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

  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:28 - 104 Comments

    Turnbull Facebook Q+A backfires with NBN rage

    turnbull facebook

    news An attempt by Malcolm Turnbull to leverage a visit to Facebook’s headquarters in the US to communicate with Australians about the future of the digital economy via social media has backfired, with the Communications Minister’s official Facebook filling up with hundreds of comments slamming the Coalition’s inferior broadband policy.

    Yesterday Turnbull, who is currently on a study trip to the US meeting with top executives from US technology giants such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, Cisco and Square, posted a notice on his Facebook account that he would be hosting an online questions and answer session with Australians from Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park on “the latest in technology and the future economy”.

    However, the overwhelming majority of the several hundred questions posed to Turnbull during the session related to the Coalition’s broadband policy, which most Australians believe is inferior to Labor’s more comprehensive and popular National Broadband Network vision.

    “Why are you so near-sighted on the NBN scheme? Does this stem from your generational lack of understanding/inability to use IT to the capacity of everybody else? NBN concerns me. We NEED a world class system. Are you going to help deliver this?” asked one reader.

    Another alleged that the majority of NBN Co’s board was composed of former Telstra executives, and asked whether Turnbull believed it was “wise” that NBN Co was negotiating with Telstra for the sale of the copper wiring, which they described as “an outdated method of communication that their own CEO referred to as ’5 minutes to midnight’ ten years ago and is currently held together in water-logged plastic bags”. “Shouldn’t an independent committee, with no relation to Telstra, be negotiating the deal?” the questioner asked.

    It is not true that the majority of NBN Co’s board is composed of former Telstra executives, although it is true that the majority of senior executive and board appointments which Turnbull and NBN Co have made since the September election have been of former Telstra executives, several of whom have direct personal connections with Turnbull.

    Another questioner asked: “The future of the internet is not about movie download speeds, but in machine to machine communication that will require a “smart” network able sometimes to deliver terabytes in nanoseconds, and where symmetry is vital. In that context, why are we even considering basing national broadband infrastructure on platforms that we know cannot do these things? what is the expected cost of repairing the [plain old telephone system] to deliver even the inadequate network currently planned? and won’t this spend inevitably be duplicated?”

    And still another asked: “An assumption made in your costings for the NBN prior to the election was that Telstra would allow use of their copper network without charge and now it has been reported that the government/NBNCo will now enter negotiations for use of the network. Will this be another riveting surprise from the self-proclaimed no surprises government?”

    Some commenters verged on alleging improper behaviour by the Coalition. “How much did Murdoch pay you to slow down our broadband development so that Foxtel could build its on demand feature and offer home and internet so that Netflix didn’t kill it off?” asked one questioner.

    And the NBN wasn’t the only issue where Turnbull faced censure from his critics. One questioner pointed out that Australian software firm Atlassian had confirmed plans to shift its headquarters from Australia to the UK because of more favourable regulatory and financial conditions, and asked what the Coalition Government was going to do to attract innovative startups to establish themselves in Australia.

    In general, Turnbull responded to the questions by referring to the Coalition’s broadband policy or NBN Co’s Strategic Review, or by disagreeing with the assertion of the question, by making a joke or attacking Labor’s NBN policy. For example, the Minister said it was a “low blow” to refer to what a questioner said was a “generational” lack of understanding about IT on his part.

    “Those assumptions are not right”, said Turnbull, in response to a question about the need for symmetrical speeds to be available on future broadband networks. In respect to the question about Atlassian, Turnbull said the company’s “move” was exaggerated, and that he had a keen interest in encouraging innovative companies in Australia. However, the Minister stopped short of committing to any specific approach to addressing the issue.

    With respect to Labor’s FTTP model for the NBN, Turnbull said “the idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive”, and said it was better to invest in technology “that works now” and upgrade as time went on.

    The Facebook Q+A is not the first time Turnbull has been sharply attacked on social media by Australians angry about the Coalition’s broadband policy. In November, for example, a video attempt by Turnbull to reassure the public that the Coalition was proceeding apace with Labor’s National Broadband Network project backfired, with most viewers giving the promo the ‘thumbs down’ and others filling the Communications Minister’s YouTube channel with bile accusing him of destroying Labor’s vision wholesale.

    The comments reflect ongoing support amongst the Australian population for Labor’s FTTP-based NBN model, and concern that the Coalition’s preferred FTTN model will not deliver the same service delivery outcomes to Australians. Despite the poor rollout performance of the NBN rollout under Labor, a series of polls over several years has constantly shown that the majority of the Australian population supported Labor’s NBN project.

    Since the Coalition won the Federal Election in September, a wave of popular dissent against the Coalition’s plans to reshape the project has surfaced, with a number of initiatives under way to petition the Coalition to back Labor’s policy instead of its own.

    A petition placed on popular website Change.org on the issue following the election, demanding the Coalition reconsider the FTTN technology and focus on the superior FTTP option, garnered in excess of 270,000 signatures.

    In November, supporters of Labor’s all-fibre vision for the National Broadband Network project organised a national day of action on the issue, which saw thousands of Australians physically present Members of Parliament with copies of the petition. Supporters also raised tens of thousands of dollars for a pro-NBN advertising campaign in Turnbull’s local newspaper.

    Before Christmas, respected telecommunications analyst Paul Budde heavily criticised the Coalition’s new preferred broadband deployment model, describing its “Multi-Technology Mix” approach as “a dog’s breakfast” of different technologies, which could turn out to be a “logistical nightmare” to deliver in practice.

    Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

    submit to reddit

    104 Comments

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

    1. RocK_M
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 10:39 am | Permalink |

      “With respect to Labor’s FTTP model for the NBN, Turnbull said “the idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive”, and said it was better to invest in technology “that works now” and upgrade as time went on.”

      Funny… but last time I checked FTTP actually works NOW (and to a lesser extent the same with FTTN… cannot say the same for HFC though..) but with the added bonus of actually having much much muuuuuuch longer shelf lives than the other “alternatives” their spruiking.

      • Relim
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 11:12 am | Permalink |

        ‘All telecommunications analysts are naïve about technology.’:Malcolm Turnbull

      • BruceH
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 11:17 am | Permalink |

        This comment; Turnbull said “the idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive” might just be the game changer.

        Hopefully the general public will now realise how short time focused the CBN is (max 10 yrs) for B$40 investment where B$70 (allegedly) will get us to FTTP. $ per mbps, FTTP stacks up as a obvious better investment and last 30 years. These are simple numbers the public can add up for themselves.

