. There is NO question of that. So how do they generate the profit to repay the investment? FttH has the lifespan to generate the money, FttN doesnt.
I’m sure you’ll find some pissy little excuse to argue against that, and frankly I dont care if you do. You’re a troll that adds nothing to this site, or the debate in general. No matter how you present it, the Liberal plan is the weaker one. Technology-wise, economically, and environmentally the weaker option. That doesnt mean the Liberal plan is bad, just not as good.
@Observer
‘You also need to consider the lower revenue caused by NBNco being opened to competition.’
That statement is like the dog chasing its tail scenario, you also need to consider that the Coalition rollout is cheaper in the first place so the revenue stream doesn’t have to defray the massive Labor $44.1b of total funding.
Also any co-funding deals for FTTP means the NBN Co only have to pay 50% of that rollout cost.
You also have to consider that because FTTN is faster to deploy revenue starts flowing faster into NBN Co coffers to help payback debt and Government equity much sooner than would otherwise be by FTTP that takes longer to deploy and it might also be delayed requiring adjustments to rollout targets, which means revenue streams from RSP’s are delayed – oh hang on a sec it’s not ‘might be’ it is.
So Observer there are many considerations in any discussion about ‘lower revenue’ and its causes, but we need take the balanced view of course, it’s not just a one way pro Labor NBN discussion.
@Fibroid
The big issue here is that the LIberal plan is not fully costed, it does not have any OPEX costs, purchasing the copper from Telstra, fixing the copper where the promised 25Mbps is not acheived. No mention on return on investment. M.T has been been adding cost to his policy almost daily since he launched it. Extra nodes, mini nodes, Gfast, it is very difficult to keep up and argue with all the add ons he comes up. The FACT is it is not costed in their original policy and is missing a lot of detail so the cost of FTTN is really unknown. If you really beleive that we will have a minimum of 25Mbps by the end of 2016 than you should vote for them because you deserve what you get.
YOU ARE DREAMING AND YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
@Andrew S
Hang on a sec, the ROI of 7%, the CAPEX and OPEX figure detail were released by Labor in the first 2010 NBN Co Business Plan on December 20th 2010 well after the 2010 election that resulted in a hung Parliament that was held on August 21st.
You want all those detailed figures from the Coalition without access to resources in the Treasury or the DBCDE even though that sort of detail came from Labor four months AFTER the election and in their second term of Government after their win in 2007?
They have Henry E, he does pro bono stuff for them doesn’t he?
I’ve also heard he’s looking for work in his field rather than writing for the Australian too.
So… ;)
Pretty sure they have access to the PMO now the election has been called….
Sorry, meant PBO^ (Parliamentary Budget Office)
Fibroid
This reply is an answer to your replies to my post.
I find your school debating team style quite tiresome. You repeatedly re-hash the LNP party line, flaws and all, with a sprinkling of Labor bashing, totally ignoring points that have repeatedly been demonstrated to be wrong.
A smart debater concede points but an even smarter one doesn’t try to convince people that obvious flaws are in fact advantages. This may very well work with simple minds but this is not working so well here.
“we need take the balanced view of course”
LOL.
Your idea of a balanced view is that LNP’s 29.5b network (you know the one that is like BT but then again not like BT, which no doubt will come with a free copper network, a massive co-funding, and ISP’s falling over themselves to give free FTTP upgrade if you sign up for probably 10 years) is a bargain. Labor’s 30.5b network is an “extravaganza” which will require ” massive funding” which nobody wants (at least not as much as the amazing 11% of people who had to have BT’s FTTN in the UK).
“it’s not just a one way pro Labor NBN discussion”
No, no way, Fibroid won’t let that happen. Against all odds, adversity, and other people’s sensible points, Fibroid will defend the LNP to the last moment. Repeat the same point over and over. That’ll wear them down. Sigh
@Observer
‘ totally ignoring points that have repeatedly been demonstrated to be wrong.’
Not that you or others have ‘demonstrated repeatedly’ where I am wrong, just saying you have doesn’t count, provide links where you have repeatedly demonstrated ‘that I am wrong’.
‘Labor’s 30.5b network is an “extravaganza” which will require ” massive funding” which nobody wants ‘
It’s not $30.5b it is $44.1b, independent analysts acknowledges it is $44.1b vs $29.5b when comparing the funding.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/18/labor-and-coalition-broadband-policies-whats-the-difference/
See the second table, independent analysis shows the correct funding comparison is $29.5b vs $44.1b.
Only Labor NBN fans who want to stack the funding argument ignore the correct funding comparison.