        Hopefully the Noalition argument that in 5-10 years Fibre will be replaced by *something* will finally die as the lie we all knew it was.

        • steve
          Posted 15/01/2014 at 9:11 pm | Permalink |

          liberals dont care or understand this technical stuff they just want stop the boats because that will end gridlock in western sydney, not to mention getting rid of the taxes that are preventing billionaires becoming gazillionairtes. 6 seats at the next election and its all over.

        • Adam
          Posted 17/01/2014 at 10:32 am | Permalink |

          “Hopefully the general public will now realise how short time focused the CBN is”

          I think they already do. There is no shortage of people who object to the CBN in all age and social groups.But it doesnt matter how many people try to get this message across, the Liberal government are not listening to the people they are meant to be serving and they are pushing their own agenda, saying one thing while doing another. And across many issues, too.

      • Bpat
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 12:07 pm | Permalink |

        This is why Melbourne’s CityLink and EastLink roads were built with one lane and expanded as required… Oh wait… NO IT WASN’T! They built 3-4 lanes so that it wouldn’t need upgrading for years.

        • BruceH
          Posted 15/01/2014 at 12:14 pm | Permalink |

          That has been a key position for the Noalition, they don’t want the NBN to be thought of as infrastructure like roads, public transport etc.

        • Rob
          Posted 15/01/2014 at 1:08 pm | Permalink |

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gungahlin_Drive_Extension (Was built as one lane each way)

          • Annie
            Posted 15/01/2014 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

            Yeah, before most of the housing was built. Gungahlin was known for it’s congested road and even more congested broadband, in pre-TransACT FTTP areas.

          • BruceH
            Posted 15/01/2014 at 4:26 pm | Permalink |

            The Southern Expressway was built for $80m running one way switching during the day and night for traffic to go the other way. And they didn’t build the bridges for the two way road, despite having the plans.

            Oh the extension cost to make it two way? $350m. And they had to close all the bridges for over 2 years to make it happen.

            This is the legacy that will also smite the CBN.

          • Scott
            Posted 15/01/2014 at 4:32 pm | Permalink |

            The GDE was also the biggest debacle and interruption to Canberrans working lives for 10 years. The overall cost/time blowout of the project was not only phenomenal – so was the cost to the us. This example only further proves the FTTP vs FTTN point, do it right, do it once.

      • Simon
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 3:47 pm | Permalink |

        Turnbull’s implication here is that the FTTP NBN cannot be upgraded, whereas the copper can. Or at least the the FTTP upgrade would be much more expensive than incremental copper upgrades.

        The opposite is true. Once you have single mode fibre in the ground, upgrading the capacity of that fibre is cheap.

      • Pat Kearney
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 8:34 pm | Permalink |

        What’s funny is that Sweden and Japan among other countries had FTTP in the 80′s.. perhaps Mr. Turnbull can’t count, but that seems pretty much like 30years to me..

        Fibre is borderline limitless and the thought of transferring terrabits in nanoseconds is far from impossible

    2. Brendan
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 11:08 am | Permalink |

      I like that in order to discuss Technology in Australia, he has to do so from a highly-connected location, in another country.

      “the idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive” – Malcolm Turnbull..

      Our Broadband General, folks. His wonderful words are presented over fibre optic cables that in some cases have been there for over a decade.

      Never mind the silly copper cables that were built and run for decades. I mean shit, why would you invest in that?! So naive.

      And I thought Ziggy was short-sighted.

      • Posted 15/01/2014 at 1:58 pm | Permalink |

        Wait, didn’t Mr Turnbull invest his own personal funds in Europe with a telco rolling out FTTP? That is pretty naive then.

    3. James Carthew
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 11:14 am | Permalink |

      A technology that lasts thirty years. Frankly anyone saying that about fibre is a joke. Bandwidth wise fibre is on track to deliver well over 100 terrabits per second speeds (shown in the lab) Whereas wireless hasn’t even come close to 10 gigabit speeds in the lab. Fibre optic is the only way to go, copper transmission is always less efficient than glass. Wireless is always less efficient than glass. Trying to claim otherwise is ludicrous. It’s arguing against basic laws of physics.

      The companies that are going to drive this century are going to be created in people’s homes on gigabit uplinks. Forget the downlinks, noone cares. The reality is without the uplinks, you can’t run a broadcast studio from your house, you can’t create any sort of hosted service from your house. And this is exactly what is going to drive the future of the tech industry. Sure everything is going to move to the cloud, but it won’t be an Australian made cloud because data centre costs are going to remain huge in Australia and hosting will continue to be offshored. We need a server in every house, and we need them to have fast, efficient uplinks.

      • bern
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 11:22 am | Permalink |

        Arguing against basic laws of physics seems to be a surprisingly common pastime amongst conservative politicians, for some reason.

      • GongGav
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 10:09 am | Permalink |

        Wireless is as efficient as the medium that does the bulk of the transmission, which is the fixed line. Its actually a little less than what the fixed line delivers because there is an encryption process that adds a tiny delay to the process, but its not a huge amount.

        But because wireless works by transmitting to a tower, then along a fixed line for the rest of the journey to the destination IP (and back again), your limited by either that or the spectrum speed from your device to the tower. And because the connection has to pass through the exchange (so the ISP can monitor), thats not going to change any time soon. Its wrong to ever think that wireless can replace fixed line, because it NEEDS fixed line as part of its process.

        To put it a different way, a car is limited by one of two things – its engine, or the speed limit. Imagine the engine as wireless, and the speed limit as fixed line. Its great if the engine can deliver 200 kmh, but if the speed limit says you can only do 80 kmh, thats all your going to get. Likewise, if your you’re on the freeway where the speed limit is 100kmh, and either traffic or your engine means your only doing 60kmh, its a different limiting factor. At the moment a full fiber line is like giving no speed limits. Its down to how much traffic there is, or how fast your car goes.

        • Grail
          Posted 16/01/2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink |

          Don’t forget to include in your analogy that all the people on the same stretch of road are sharing the same engine. Wireless bandwidth is shared between all the users. As you get more users connected to a node, the individual bandwidth goes down.

          • GongGav
            Posted 16/01/2014 at 10:59 am | Permalink |

            Thats the traffic bit. The car/engine is your wireless device, the traffic is the congestion. Engine v speed limit is an analogy that works at all levels of wireless, whether its your home network, or your 4G mobile phone.

            What the LNPMTMNBN is trying to do is enforce a 40 kmh speed limit for the foreseeable future, when we should be building freeways.

    4. TJW
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

      Turnbull and his plan are a disgrace. An absolute disgrace.

      “The idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive.” I sincerely hope these words come back to bite him very, VERY hard in the coming months and years.

    5. skywake
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 12:36 pm | Permalink |

      So it’s naive to invest in a technology that will last for 30 years and likely more but it’s prudent to invest in one that you’re already talking about replacing? What sort of backwards world is this? I suppose this is about trying to capitalise on that whole “tech moves so fast” mantra that’s ingrained in people’s heads. The hope being that the average Joe knows enough to think they know it all but not enough to understand why it’s BS.

      Nothing worse than a politician that preys on public ignorance. Well other than maybe a politician that says this sort of crap and actually believes it. I don’t think Turnbull is the latter. Or at least I hope not… he hasn’t given me much confidence lately.

    6. Soth
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 1:13 pm | Permalink |

      and He will continue on as if nothing has ever happend…

    7. Marcus
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 1:24 pm | Permalink |

      Ah, so investing in a future-proofed telecommunications network is “naive”, but paying rich women $75,000 each to have babies is “prudent”. Are they all simply clinically insane in the Fiberal Party?

      • Soth
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

        This stuff is so insane it’s going to go into that Horrible Histories show…

      • Dunx
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 3:46 pm | Permalink |

        Will those babies last 30 years? If so, it’s not worth investing in them.

    8. Shane Woods
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 1:55 pm | Permalink |

      The desire to have an inferior fibre network is exactly what Murdoch wants. ergo, the Looney Liberals working to establish a second rate network. Murdoch wants to own the ABC’s Asia-Pacific broadcast network and if the FTTN fiasco allows Murdoch to push and control his Foxtel broadband as the ‘better’ option. if the people don’t keep making a noise about the inanity of the Abbott/Turnbull plan we will be screwed yet again.

      • RichardU
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 10:34 am | Permalink |

        That may not be the only reason. The Wentworth Courier (part of News) has real estate advertising sown up in the well heeled eastern suburbs of Sydney. In fact, it is is raison d’etre. But why, unlike other newspapers, is its only online manifestation the facsimile of the print version, making it effectively non searchable?

        Perhaps the fact that, according to its rate card, a full page colour advertisement costs $6,000+ could have something to do with it. After the effective collapse of print Yellow Pages, anything that keeps the market in the timewarp of print and delays a ubiquitous fast internet suits Rupert.

    9. Paul Grenfell
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 2:01 pm | Permalink |

      The sheer lunacy of this alternative non nbn, is beyond all comprehension.. There is a dark and evil force behind all of this.. Really scary…

    10. Kevin Cobley
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink |

      The reason politicians are so keen on roads is around 60% of all letters to local members are in reference to “bad” roads, particularly after a afternoon when a few accidents have congested roads, motorists are very vocal and they continually pester politicians day in day out with their unsolvable problems, they should be told to catch the train rather than bilking taxpayers to build bigger roads.
      NBN supporters need to begin a massive letter writing campaign against local members, supporting the NBN. If local members feel their seats are under threat they will force the leaders to alter policy.

      • skywake
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink |

        The problem is that an upgraded road is easy to understand and incredibly visible. A politician can stand by a road, point to it and point to the cars going over it. We can be as vocal as we want about the NBN but it’s still a thin cable often underground in the next suburb over. The benefit of which is best described as “faster internets”.

        As much as I really, really want to see the NBN go ahead as the NBN even I have to admit that the big-red-button photo ops were pretty weak. At least with a road they can show you it. Much more political capital for a much, much lower price.

    11. Shantelle
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

      I live 125m from a telecom/Telstra node and I lose Internet when it rains. If we get FTTN and not FTTP I will STILL lose Internet when it rains so what’s the fn point of FTTN for everyone else that has this problem…
      And not wanting to invest in long term that will not need to be upgraded for 20+ years is ignorance of the highest degree!

    12. kirt
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 2:30 pm | Permalink |

      in regards to the 30 year comment – Telstra network is already over 30 years old.. time to get rid of it!!!! bring on FTTP not the dogs breakfast on 30+years old technology.

    13. Jon
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 2:51 pm | Permalink |

      >> Turnbull said “the idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive”, and said it was better to invest in technology “that works now” and upgrade as time went on.

      WHAT A CROCK OF SH!TE.

      On this logic people out there that have bought a block of land – should simply put up a tent because they can live in it tonight, where as the majority of people invested in the building of a house that will last 30+ years even if it takes 9 months.

    14. Sean
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink |

      >> “Some commenters verged on alleging improper behaviour by the Coalition. “How much did Murdoch pay you to slow down our broadband development so that Foxtel could build its on demand feature and offer home and internet so that Netflix didn’t kill it off?” asked one questioner.”

      As I’ve said before, that is all this is about. Murdoch cut a deal with the Libs, offering favourable and highly biased press going in to the election in exchange for nobbling the NBN to below workable IPTV speeds so that Foxtel would not have to switch to an Internet based service. That is all Turnbull is going to do with the NBN, that is his chief and only concern, to satisfy Rupert Murdoch.

      This is the quid pro quo price of gaining power for the Libs. It’s very simple. No money per se changed hands, at least it wasn’t strictly necessary.

      I’m just amazed at Turnbull’s ability to continually make these bald faced lies and technically ridiculous and economically costly statements about FTTN and still sleep at night. It just goes to show what sort of psychopaths most politicians are. Ordinary people stumble a bit, go red and are embarrassed when they lie, psychopaths like Turnbull and Co simply present it as the truth and spin as a survival reflex.

      • PeterA
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 1:48 pm | Permalink |

        While I don’t doubt the outcome was very much this, I suspect it was more of a “natural” alignment of ideals, rather than a straight-up face-to-face corruption deal.

        Murdoch wasn’t getting what he wanted from the Labor government, and the Liberals were willing to give it a shot; as soon as they started having policies that looked good to murdoch he started wailing on the Labor government.

        Just remember; it served as a warning to the coalition should they implement similar policies as much as it served as a way to evict Labor from office.

    15. Philip
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 4:25 pm | Permalink |

      Why don’t we also focus a campaign on demonstrating that these sort of short-sighted decisions will have future dire consequences for the party as well as the politician’s seat. We need to gather the support of the people in the Division of Wentworth to vote Turnbull out!