‘(at least not as much as the amazing 11% of people who had to have BT’s FTTN in the UK).’
I have no idea what that ‘11% of people’ means or its relevance to this and either the Coalition or Labor version of the rollouts?
.
Yawn…. Whatever Fibroid.
So (yawn) no links then, wow that is a surprise.
Yes. Yawn because I find debating with you pointless and repeatedly boring. You can go and delude yourself that you win arguments (a rare occurrence).
The point is that if you aim is to troll, you are succeeding. If you aim to convince others, you are failing miserably.
Err, yes we have repeatedly proved you wrong again and again, by simply asking you to clarify particular points and… poof… you disappear, because you are unable to do so…
And then you return, just like you have now, claiming who, what, where… ?
FFS… I suggest you either get fair dinkum, quit the party or stop smoking weed…
:)
@Fibroid
Here’s one:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/07/shocking-turnbull-accuses-rudd-of-nbn-lies/#comment-619495
It’s not $30.5b it is $44.1b, independent analysts acknowledges it is $44.1b vs $29.5b when comparing the funding.
Total public funding for either project:
LBN: $29.5b
NBN: $30.4b
Even your “Independent Analysts” would rate you as “Pants on fire”…
@ Fibroid…
“You also have to consider that because FTTN is faster to deploy revenue starts flowing faster into NBN Co coffers to help payback debt and Government equity much sooner than would otherwise be by FTTP…”
Revenue for FttP is already flowing…
Once again you refuse to accept basics by factoring FttP is already underway. You also refuse to factor that as Telstra own the copper, there’s a ‘who knows what will happen’ factor.
Much like you keep saying Aussies will receive FttN sooner. Not those who already have FttP or are planned to receive it before the Coalition even start rolling out FttN. And that’s if everything goes smoothly let alone the Telstra factor.
This is all bleedin’ common sense, which seems to elude you :/
While I do agree that Rudd’s statement would be referring to ‘not rolling out the fibre NBN as we have envisioned it’, the fact remains that this extremely simplistic statement is very misleading for anyone without at least a passing knowledge of the debate. The Labor plan is so much better they can make their position on merit, not confusing and misleading language.
Gaffs like this just give Turnbull ammunition. Not that he wouldn’t simply deliberately distort unambiguous statements of fact if that was all he was left with, but he would look like a much bigger idiot for doing so.
Which leads me to the conclusion that this is Labor’s whole strategy – those who are informed already know the facts. Those who don’t understand the issue aren’t going to magically gain that comprehension in six weeks when they’ve managed to remain ignorant for the past five years, so Labor’s strategy is to try to use language and statements with as much emotional impact as possible in the hope that they will sway enough voters to be scared of the Liberal plan that they won’t vote for them. When you boil it down, the Liberal plan is that scary and irresponsible, so I guess the path to the top isn’t that important as long as you arrive at the right destination – Australia can blame the lack of education and ability to analyse facts of a vast proportion of the public for the extremely poor quality of this (and every other) debate. The political reality dictates politicians must tailor their messages where they will have the greatest impact – Labor already have the votes of the technically informed and rational, now they need to win those of the uneducated, the right wing, the opinionated but badly informed armchair capitalists and the ‘traditional’ Liberal voters. As that represents the majority of voters in this country, I don’t expect the quality of debate is going to improve any time soon. :-\
It sends obvious to me that a connection, as in a physical cable of fiber (this is the important part of the statement) to your house will be free of charge. Should you wish to utilize the service you will pay a service charge for use. This is different to Telstra now where a new service costs a couple of hundred to “connect” within the exchange generally, and compared less favorably against the coalition who will charge you upwards of a thousand dollars to extend node fiber to your house. Clearly in this context, a fiber connection under the labor NBN is free. Charges for use (which in an indirect way) repay the cost do exist, under any plan. The repayment is also indirect. Everyone is in part paying for everyone else’s fiber to be connected. From my perspective it’s free in that context. Where an I going wrong Renai?
It sends obvious to me that a connection, as in a physical cable of fiber (this is the important part of the statement) to your house will be free of charge. Should you wish to utilize the service you will pay a service charge for use. This is different to Telstra now where a new service costs a couple of hundred to “connect” within the exchange generally, and compared less favorably against the coalition who will charge you upwards of a thousand dollars to extend node fiber to your house. Clearly in this context, a fiber connection under the labor NBN is free. Charges for use (which in an indirect way) repay the cost do exist, under any plan. The repayment is also indirect. Everyone is in part paying for everyone else’s fiber to be connected. From my perspective it’s free in that context. Where am I going wrong Renai?