    16. Johnno Bas
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink |

      The best part about this all was he looked like a total f*ckin idiot in front of everyone at Facebook HQs.

      • Modeski
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 8:49 am | Permalink |

        Can you imagine them trying to keep a straight face when Turnbull explained the MTM to them?

        • Sach
          Posted 25/02/2014 at 2:49 am | Permalink |

          Hey, so guys I’m like the communication minister on this island. Anyway, this other party was trying to connect 93% of the homes with fiber for something like $40 billion which would pay itself off in 10 years and then have these huge dividends. They are offering plans between 12 and 1000Mbps, sure, but no one needs this.

          Anyway, I found out this great way to reduce the cost to about $35 billion.. well sort of $40 billion, if you don’t factor in maintenance. So anyway, we’re going to use the existing cable, which is fairly heavily contended and existing copper which is fairly heavy degraded and we’re going to use this cool new technology called VDSL2. You guys know it? So anyway, it’ll upgrade their current speeds from ‘up to 24Mbps’… to… up to 25 Mbps!!! Awesome right?

          So anyway, that’s how we won our election. I think it was all on this cost saving measure. I’m a bit of a tech pro you see. I made lots of money investing in email when I was younger.

          Think I could get a job here?

    17. Nexus789
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink |

      Aside from his obvious lack of understanding around the NBN I am suspicious of motives talking to those companies. I certainly don’t want my records – health, commercial, educational, etc, handed over and put on the servers of those companies for them to expose my (our) ID and information.

      They (politicians) have not figured it out yet that the monolithic middleware offerings are dangerous, unsecure, etc. It is OUR data. So its not just the limitations of the copper he does not understand. He will fail to understand the exploitative nature of these companies business models.

      Turnbull is patently out of his depth.

    18. KL
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink |

      I know who I’ll be voting for next election, I’m sure the next newly elected government would address this silly policy that this current government is planning.

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 15/01/2014 at 7:11 pm | Permalink |

        Sorry Phil.
        By then the TPG’s and competitors who will be forced economically to follow will have stitched up the majority of the high value cheap and easy to provide customers. You better believe the New Telstra and Optus etc contracts will be iron clad locking even more customers up.
        The National Broadband network as we know it will become an impossibility as the higher value customers will be lost, with only the very expensive to provide and or low value customers left.
        It would be economic idiocy to try.

        We will have the option preferred by the right wing media commentators and the LNP of multiple mini monopolies that will never waste shareholder funds on upgrades especially if they are forced to have open wholesale access. Good dividends even if it cripples our future, who cares, show me the fat dividends NOW
        http://www.zdnet.com/au/tpgs-access-stoush-could-harm-nbn-alternative-plans-7000025173/

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 15/01/2014 at 8:02 pm | Permalink |

          Remember the anti cherry picking legislation was strongly opposed by the LNP who now call the shots.

          http://www.afr.com/p/technology/threat_rollout_nbn_as_optus_plans_xbNlTd7VT1hmFWnW1SoddP

          “Its revenues rely heavily on high-density, heavy broadband users in inner-city areas, where Optus and TPG’s planned networks would both be concentrated.”

          “But analysts have warned of the technical difficulties in having multiple telcos offering fibre-to-the-building technology in the same apartment block.

          Mr McClelland acknowledged that a situation in which TPG, Optus and NBN Co were all offering the same service could make for a worse experience for consumers.

          “You’ve really got to consider the mix of technologies in that building and, if you roll out a new technology, are you causing interference for everybody else and causing them a crap experience,” he said. “I think those factors weigh into whether we should do it or not.””

          But some Telco’s would push for a monopoly situation or wouldn’t care about a degraded service

    19. NBNophile
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 7:11 pm | Permalink |

      Couldn’t agree more with Sean. That is what this is all about, a dirty quid pro quo between a little cabal of power crazed arsewipes, at Australia’s great expense. They are barely even pretending anymore.

      Truly shameful chapter in our history, and certainly in Turnbull’s.

      http://delimiter.com.au/2014/01/15/turnbull-facebook-qa-backfires-nbn-rage/#comment-634282

    20. Byron Bay internet black hole
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 8:04 pm | Permalink |

      Just who the hell voted for this moron?

      Really, the copper network, in some places, is at capacity. The wireless network in A LOT of places is at capacity.

      How the hell does he think his jam tin and string idea is going to work on infrastructure that is ALREADY failing?

    21. Sophie
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 8:54 pm | Permalink |

      Maybe if Australians didn’t vote in the Coalition we wouldn’t currently have this problem. Clearly the majority of the country is incapable of smelling politician’s bs.
      Also, pretty sure Turnbull said this himself ages ago … that everyone voted for it, so they have to live with it. Hopefully this only lasts one term.

      • GongGav
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink |

        Dont look at me, I voted for the other guy…

        As for the “everyone voted for it, they have to live with it” line, well everyone voted for FttH back in 2010, when it was actually a bigger election issue (cost LNP the election if I recall) so why arent those results relevant?

    22. Alex C
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 9:22 pm | Permalink |

      Soon as I saw the announcement for facebook Q and A, I knew it would end up being backlash about the NBN.

      It is disappointing when the increasing polarisation of previous years meant the Coalition decided to jump on the anti-everything wagon and as such have left us with no possibility for what is vital infrastructure upgrades. I for one have already wasted plenty of time dealing with my ISP and with Telstra because of the shoddy state of the line down the road.

      I wonder what Turnbull would honestly say about the NBN and about broadband were he free to speak his mind.

      • PeterA
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 1:56 pm | Permalink |

        Turnbull would be a free-market proponent. To be honest he probably wouldn’t have any national network operator; and would be in favor of removing all regulation over the ISP industry.

        He would argue that in the short term you might see a player like Telstra completely eat up all the competition with their monopoly dominance, but eventually once everyone had gone out of business and Telstra started raising prices, competitors in small sectors of the country would build cheaper more profitable (and more desirable) networks, thus creating broadband panacea for the market which would in turn solve all demand-driven problems.

        Given that Labor was throwing money at the situation however; the Liberal party was effectively cornered (by their loss in 2010) into throwing money at an alternative solution. In general; for those that don’t perceive physical broadband networks as natural monopolies (Turnbull doesn’t) the government spending large quantities of money on infrastructure of this kind think it is a bad idea.

        The party only supports this policy for 2 reasons (and in this order):
        A) it gets them in office,
        B) it is (according to them) a less bad outcome than spending 70 billion on fttp.

        • Pat Kearney
          Posted 16/01/2014 at 8:59 pm | Permalink |

          than spending 31 billion on fttp. **

          • PeterA
            Posted 20/01/2014 at 3:46 pm | Permalink |

            I chose my number because they probably do think it will cost 71 billion. None of what I said above is what I believe, but it is my interpretation of what MT (and co) believe.

    23. Chris
      Posted 15/01/2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink |

      now im not an economist, but if u break down both policies to $(Mil)/premisis(Mil)/megabit(total bandwidth)/year, you get some rather disturbing numbers. an EXAMPLE would be 74,000/12.2/1000/11 = .5514 or $551,400 per million houses per megabit per rollout year

      another Example is 41,000/8.9/100/7 = 6.581 or $6,581,000 per million houses per megabit per rollout year

      cheaper can actually be more expensive

    24. Smokey
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 12:15 am | Permalink |

      Upgrade as required… you mean like from copper to fibre right?

    25. p stock
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 6:21 am | Permalink |

      Mr. Turnbull would be a perfect choice for the next CEO of Telstra.

    26. Michelle McKenzie
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 7:06 am | Permalink |

      I don’t see any mentioned of Labor MP Ed Husic here – he is there doing the rounds as well. At least he is showing the the rest of the world that Australia does has a little technology credibility left!

    27. dJOS
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 10:07 am | Permalink |

      “Turnbull said “the idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive”, and said it was better to invest in technology “that works now” and upgrade as time went on.”

      Good thing we didnt invest in rolling out a new fangled public Copper telephone network 60 years ago, I mean what a waste of money that would have been, right?

      Oh wait, we did! *facepalm*

      Last time I checked Verizon started rolling out their GPON based FTTP FiOS Network ~10 years ago, I’d say that easily classes GPON as technology “that works now” … heck, it can even be upgraded easily as time goes on!

      • Alex (NBN)
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink |

        Indeed, after all, the iron wires were fine :/

        • GongGav
          Posted 16/01/2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink |

          Why develop the internal combustion engine, when horse and buggy work just fine?

    28. Grail
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 11:02 am | Permalink |

      I love how Malcolm is busily telling us how bad the Liberal party is while still remaining staunchly loyal to the party and not saying anything bad about them.

      The take home quote about naiveté is the killer for me. He’s telling us right to our faces, “there are political reasons for this decision, not technical ones. I don’t agree with the decisions being made nor do I support the reasons the decisions are being made, but here I am as the talking head with the job of presenting the Coalition’s broadband policy to you clowns who still don’t know how to read between the lines.”

      It’s obvious that Rupert is calling the shots in this Government. Abbott is only there as a distraction: he is PM precisely because he is exactly the wrong person to have in that position. Bread and circuses. Distractions while the corporate goons run off with everything of value.

    29. Kevin H
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 11:13 am | Permalink |

      Whatever form the NBN takes, it has to be paid for by all Australian taxpayers.

      I hear a lot of noise from a few vocal tech heads who want us to spend tens of billions of dollars on the fastest, future proof network. However, we live in a democracy and we have to consider what the average tax paying voter wants.

      Given the current govt was elected and part of their policy platform was to reign in the cost of an NBN by using different technology, one has to assume that is what the majority of voting Australians want. That’s what you call a political reason.

      • dJOS
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 11:17 am | Permalink |

        If you think most Aussies voted for MTM you’d be wrong, I suggest you read this article:

        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/18/youre-wrong-critics-tell-turnbull-australia-voted-nbn/

        • Kevin H
          Posted 16/01/2014 at 2:50 pm | Permalink |

          “What legitimacy does quink’s analysis have? It’s really quite impossible to know”

          • dJOS
            Posted 16/01/2014 at 3:18 pm | Permalink |

            You clearly didn’t read the entire article, Renai referenced multiple examples which clearly show the majority of Australians want an FTTP NBN.

      • Lionel
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 12:16 pm | Permalink |

        “I hear a lot of noise from a few vocal tech heads who want us to spend tens of billions of dollars on the fastest, future proof network. However, we live in a democracy and we have to consider what the average tax paying voter wants.”

        They are doing so for a reason. The tech heads know the tech and are complaining because they can see that 10s of billions are going to be wasted over the next 10 years or so by going with Turnbull’s plan.
        Sorry, but uninformed public opinion, even if it is in the majority, does not make that opinion correct.
        The tax payer may want to pay less for a network, what they are doing is paying a little less for 5 years and a hell of a lot more over the next 10 to 15 years.

        “Given the current govt was elected and part of their policy platform was to reign in the cost of an NBN by using different technology, one has to assume that is what the majority of voting Australians want. That’s what you call a political reason.”

        Well, next time you are ill, have a vote on what is wrong with you rather than seeing one of the few percent (the doctors) who actually have a clue what they are talking about.

      • PeterA
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

        I agree, no one should ever listen to the experts in a particular field when making 40 billion dollar+ investments.

        It should all be gut feeling and “near enough is good enough” when dealing with such large numbers.

      • Soth
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink |

        It’s okay, we really want to spend tens of billions of dollars on a slower, less reliable internet.

    30. Kevin H
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink |

      ” The tech heads know the tech and are complaining because they can see that 10s of billions are going to be wasted over the next 10 years or so by going with Turnbull’s plan.
      Sorry, but uninformed public opinion, even if it is in the majority, does not make that opinion correct.
      The tax payer may want to pay less for a network, what they are doing is paying a little less for 5 years and a hell of a lot more over the next 10 to 15 years.”

      I didn’t say the opinion was correct. But unfortunately governments have to take public opinion into consideration. If they don’t they get voted out.

      Most things governments do can be done better, at a cost. Turnbull is no dummy, I’m sure he knows that what he is advocating is not the best long term solution for the country. But there’s a budget. There are competing demands for money and there are debts to pay down.

      The people screaming loudest about the NBN maybe experts in technology, and probably know what they are talking about, but I doubt very much that they are also experts in economics.

      • dJOS
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 2:22 pm | Permalink |

        MTM is 1 Billion dollars cheaper than FTTP according to Turnbulls own dodgy review numbers and that doesn’t include the extra billions needed to buy/lease the copper PSTN and HFC networks which means MTM is going to cost more and deliver less!

        It’s not rocket science to work this out!