I think Albo may have said it best, leaving fewer if’s for semantics to be used… when he said something along the lines of –
“The Coalition plan to charge an ‘extra fee for FttP (FoD)’, whereas there will not be such a charge with the current FttP NBN”…
While Labour NBN’s installation is free, the Coalition’s slower FTTN installation requires the end-user to pay for the network termination device (NTU) – approx $400
and if you want fibre to the premise (FOD) in the thousands.
Soon as I saw the “Shocking” heading I thought it was going to read “Politician tells the truth!” :)
Turnbull is happy to claim the following:
“There’s an air of unreality about the NBN Co, if this was a private company the directors would have all been gone, the management would have been fired and they’d have the auditors if not the administrators in trying to clean up the mess..”
And yet, NBNco are to be expected to build the ‘last mile copper’ and fibre FTTN, as per LNP broadband Policy.
The logical fallacy that this presents, the incongruous statement that this presents, is quite breath-taking.
It is akin, in short, to say — “I’m going to entirely rubbish an entirely incompetent organisation that, if I’m elected, will immediately be the corporate to execute my vision.”
Turnbull, frankly, doesn’t really have a solid basis from which to throw any sort of crap. The entire situation has become tiring and entirely pointless.
Both sides need to, frankly, shut-the-hell-up and just let NBNco get on with the job they are charged to do.
“Despite this, Labor politicians around Australia have continued to claim that the cost of connecting to the Coalition’s version of the NBN will be $5,000.”
Um, wasn’t the claim was up to $5,000?
$823+765+329+5762 = $7679 according to this article.
Don’t forget that according to OpenReach in the UK, that 765AUD is a year on year rental fee.
So you have to factor that into it too, once you have paid the horrid 7679, you then have to pay 765 each year.
To be fair, Turnbull said distance to cabinets would be 500m or less, so that would be Band C on Openreach’s price list.
FoD Connection: 500.00 (exc VAT)
FoD Annual Rental: 456.00 (exc VAT)
FoD (Band C) Distance from Premises: 1000.00 (exc VAT)
Total price for FoD (paying for the first year) is 1956 pounds. Or $3346.06 Australian.
You have to add GST to those figures, as those figures exclude VAT. Therefore, $3680.67 Australian.
Each year, however, you pay $858.07 Australian for the annual rental (inc GST). So for just three years of use, at 500m from the node, you’ll pay $5396.81, already more than the $5000 estimate.
Did he say “up to” 500m, or “average of” 500m? There turns out to be a massive difference depending on which it is.
I thought the statement was something like “users would on average be 500m from a node”, and an average by default means some people are further away. Or potentially up to 1km away or further.
Not likely, and I expect it to be no more than 800m personally (so add another 440 pounds to the base price) if thats the case, but have a look at his statements and I’m sure “average” has been used more than once.
Dunno. This is Turnbull… He’s hardly consistent.
Did he say “up to” 500m, or “average of” 500m?
If he wants to use G.fast, they’ll have to be ~100-150m.
Yeah, but you can run fibre a lot further than copper…up to 32 kilometres…
Malcolm has his own porkies.
The NBN fibre service is free to connect . An Internet service via the NBN will cost money. That was the finding Politifact found.
Most of those “broadband networks around the world” were started either decades ago, or last decade. It’s increasingly common for them currently to be rolling out fibre. Malcolm “Mr Broadband” Turnbull himself should know this seeing as he “Invented the Internet in Australia”…
The premise of ‘free’ for a Coalition rollout is quite simple in the context Labor love to portray it for their FTTP.
Coalition Fibre to the Node is free in those areas it is rolled out, HFC is free in those areas that already have it, Coalition Fibre to the Premises in Greenfield and other areas of need hospitals, Universities etc will be also free.
If you are in a FTTN defined area and a co-funding arrangement for FTTP is not available and if it is the FTTP will be free in the same way Labor FTTP is free, then you can OPTIONALLY elect to have Fibre to the Premises under the Coalition FoD model, at a cost yet to be determined.
When the FoD costs have been finalised you pick a RSP that you think gives you the best deal for FoD, I would pick a RSP that is prepared to absorb much of the FoD cost as long as you sign a long term contract with them for other BB services.
Fibroid
Once again using convoluted logic. You know this is not about FTTP and FTTN both being free. This is simply about FTTP either not being available or if so being at a cost.
Now, let’s deal with the attempt to make it appear free by introducing the notion of cost absorption by an ISP.