        • Kevin H
          Posted 16/01/2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink |

          “MTM is 1 Billion dollars cheaper than FTTP according to Turnbulls own dodgy review numbers”

          What are the figures? (serious question – I really don’t know much about it)

          • Alex (NBN)
            Posted 16/01/2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink |

            With all due respect then Kevin…

            If you don’t know “much about it”, perhaps it would have been prudent to have found out a bit about it (even minimally) before coming here, where people who refuse to swallow political bullshit from any politician, “do” actually know a lot about it… and trying to tell them/us “all about it”.

            • Kevin H
              Posted 16/01/2014 at 5:54 pm | Permalink |

              So only people who know a lot about it should be involved in the discussion – that’s what you’re saying.

              The rest of us plebs should just believe everything the pro NBN lobby says, keep our mouths shut and pay up.

              That’s not very democratic.

              What I do know is that the vast majority of Australians do not “need” 100Mbs to our homes, although some of us can already get it anyway via cable, (yes I know the upstream speed is inferior to FTTP, but that doesn’t affect the vast majority of users).

              I also see a vocal minority – and that’s what you are, a minority – trying to lobby for what they want at the expense of every taxpayer.

              We see this in other parts of society, particularly with well organised lobby groups trying to bully local govt, to get their own way and screw everyone else. It’s the ugly side of democracy.

              Now I don’t mind paying for the improvement of our education system, and I don’t mind paying for a better health system. Things like that benefit the nation as whole. They benefit people from all demographics.

              But I don’t want to us as a nation to spend, 50, 60 or is it 70 billion dollars of public money so a minority can have faster internet.

              You will no doubt say “but it’s not just for a minority, everyone will get it”. But the point is, the vast majority don’t need it and wouldn’t have a clue what to do with it.

              FTTP should be a user pays service, until such a time that we can afford it (AFTER fixing up education and health and paying off the national debt).

              • Lionel
                Posted 16/01/2014 at 7:56 pm | Permalink |

                “So only people who know a lot about it should be involved in the discussion – that’s what you’re saying.”

                Sure be involved in the discussion, but at least know some stuff before rubbishing the tech heads.

                “The rest of us plebs should just believe everything the pro NBN lobby says, keep our mouths shut and pay up.”

                Not at all, but as above.

                “That’s not very democratic.”

                What has democracy got to do with it?

                “What I do know is that the vast majority of Australians do not “need” 100Mbs to our homes, although some of us can already get it anyway via cable, (yes I know the upstream speed is inferior to FTTP, but that doesn’t affect the vast majority of users).”

                Correct, but one day they will need those speeds. If it is as soon as predicted by most large networking companies, cisco, google, etc, even alcatel luncent who turnbull talks to for vectoring information, what he is proposing to rollout will be obsolete at the time it is complete.

                I also see a vocal minority – and that’s what you are, a minority – trying to lobby for what they want at the expense of every taxpayer. ”

                Not at all, we are lobbying for what will save us huge amounts of money in the next 10-15 years.
                See what I mean about knowing what you are talking about first?

                “We see this in other parts of society, particularly with well organised lobby groups trying to bully local govt, to get their own way and screw everyone else. It’s the ugly side of democracy”

                Where as I see random Liberal supporters with very little knowledge of what they are talking about ignoring experts telling you rolling out what Malcolm proposes will waste a lot of money.

                “We see this in other parts of society, particularly with well organised lobby groups trying to bully local govt, to get their own way and screw everyone else. It’s the ugly side of democracy.”

                Where? I haven’t seen that at all? More the reverse.

                “Now I don’t mind paying for the improvement of our education system, and I don’t mind paying for a better health system. Things like that benefit the nation as whole. They benefit people from all demographics.”

                Yes, that’s what we are proposing to, not wasting money and rolling out something of benefit to everyone, not just useful for Malcolm Turnbull’s political career and his inability to accept when he is wrong.

                “But I don’t want to us as a nation to spend, 50, 60 or is it 70 billion dollars of public money so a minority can have faster internet.”

                Good thing we are a democracy then, because it isn’t a minority, nor is it just faster internet, nor is the MTM cheaper. It just doesn’t rollout what is required in the 2020s and will need to be replaced.

                “You will no doubt say “but it’s not just for a minority, everyone will get it”. But the point is, the vast majority don’t need it and wouldn’t have a clue what to do with it. ”

                So those around 70% of people who have internet accounts with ISPs just don’t use them?

                “FTTP should be a user pays service, until such a time that we can afford it (AFTER fixing up education and health and paying off the national debt).”

                And paying wealthy mums to have babies and building tunnels that failed their CBA and building 200 damns and stopping the boat. How about we do nothing and not have any communcations in 10 years, then rather than getting a huge boost to the economy from a new communications system we can be a third world nation.

                Get a clue, then discuss, clueless preaching doesn’t fool anyone.

              • GongGav
                Posted 16/01/2014 at 8:03 pm | Permalink |

                No, thats NOT what he was saying. Nice over-reaction there Kevin. He’s saying that if you want to be part of the conversation, do some basic research. That doesnt mean you need to be a world expert in telecommunications, but that its prudent to look at information from both sides before jumping into what is a very heated debate.

                Example being the funding issue. Simple example right there. One set of figures had the cost at $29.5b for the LNP plan, and the Labor plan as a Government commitment of $30.4b. Thats what the $1b means to most people here.

                People grinding the political axe ignore that commitment to Government argument, and repeat ad nauseum that Labor’s plan will cost $94b, or some other extreme worst case number. And it gets frustrating having to go through the same set of issues when a new person shows up.

                Here are the issues for most. First set of numbers, or $29.5b, is going to deliver what we already have – which is an “up to” 24 Mbps connection – then upgrade that to 50 Mbps. What will the cost be to upgrade that network to what FttP delivers over its lifespan?

                Our speeds increase at a very predictable rate. You might not think we need speeds like 100 Mbps, but in 1999 nobody would have believed we would be looking at 50 Mbps. The need for those speeds is coming. What they will be, I have absolutely no idea, but every prediction in the past that faster speeds arent needed have been 100% wrong.

                I ask you two questions. If it costs $30b to provide something thats barely better than what we have, why is $1b more such a bad deal? Secondly, if FttH is such a bad idea, why is FttN a good one?

                The debate for most isnt a minority wanting a better connection, although that IS part of it. Its about spending 10′s of billions on something that is a waste of money. For the record, I have over 2 decades in the tax industry, and have a sibling that lectures on electronic engineering, and worked in telecommunications both at a practical and theoretical level. I’ll put my understanding of economics, and their comms experience up against anyone.

                So please dont take advice to educate yourself as an attack. Its not. Its a call for you to hear both sides and not getting sucked into what has sadly become a terrible political game, at our short, medium, and long term detriment.

                • Kevin H
                  Posted 16/01/2014 at 9:15 pm | Permalink |

                  Thanks GongGav.

                  I’ll ignore your little dig about over reacting.

                  It’s all very well suggesting people learn about this issue, but there’s no definitive guide, because there are so many people spouting opinions it’s impossible to know where the truth lies. Too much noise in the system!

                  The figure of $30.4 Bn for the ALP plan is a new one on me. I was under the impression from the outset that it was going to be $43 Bn, but that costs were ballooning and it was going to be significantly more, although I haven’t seen $90 Bn banded about.

                  Can we really get an FTTP/H for $30.4 Bn?

                  It does seem crazy to build a network that only delivers 24 Mbs for $1Bbn less

                  On the other hand, how many people actually get 24Mbs? Is that only people on Annex M?

                  I’m on ADSL2+ and about 100m from the exchange as the crow flies. Cabling length is more like 500m, but I can only achieve 19Mbs, with a central splitter. So I’m guessing very few people on ADSL2+ actually get 24 Mbps.

                  If the LNP plan could deliver 24Mbs for everyone, or even the majority, then that may be not such a bad thing. Assuming of course that we can’t really have 100Mbs for $1Bn more.

                  Perhaps we shouldn’t be doing anything right now. Has anyone considered that?

                  Personally I don’t think we can afford to spend $30bn on a faster internet network for domestic use, especially when people may or may not choose to adopt it when it’s available. Surely that’s the other big issue for a nationwide system.

                  I have Telstra’s cable coming into my house, and I can get their “extreme” 100Mbs service, but I’m happy with my ADSL2+ service. Will I get increased speeds for the same price with FFTH?

                  How about we just put the whole thing on hold for a couple of years and spend the $30Bn on education and health?

                  ABC: Run a poll on that and see how you go …

                  here’s the question: “Would you prefer we spend $30Bn on an faster internet service that most people don’t need, or should we spend the money on education and health?’

                  • GongGav
                    Posted 16/01/2014 at 11:25 pm | Permalink |

                    “I was under the impression from the outset that it was going to be $43 Bn…” — Sort of.

                    Heres the thing. The LNP’s plan was to commit to a spend of $29.5b, and not spend a cent more. That was it, and what the Government was committed to spending, which is fine. The review’s shown that not to be possible, but thats a different debate.

                    Then you have the Labor side of things. Firstly, their build IS more expensive, and nobody’s denied that. But the kicker is that they too committed to spending a specific amount, with the rest paid for by private investors. Their plan was to commit the Government to $30.4b, and raise the rest privately – originally it was a $41b build, a number that varied up and down around that mark. Its a little more complicated than that, but so was the LNP’s $29.4b plan.

                    So its the reference to what the GOVERNMENT is committed to spending that the pro-fiber side is referring to when comparing the cost of each build. After all, isnt that all that matters to the public? What the Government is spending?

                    The Liberals ignore that Government commitment angle, because it weakens their argument. They consistently refer to the overall build cost of Labor’s plan, and use a worst case scenario in doing so, while pitching their own ideas in a best case scenario – no extra cost to Telstra, etc. An idea that has continually been shown to just not be viable, and now their own stooges are saying the same thing.

                    Take it a step further, and look at how the investment of each plan was to be recouped. The LNP plan encourages the competition to take the best spots, leaving the worst locations for NBN to try and eek out a profit that can cover costs, and return something on the investment. The Labor plan stops that competition from happening, and its very easy to predict what NBN Co would get each month/quarter/year, and see the profits that would pay down first the private investors, then the public investment.

                    All of this information is out there. Labor just did an exceedingly bad job of presenting their information to the public, or to get their message through the MSM so the public were aware of the reality.

                    And even using the overall build cost as the argument, what more will it cost the public, through increased costs to the ISP, or excessive installation costs, to upgrade the FttN build to what Labor is offering now? How about the ongoing legacy costs of upkeep on those nodes, which need to be kept in working order, and replaced every 10 years? Or upkeep on the copper lines?

                    I’m sure someone around here has a copy, but most of the Labor side was available on the old NBN Co website. I expect its gone now (could still be there as a pre election Corp Plan), but might still be available through Conroy’s personal site.

                  • dJOS
                    Posted 17/01/2014 at 9:34 am | Permalink |

                    Kevin, how about looking at things from a pure business point of view?

                    Here’s a scenario that closely resembles the state of our primary communications network in Aus;

                    a business has a financials system, it’s been dong a good job for the last 6 years but is no longer keeping pace with the growth of the company. An expert consultant is bout in to provide the business with options for the future, the options are:

                    A/ keep the existing system and spend $10k to get another years life out of it, after which it will need total replacement. This $10k will never generate a return on investment but will keep the things running for another year. Upgrading to a new system after a year will cost at least another $10k.

                    B/ install a complete new system based on a new more scalable architecture that will last at least 6 years and scale with the business growth for $12k. This $12k will generate a return on investment and provide major productivity benefits to the business.

                    Option B is a no brainer, it’s simply so much more fiscally responsible and more practical it’s not funny and this is the exact decision we are debating. I’ve worked for companies that due to shortsighted management and silly politics they have chosen the option A and then paid for it dearly when the system has finally fallen over in a screaming heap and they’ve come complaining to the IT dept that we should have told them about the issues earlier when we had written numerous reports warning them.

                  • Soth
                    Posted 17/01/2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink |

                    Hey you know New Zealand has FTTN…
                    “The average connection speed in New Zealand at the end of the 2012 calendar year was 4 megabits per second”

              • Alex (NBN)
                Posted 16/01/2014 at 11:31 pm | Permalink |

                No I’m saying don’t come here to “tell us” and when your are found wrong then say, oh, well, I don’t really know too much about it…!

                BTW – your income taxes weren’t paying for the NBN…

          • dJOS
            Posted 16/01/2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink |

            I can’t find the exact story I was looking for, but here’s a good starting point for you.

            http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/19/nbn-strategic-review-also-shows-fttp-still-viable/

      • Lionel
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 2:56 pm | Permalink |

        “I didn’t say the opinion was correct. But unfortunately governments have to take public opinion into consideration. If they don’t they get voted out.”

        Really? Polls on the NBN plans show people overwelmingly support the Labor plan over the Coalition plan, yet they are ignoring it.