It is a remarkable backflip on your previous, “If you want it so bad, you should pay for it” (and please don’t start and try to wiggle out of that one by stating that you never used these exact words, you did make statements to this effect). Now, it is “I would pick a RSP that is prepared to absorb much of the FoD cost as long as you sign a long term contract”. And how long do you think it would take for the cost to be absorbed? And under this scenario, do you really expect us to believe that ultimately the customer will not indirectly pay for it anyway? The possible cost of FoD will not magically dissolve because it is politically inconvenient to MT and you.
@Observer
‘Once again using convoluted logic.’
The logic is fine, not liking it doesn’t define it as being convoluted.
‘ You know this is not about FTTP and FTTN both being free.’
Well it is because both those products are the construction baseline for both alternative rollouts, in the context of Labor FTTP being ‘free’ the Coalition FTTN is also ‘free’, the difference being you are likely to get the free Coalition FTTN much sooner, because as shown overseas by Telco’s that are ACTUALLY DOING IT! and are rolling out BOTH – FTTN is faster and cheaper to rollout than FTTP.
‘This is simply about FTTP either not being available or if so being at a cost.’
No it’s not just about FTTP being available at a cost , FTTP(FoD) is the minor aspect of Coalition policy, required by an almost immeasurable percentage of the residences that might get FTTN.
The major part of Coalition policy is a minimum of 25Mbps for all by 2016, for those on ADSL in 2016-2017 waiting for the multi billion dollar Labor extravaganza to pass their door, and by ‘pass their door’ I mean they are actually able to connect to it, having 25Mbps-100Mbps BB by then may seem like a better deal.
Of course Labor and their supporters want to beat up FoD as if it is a major aspect of Coalition policy because they know that the vast majority of residences that get FTTN will stay on FTTN until it is upgraded under a co-funding deal, or as part of a general rollout by the Government of the day when it is required.
That the vast majority will be happy with FTTN at 25Mbps-100Mbps is a place Labor and their NBN supporters don’t want to go.
‘Now, let’s deal with the attempt to make it appear free by introducing the notion of cost absorption by an ISP.
It is a remarkable backflip on your previous, “If you want it so bad, you should pay for it”’
It’s not the first time I have mentioned it actually, so no backflip, UK RSP’s are evaluating such an arrangement, there is no reason Australian RSP’s won’t do the same, it would work well for them as it locks in (FoD) customers for a period of time.
‘The possible cost of FoD will not magically dissolve because it is politically inconvenient to MT and you.’
It didn’t say the possible cost of FoD will dissolve completely, I said RSP’s may help to defray some of the cost of deployment for a long term contract where the residence commits to other services for 2 years as an example, there is nothing new with long term BB contracts to offset costs, many RSP’s have them to offset the initial NBN and ADSL installation cost and or any modems/routers/VoIP, T-Box, T-Hub etc boxes that come with the deal.
@ Fibroid you keep mentioning co-funded FoD, is there such a policy written?
If not your comment is invalid.
Also, can you please tell us the two proposed government spends. One for the current NBN and the proposed future Coalition government spend for the FttN build?
Finally can you tell us where each plan is funded from?
Thank you…
Psst… Oddly you normally have a lot to say, but I’d wager that this is your cue to typically disappear without answering and reappear elsewhere sprouting the same nonsense :/
Yet again no clarification of statements made, from Fibroid…?
I think at an evidence based forum if one continually blurts out unfounded nonsense as Fibroid does (my proof of unfounded nonsense being he has not and will not clarify such statements with evidence) then…
From the comments policy… “comments which inject demonstrably false information into the debate….”.
Note I am complaining about the content, not the person Fibroid (before the inevitable poor me personal attack excuse is used) and I’m not trying to get you banned… just asking for you to stop “injecting demonstrably false information into the debate”…
Thank you…
All those points have been raised and discussed at length over and over and over before, the funding discussion especially, the FoD and co-funding aspects of Coalition policy has also been discussed, the problem is you don’t like the responses made at the time so you have to create an artificial scenario of your own making that that are issues that are still outstanding that I need to deal with or I have ignored when you well know they have not been ignored.
You may not agree with the responses I made and that’s your prerogative but that is the real issue here, but then I don’t expect you or any of the vocal pro Labor NBN supporters to agree with anything I say no matter what facts or links are presented to support a point of view.
What I find interesting is that my efforts in here in taking anti-Coalition bashing to task and pointing out the positive aspects of Coalition policy virtually solo is met with howls of derision usually at the personal level such as, ‘quit the party or stop smoking weed…’ ‘you are full of crap’, ‘are you retarded’ etc etc
It’s good to have some balance in the Labor vs Coalition NBN debate, apparently even when the comment ratio is virtually running at 100:1 in favor of pro Labor and anti-Coalition comment apparently that one is still one too many and needs to be shut down by whatever means necessary.
.
Poor Baba.
@Observer
Once again using convoluted logic. You know this is not about FTTP and FTTN both being free. This is simply about FTTP either not being available or if so being at a cost.
He doesn’t actually care about which technology which side is using, if the LNP were using FTTP he’d think it a grand idea, and if Labor were using FTTN and finishing 2 years ahead he’d still argue it’s crap…
@Fibroid you are so full of crap. This is not even an issue for FOD.
With Labour NBN you get the NTU (modem) device installed in your premise for FREE, all you need to do next is choose a service plan at whatever cost suits you plug your erthenet cable to your computer and the FREE NTU and off you go.
With Liberal plan you buy the VDSL modem, install splitters or whatever else may be required to optimise the speed via the copper at YOUR COST. Next you choose a service plan at whatever costs suits you, plug your erthenet cable to your computer and the VDSL modem you purchased and off you go.
The difference is about $400 out of pocket before you even get to select an ISP. Why is this so hard to get.
‘With Liberal plan you buy the VDSL modem,’
How do you know that every NBN FTTN BB plan from a RSP doesn’t come with a VDSL modem?
@ Fibroid:
“How do you know that every NBN FTTN BB plan from a RSP doesn’t come with a VDSL modem?”
I’ll sell you a new car outright for $25,000 but if you have a trade-in, I’ll offer you 5,000 for it & your new total will only be $30,000 then.
Does that answer your question?
No.
Thanks for proving my point…. “again”…
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/07/get-fucked-turnbull-staffer-turns-on-blogger/#comment-619452
How do you know that every NBN FTTN BB plan from a RSP doesn’t come with a VDSL modem?
It’s common industry practice to charge for a modem, Telstra even do it with Cable…
at a cost yet to be determined
It was pretty well determined when Malcolm pointed to BT as his example…
I can vouch that it is indeed free.
I am lucky enough to have been connected on the 19/7 and the current demand in my area is huge. The queue to get connected has blown out to almost 2 months, so there is obviously a shortage of staff (contractors) available to do the work at the moment. Money to be made there for any keen cablers.
The fibre and NTD were installed absolutely FREE. Ok I have to go through a RSP to utilise the service. SO WHAT, that is what I have always done and thanks to this lovely NBN, I have broken FREE of Telstra.
I have gone with iiNet, am saving $30/month with the same type of bundled plan I had with Telstra, free local/national calls plus internet but the kicker is, 200gb/month (previously 100gb with Te$tra, now double the quota) and at 100/40 speed. Sorry, did I forget to mention I am saving $30/month and the connection was FREE!
Be patient people, you will save money, so think wisely about who you believe on this one. I certainly know.
Huge project, be patient. the benefits will come.
I’m jealous. If the house I am living in was built a couple years later, I’d have the NBN (greenfields) already too (less than 300m down the street there are new houses with the NBN)… As it is, I’m on a Telstra RIM. I have a good theoretical speed, but actual speeds are pathetic due to congestion, especially on weekends…
It’s a real shame how poorly the WA rollout has gone. *sigh* Despite the greenfields down the street, my house isn’t even on the 3 year plan, but I am being patient. Having said that, I may not still be living here when this house gets connected – but that’s why keeping Labor in government so that NBN Co can continue with their FTTP rollout is so important to me. I’d like to know that wherever I may move to in Australia, I’ll have access to inexpensive, high speed internet.
Lies? Malcolm and Tony would never do that:
http://www.twitter.com/TonyAbbottMHR/status/322134287480655874
“@TonyAbbottMHR: With press + @TurnbullMalcolm at Marcus Oldham College Geelong. Under Labor they get no NBN. A priority under us.”
http://michaelwyres.com/2013/04/coalition-gaffe-turnbull-and-abbott-wrong-on-geelong-nbn-claim/
The key point about the so-called “fibre-on-demand’ offer in the Coalition’s plan is whether a SINGLE APPLICANT can possibly hope to have this service supplied. The cost – $3000, $5000, or several thousands – is irrelevent.
If you live in an unsewered area, or a gas-free area, or up a dirt road, utility authorities or councils DO NOT supply you with sewer, gas or sealed tarmac on a one-off basis.
Broadband, like these others, is a public utility. It will NEVER be supplied to a single individual. The whole street, indeed the entire suburb, would have to apply and be connected as a group.
For a single premises 500 metres from the nearest node cabinet, simple common sense should tell you that the connection cost of running optic fibre into that premises would EXCEED $100,000.
Why Turnbull isn’t being challenged on such a basic point mystifies me.
Comments are closed.