        “Turnbull is no dummy”

        No, he is not dumb, just out of his area of expertise and should not be making tech choices himself.

        “I’m sure he knows that what he is advocating is not the best long term solution for the country. But there’s a budget. There are competing demands for money and there are debts to pay down.”

        Look, that would make sense if he was saving some money, he isn’t. Posting bogus numbers and cherry picking bandwidth growth reports to support a predetermined course of action doesn’t change what will actually happen.

        “The people screaming loudest about the NBN maybe experts in technology, and probably know what they are talking about, but I doubt very much that they are also experts in economics”

        Yet every one of them can do that basic maths the economists are putting in their reports and plug in realistic numbers and can see economist using Turnbulls figures will produce garbage, GIGO.
        Only need for 18Mb in 2020? Really? Plan relies heavily on that. 50% resuse of FTTN in a FTTH rollout? Really? How about costing those “upgrades” like G.fast that they just gloss over when in reality it isn’t the simple plug in they pretend it is, it’s like a complete new rollout.

        Fine doing reviews and CBA using accurate figures, but when you are plugging garbage numbers into them as Turnbull is doing to justify the technology he wants to use, they aren’t worth a pinch of shit.

    31. Kevin H
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 2:36 pm | Permalink |

      I’ve long held the view that decisions regarding long term public investments, be it NBN, education system, infrastructure, our health system, the environment, and ecosystems, should each be managed by a panel of subject experts in conjunction with economic experts, who are apolitical and independent of Governments.

      Unlike our political parties they could think objectively and implement solutions which come to fruition beyond the next election, and the one after that :)

      • Lionel
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 2:58 pm | Permalink |

        I think you just described Quigley and the pre election NBNCo.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 16/01/2014 at 7:53 pm | Permalink |

          +1000

      • Alex (NBN)
        Posted 17/01/2014 at 9:28 am | Permalink |

        “’Ive long held the view that decisions regarding long term public investments, be it NBN, education system, infrastructure, our health system, the environment, and ecosystems, should each be managed by a panel of subject experts in conjunction with economic experts, who are apolitical and independent of Governments.”

        Yet you, who admits he doesn’t know too much about the NBN, has argued with and bagged people here who fit the very mould (in relation to the NBN) you say you support…

        :/ amazing

        BTW +1 Lionel, he did indeed describe NBNCo Mk1 to a T. Nicely spotted…

    32. Adam
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 4:45 pm | Permalink |

      NBN: No Broadband Network

    33. Kevin H
      Posted 16/01/2014 at 10:08 pm | Permalink |

      It’s cheaper to build a 6 lane highway now than build a 4 lane highway and add 2 more lanes later, but we don’t do that, because we can’t afford it. So why the hell should we do it for your internet connection?

      Get a life guys, there’s more to it than how fast you can download that video …

      The reality is we have a government that was democratically elected and you are not their advisers. Get over it.

      • Alex (NBN)
        Posted 16/01/2014 at 11:51 pm | Permalink |

        “Get a life guys, there’s more to it than how fast you can download that video …”

        :/ amazing

      • Lionel
        Posted 17/01/2014 at 1:05 am | Permalink |

        Pretty obvious you are not here to “discuss” the NBN rollout.

        You have got a bunch of arguments based on your obviously very limited knowledge of IT and you aren’t open to discussing anything.

        Si”The reality is we have a government that was democratically elected and you are not their advisers. Get over it.”

        Correct, they are not taking advice other than that which agrees with Turnbull.

        How about you get over it, hey? We have every right to discuss the good points and short fallings of each plan without closed minded political stooges like you trolling us.

        • Alex (NBN)
          Posted 17/01/2014 at 8:49 am | Permalink |

          +1

      • dJOS
        Posted 17/01/2014 at 6:59 am | Permalink |

        Now you are just trolling Kevin, congrats your true colours are now on display for all to see!

        If you where serious about understanding why we need a new national communications network (aka the nbn) you’d read this report and come back with a different attitude:

        http://www-07.ibm.com/ibm/au/digitalfuture/

      • PeterA
        Posted 20/01/2014 at 4:18 pm | Permalink |

        Heres a road in Melbourne.

        It’s an 8 lane highway. It is still an 8 lane highway. There are no plans I am aware of (certainly not in the next 10 years) to widen that 8 lane highway.

        Do you know when that photo was taken?

        1984.

        But you are right; we don’t ever overprovision highways for expected traffic over 30+ years…except err, always.

    34. Kevin Cobley
      Posted 17/01/2014 at 12:02 am | Permalink |

      Like the same panel of economic experts that caused the GFC and the same panel of neo con experts that are engaged in large scale money printing operations and expecting it to work?
      The real NBN is not being paid for by the taxpayer it’s a commercial enterprise being paid for by it’s customers in the same way every other business operates, Mr Fraudband’s hotchpotch however will have to be a taxpayer funded operation because nobody is stupid enough to pay more for what we already have and what we already have is all we are going to get until the Con-alition is booted, Mr Fraudband and I’m no tech head Kerry are lynched.

    35. Kevin Cobley
      Posted 17/01/2014 at 12:04 am | Permalink |

      The faster I download Game of Thrones series 4 the better I like it, ,more time watching less time downloading.
      .

    36. Kevin Cobley
      Posted 17/01/2014 at 12:08 am | Permalink |

      The faster I download Game of Thrones 4 the better I like it, more time watching less time downloading. You can go suck your fast cars, there’s nothing better than a fast download.
      .

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 18/01/2014 at 10:47 pm | Permalink |

        And there is part of the problem.
        Too many seeing Politics and managing a Nation as but a game with individual winners and losers, not realising they are acting like frogs in a slowly heating pot of water being lulled by the game into complacency

    37. GENIII
      Posted 17/01/2014 at 10:06 am | Permalink |

      Haha, Gold, Makes me wish i had a FB account.

      Fuck Mal Turnbull

    38. P
      Posted 17/01/2014 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

      “the idea that you would invest in a technology which will last for thirty years is pretty naive”

      The idea of assuming FTTP technology will only last for 30 years is in itself naive.

      • socrates
        Posted 17/01/2014 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

        The idea that Turnbull would invest our money in technology that will be out of date by the time it is built is not naive.

        More like dangerous self-delusion, coupled with an apparent inability to relate to reality.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 18/01/2014 at 10:43 pm | Permalink |

          He is a member of the LNP, comes with the Territory




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights