news Malcolm Turnbull earlier this week made several statements on Alan Jones’ breakfast show on 2GB radio which the Communications Minister is aware are false, repeating incorrect information he had previously broadcast on the ABC’s Triple J several weeks ago and failing to correct incorrect information broadcast by Jones himself.
In an extended interview with Jones on Tuesday morning (available in full online), Turnbull stated that the difference between the $41 billion cost model entailed under Labor’s previous all-fibre National Broadband Network model and the Coalition’s so-called ‘Multi-Technology Mix’ model was “$32 billion”. “It we’d persevered with Labor, it would have taken years later and cost $32 billion more,” the Minister said with respect to NBN Co’s broadband rollout. Jones himself also made similar comments.
Turnbull made very similar comments on Triple J several weeks ago, stating that NBN Co’s Strategic Review published last year “concluded that if we had continued with Labor’s all-fibre rollout, it would have taken us four more years to complete it, and $73 billion”. The Communications Minister added: “In order to get the project done within an affordable cost envelope, we needed to be able to give the company the flexibility to use different technology, and that is the MTM model — $41 billion — $32 billion cheaper.”
However, NBN Co’s Strategic Review document, which Turnbull has read and is familiar with, directly contradicts some of Turnbull’s statements.
Page 17 of the document (available here in PDF format) contains a table displaying the various scenarios which NBN Co has examined in its effort to meet the new Federal Government’s objective of being able to deliver high-speed broadband to all Australians. There are six options, ranging from the ‘Optimised Multi-Technology’ mix preferred by the Coalition (using a mix of Labor’s preferred Fibre to the Premises technology, as well as the technically inferior Fibre to the Node and HFC cable options) to Labor’s existing policy, which is standardised on Fibre to the Premises.
The first problem with Turnbull’s statement is that the Minister has conflated government investment with expenses, alleging that the Coalition’s MTM policy is “$32 billion cheaper” than Labor’s.
However, the table makes clear that in almost every scenario, NBN Co would actually make a modest return on the Government’s investment in the project, ranging from 1.7 percent to 5.3 percent. This means that the Coalition’s MTM policy would make slightly more money than Labor’s FTTP option — but neither will, in the long-run, cost the Government anything. The money will be recouped through monthly broadband subscriber fees.
Basic accounting standards, which Turnbull is aware of from his history as an investment banker (he was managing director of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997 to 2001) hold that there is a key difference between invested capital, which may make a return or a loss, and an expense, which is defined as a cost against incoming revenue. As different types of money they are treated very differently for accounting purposes.
Several years ago the Parliamentary Library of Australia produced a definitive statement on this exact matter, noting that the Federal Government’s capital invested in NBN Co could not be listed as an expense on the Federal Budget. Turnbull is aware of this document and explicitly acknowledged this treatment of the Federal Government’s capital investment in NBN Co in a small note published at the end of an article in August 2012.
The only case where NBN Co would not make a return on the Government’s investment, according to the company’s Strategic Review, is in one revenue projection case for Labor’s original FTTP policy; but even then it would be expected to make only a modest loss — meaning the project would still not be listed as an expense for the Federal Government, and the Government would take only a small hit to its finances.
Other elements of Turnbull’s statements are also inaccurate.
Turnbull stated that the Coalition’s version of the NBN would be $32 billion cheaper than Labor’s. However, the table makes it clear that if Labor’s all-fibre FTTP policy was radically reworked, and the Government funded the capital entirely itself, Labor’s FTTP policy would cost $54 billion, rather than $73 billion — just $15 billion more than the Coalition’s version.
It is also believed that the value of NBN Co’s infrastructure at that point, being an all-fibre build rather than a mix of technologies — would make the company worth significantly more as an going concern in the long-term, because it would not need to invest further capital to upgrade its fundamental optic fibre network for a period estimated between 50 and 100 years. NBN Co executive chairman Ziggy Switkowski has stated that portions of the MTM Mix option would need upgrading within as short a period as five years.
Turnbull also failed to correct several statements made by Jones himself which were highly misleading to listeners.
Jones pointed out that in late May, some 19,000 premises in early stage NBN rollout zones across Australia would have their previous connections to Telstra’s copper network switched off, due to the terms of the $11 billion contract between Telstra and NBN Co. Those areas already have access to the NBN’s technically superior fibre infrastructure, and so there is no need to keep the copper network running on those areas.
Jones alleged that this would mean residents and businesses in that area “could be left without landline phone services next month”.
However, what Jones did not tell listeners, and what Turnbull did not correct the host on, is the fact that residents and businesses in NBN areas will not be left without fixed-line telecommunications services after May, as the host claimed. In actual fact, premises in those areas will receive vastly superior fibre broadband services, which directly supercede the previous copper services and add a great deal of functionality.
The radio shockjock implied that residents in the early stage NBN rollout zones would be suffer because of the disconnection. However the truth is that the fibre replacement services are so desirable that they positively impact property prices in the affected areas as residents and businesses from other locations seek to relocate to take advantage of the significantly upgraded services offered on the NBN. 60 percent of the affected premises have already signed up for NBN plans.
Instead of correcting Jones on the issue, Turnbull said that the previous Labor Government had not done enough to make people aware of the switch-off and focused on the miniscule percentage of the population who use medical alarms connected to Telstra’s copper network and whose devices may not work after the switch-off. However, there are replacement options for such devices on fibre networks, which typically offer greater functionality.
In addition, Jones stated that “Australians never wanted this multi-billion NBN white elephant in the first place; the take-up rates prove it”.
However, ongoing polling and research has consistently shown over a three year period that Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of Labor’s NBN vision and not in favour of the Coalition’s radically overhauled approach to it, despite constant negative media coverage directed to the project. Turnbull is aware of this fact. In addition, as previous NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley pointed out, total take-up rates on NBN Co’s infrastructure are high by global standards when it comes to fibre broadband deployments.
Turnbull’s comments on 2GB this week represent only the latest time the Member for Wentworth has consciously misled the public with relation to an aspect of Labor’s NBN policy. For example, in August 2013, during an election debate on the ABC’s Lateline project, Turnbull appeared to have made a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the cost of connecting to the NBN’s 1Gbps fibre service, stating that such connections would cost “at least $20,000″ a month, despite the fact that the Liberal MP was aware the cost is likely to be much less.
The other side of politics has also been guilty of misleading Australians about the project.
Also during the election period, for example, then-Communications Minister Anthony Albanese appeared to have issued a media release deliberately misleading Newcastle residents about how the Coalition’s rival NBN policy would affect the area, with the Labor MP falsely stating that the NSW city would “miss out” on upgraded broadband entirely under the Coalition’s plan.
Labor MPs in general also engaged in misrepresentation when it comes to the Coalition’s NBN policy. A number of ALP election advertisements have inaccurately claimed, for example, that Liberal policy would see Australians forced to pay up to $5,000, or else they would be left “on the old, slow copper network”, while connection to Labor’s fibre-based NBN would be free. In fact, under all circumstances the Coalition still plans to provide upgraded broadband connections to all Australians not currently on the existing HFC cable networks. Copper is a feature of the Coalition’s preferred technology — but significantly faster speeds are still faster on FTTN than on existing copper networks.
opinion/analysis
I wish to post a quick note here for Malcolm Turnbull.
Minister, I know you are aware of the difference between invested capital and expenses spent to deliver a return on that capital. I also know that you are aware that NBN Co’s Strategic Review — produced under your watch — makes it very clear that this project is not scheduled to lose money or to “cost” anything, but is in the long term, under almost every scenario, scheduled to make the Government money. And yes, even in an all-Fibre to the Premises scenario.
For these reasons, I wish to notify you and your staff that I will be watching your statements in future. If you continue to allege in public that the Coalition’s MTM model for the NBN will “cost” $32 billion less than Labor’s all-fibre model (when both will actually make a return), or if you continue to ignore the “radically redesigned” FTTP model which would includes expenses of only $15 billion more than the Coalition’s MTM model (and deliver a full FTTP build in just three years’ more time), then I will write an article correcting these inaccuracies every single time.
I remind you of the Australian Government’s Standards of Ministerial Ethics document, which is published on line here in PDF format. This document states:
“Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries hold high public office and are entrusted with considerable privilege and power. The people of Australia are entitled to expect that, in the discharge of their duties, they will act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.”
The document further states:
“Ministers are expected to be honest in the conduct of public office and take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the Parliament. It is a Minister’s personal responsibility to ensure that any error or misconception in relation to such a matter is corrected or clarified, as soon as practicable and in a manner appropriate to the issues and interests involved.”
It is my clear belief, Minister, that your ongoing statements regarding the different financial models for the Labor and Coalition broadband policies are misleading the public and breaching these Ministerial ethical standards. Therefore, as a journalist I consider it my duty to point that out, and I will continue to do so each and every time you mislead the public this way.
Upon being sworn in, Australian Ministers swear solemn oaths in sight of the nation to “well and truly serve the people of Australia”. I would remind you of these oaths, Minister Turnbull, and also remind you that these people of Australia are watching your conduct very closely. If you continue to mislead them, a day of reckoning will come. It may not come today, and it may not come for some time. But it will come.
Image credit: NEXTDC
So how does it get to the point that an Australian Cabinet Minister is able to lie and not be publicly condemned for his actions? I am absolutely astounded by the number of times Delimiter has pointed out his lies and nobody does anything about it.
I have utter and complete contempt for both Turnbull and Tony Abbott. Its a joke that these two get away with blatant lies and people still actually vote this party in. The duopoly of Australian politics is a joke.
I do not understand how these people are not held accountable for their lies to the Australian public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eai3eKPEV5I
This is Lord High and Mighty, Sir Tones Of Liar Liar Pants on Fire a few years back on the 7:30 Report.
Our now Prime Minister……
I am astounded that anyone finding a politician lying and misleading, is newsworthy.
As Communications Minister he is the 3rd most powerful pollie in the land. Want to censor ABC and the ABC WILL comply…
“I do not understand how these people are not held accountable for their lies to the Australian public.”
Don’t you get it? You can lie all you want, it’s all about what lies you tell. Lie about the NBN, and you’re ok. Lie about the carbon tax? You’ll be forever labelled ‘JuLiar’
In the slim bit of good news in all this, apparently he’s no longer lost in Ireland. Welcome back, Malcolm! Didn’t think it takes several years and multiple complaints on 2GB to get back from Ireland after, apparently, having found Dublin or whatnot, but at last you’re back. Also, Labor ain’t mad, privatising Telstra without structural separation without HFC without anything back in ’97-ish was. And there are governments out there doing FTTH, but we know you’ve only come back from Ireland just now, so have some catching up to do. We know, for example, that you stopped commenting on Delimiter around the time you got lost in Ireland and have been missing you. There’s an excellent pile of articles over on the ABC by Nick Ross, and stuff by Josh Taylor, check out Whirlpool, BuddeBlog and /r/australia. Skip the sortius stuff, but definitely check out Delimiter, as we suspect you already do!
Glad to have you back from Ireland and looking forward to more productive chats!
I’m not sure what you mean by the “Skip the Sortius stuff” comment. Perhaps it was a joke of some kind.
Whatever, for me Sortius is by far the best researched and incisive NBN commentator going.
He is about the only one who is unafraid to tell it as it really is.
For anyone who hasn’t read “Sortius is a Geek”, go to http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com/
FWIW, I have no connection with Sortius whatever.
He would never mislead anything like this in parliament, so why can he say it in public..
yeah good luck with that.
Is there anything we can do? Any place we can pass this page to?
He is protected by Murdoch, sadly there is nowhere you can send it to as Murdochs papers won’t cover it.
I wonder if this is something Media Watch would cover considering multiple media outlets are involved in allowing Turnbull to propagate his lies and deceptions unchallenged?
” I wish to notify you and your staff that I will be watching your statements in future. If you continue to allege in public that the Coalition’s MTM model for the NBN will “cost” $32 billion less than Labor’s all-fibre model (when both will actually make a return), or if you continue to ignore the “radically redesigned” FTTP model which would includes expenses of only $15 billion more than the Coalition’s MTM model (and deliver a full FTTP build in just three years’ more time), then I will write an article correcting these inaccuracies every single time.”
I’m glad you will be doing this as one of the most widely read Tech Journo’s in Aus – I feel that other publications need to step up to the plate and do the same.
Your diligence will be much appreciated.
MT is a pathological liar.
Well said, Renai.
I’d just ask that you continue to be clear, as you have with the last couple of articles, that Turnbull is not ‘mistaken’, he’s not ‘misleading’, he’s not ‘misinformed’, he’s not ‘incorrect’ – he is lying.
As the minister, and especially with the background & reports he has been provided, he knows the subject matter, he knows what is true and what is not, and he is deliberately choosing to lie. It needs to be clearly stated, front & centre, again and again, that on the subject on the NBN, our federal communications minister is lying to the public.
+1.
nice touch at the end there Renai.
Lets see if he pulls his head in.
Are we sure MT has read the strategic review I know we have of liberal ministers comment and commit to policies based on documents they haven’t actually read.
How many people want to refer this to Mediawatch?
I’ve done so already.
They have already stated that they won’t cover this type of issue. It’s too detailed of an issue to fit into their normal alotted time per piece. At least thats the jist of the reply I received from them last year. Delimiter has spelled it out above but they still won’t touch it.
Mediawatch has been neutered over time since the departure of its originator, Stuart Littlemore QC. It makes the horribly flawed assumption that journalists are the best people to vet the work of their colleagues and thus it has stopped rigorously investigating hard targets or big media (where it’s own employees will work in the future).
It’s hardly a fearless watchdog and it’s failing against even soft targets nowadays.
Like the rest of the ABC any real diligence has been swamped in a sea of conformity to procedure and policy. It’s the Government’s ABC now.
It does seem to waste a massive amount of air-time these days beating up NT Tabloids over dodgy croc stories etc!
I thought it did a great job under Jonathan Holmes, but I think Barry is quite the lightweight – all jokes, no real bite. Holmes’ snark was legendary.
+1
Somewhat as an aside, Paul Barry has done great job on Murdoch in “Breaking News, Sex Lies and the Murdoch Succession”. It’s a great read and highly recommended.
Renai, you’re obviously angry so I can understand the “do what I say or else” bit at the end, but you really should avoid making threats that you can’t back up. And even then you should avoid making threats. It’s a great way to encourage people to not take you seriously. Otherwise you fall into the pigeon holes of “whiny brat” or “fanatic.”
The day of reckoning that the Honourable Member for Goldman Sachs cares about is the next election. Liberal Governments have shown time and time again that the way to get into power is to appeal to racism and xenophobia. They’ll continue to ride that train, and I’m fairly sure that the Abbott Government will be elected in a landslide despite driving our economy off a cliff (because they’ll just blame it on women like Julia Gillard and illegal immigrants).
Besides, there’s nothing to be gained from making threats against a fascist government.
One of my concerns regarding the current government’s public policy platform is that they will leave behind a government incapable of acting in it’s own right.
And for a guy who proudly asserts that he wants to be an “Infrastructure PM”, Mr Abbott and Co have done a fine job of the opposite of building infrastructure.
What about sending it to the ABC Fact Check team if Media Watch won’t deal with it?
Wasn’t Alan Jones fined for falling to fact check? Why isn’t he being reported to Aust Media Auth for this?
I have just reported this to Fact Check, and asked them to investigate Turnbull’s statements.
I recommend more people do this also; if they get flooded they will investigate it :)
Done and Done.
Well written article. Thanks for following this up Renai
Renai
done, and I encourage everyone to write to their local member (especially if they are Liberal ) and the ALL senators for their state. Flood them with letters of complaint.
Also a great tactic is to write to the Dept of telecommunications and the Finance dept and Treasury. Ask them all the same questions and they have to cross check with each dept to ensure they all get the same answer back to you. Create much activity between the departments and really cheeze them off.
All that writing to departments does is waste their time and our money. Departments don’t set policy – the government of the day does. Write to your members and senators, but leave the departments alone!
Regardless if it’s capital or expenses, and whether or not it’s recouped, it will actually cost less. Those extra billions could be poured into roads, hospitals, schools and many other things the country needs. Tying up an additional $30b waiting for payback in the future, means not being able to afford other things.
Also, while you say “premises in those areas will receive vastly superior fibre broadband services” – which is great for people who may have had ADSL or other copper technology – but most people with Internet would have migrated already. The people who don’t benefit from the ‘vastly superior fibre broadband services’ are people who don’t have broadband, but have a voice service. One that doesn’t need power at your house to work, and doesn’t need people to come into your house and install some visually appalling equipment which needs power (yes, it will work for a couple of hours without power, but it only powers the UNI-V ports, not the UNI-D ports that most providers use to deliver telephony over NBN). Look at the major provider’s websites, and see that most provide VoIP over the data port, which requires power to operate. Then what about your medical alarm, or even home alarm? Turn off the power and it can’t dial out.
Agreed that Fibre is better for people who are heavy users of the internet, but for people like my parents who struggle to get to halfway through their 5GB plan on a ~15Mbps ADSL2+ service (which they pay about $30 for), it really provides no upside at all.
Some people only drive on local roads too, but is that a good reason for not building highways?
“visually appalling equipment”
Wait until you see 60,000 node cabinets… Now that is visually appalling.
@ Rob, “Turn off the power and it can’t dial out.”
And when the UPS at the exchange goes flat, the same would happen. It is not insurmountable and it is no reason not to go to fibre.
My car might run out of petrol but my horse can always eat grass. This is what Turnbull said when they made the horseless carriage.
Like my analogy?
ABS 8153.0 – 6,009 million fixed line broadband subscribers. 823,421 TB in the three months up to December 2013.
(823421/6009)/3 = 46 GB a month. And the TB up to December 2012 were 554,771 TB. That’s a 55% growth. So while it’s all nice of you to think of your parents, I can hardly think of how your little anecdote is relevant here.
And you realise that with a switch to VDSL2 with vectoring POTS will quite possibly die out … leaving you with the same thing as with GPON. Except that copper is also less reliable from a physical perspective and you’re at the mercy of a node with an hour or two of some dinky battery backup rather than, with GPON, a nice big exchange with likely a backup generator at the other end?
> Tying up an additional $30b waiting for payback in the future, means not being able to afford other things.
Also incorrect. The government was going to use infrastructure bonds for the most part – it wasn’t going to come from tax revenue, for the most part at least. Have you looked at the budget impact of the NBN? It’s a few things like TUSMA and NBN applications and that’s pretty much it – sorry to disappoint. But with FTTN and the coalition’s rhetoric and frankly self-fulfilling prophecy that the NBN won’t pay for itself, you can kiss that goodbye too.
@RW
Regardless if it’s capital or expenses, and whether or not it’s recouped, it will actually cost less. Those extra billions could be poured into roads, hospitals, schools and many other things the country needs. Tying up an additional $30b waiting for payback in the future, means not being able to afford other things.
You cannot prove that it will in fact be cheaper. The Real NBN has its Telstra costs nailed down and MT does not. He “thinks” Telstra will give him their copper at no cost. Ha Fn Ha!
In any case there is no $30b, no extra billions being denied to all those worthy causes. The government is raising the funds with bonds at a low interest rate. You have waved around some tech terms but you did not do your homework on the financials.
Also, while you say “premises in those areas will receive vastly superior fibre broadband services” – which is great for people who may have had ADSL or other copper technology – but most people with Internet would have migrated already.
Migrated to what?
The people who don’t benefit from the ‘vastly superior fibre broadband services’ are people who don’t have broadband, but have a voice service. One that doesn’t need power at your house to work, and doesn’t need people to come into your house and install some visually appalling equipment which needs power (yes, it will work for a couple of hours without power, but it only powers the UNI-V ports, not the UNI-D ports that most providers use to deliver telephony over NBN). Look at the major provider’s websites, and see that most provide VoIP over the data port, which requires power to operate. Then what about your medical alarm, or even home alarm? Turn off the power and it can’t dial out.
And pray tell us where the power will come from if we get stuck with FttN and your node gets wiped out by a stray car… or the vandals break into it to steal the batteries or the mains power fails due to an area blackout?
BTW fibre is less likely to degrade and lose its connection: No lightning strikes. No corrosion due to rainwater in the pits.
Agreed that Fibre is better for people who are heavy users of the internet, but for people like my parents who struggle to get to halfway through their 5GB plan on a ~15Mbps ADSL2+ service (which they pay about $30 for), it really provides no upside at all.
I couldn’t quickly find low end NBN pricing because I don’t do low end stuff myself but the few ISPs I looked at who provide NBN service have charges as low as ADSL. YMMV.
@RW
And you can have a UPS powering your critical tech kit. Handy for people with Medic Call etc.
“Regardless if it’s capital or expenses, and whether or not it’s recouped, it will actually cost less.”
No, it won’t cost less. As both Turnbull and Switkowski have admitted, a FTTN network WIIL need to be replaced with FTTH; Switkowski even went so far as to say that FTTN will be ready to replace after about five years. After that time, of course, we’ll have to spend billions more to replace the all the old copper pair and HFC cable that we should be replacing now.
So, Turnbull is asking us to pay $30bn for a network that’s good for five yeasr, plus an unknown (but inevitably large) number of billions more to upgrade it to FTTH.. Labor’s NBN would have cost about $40-50bn, and lasted for 50 years, or more. I know what looks like a better investment to me.
“but for people like my parents”
I don’t want to seem insensitive, but just like me, your parents are not going to be around that much longer.
Who is going to move into their house and what sort of internet are they going to need? That is the question that needs answering.
It’s not about the now, it is (or rather was) about tomorrow.
The old NBN was a long term project, potentially over a 100 year timescale. It was the most forward thinking project ever put forth by an Australian government.
Which of course is why it had to be killed.
I must have missed it. When did Labor announce an “all-fibre rollout”?
I believe the assumption in the Strategic Review was that Wireless and Satellite would be the same in both rollouts, so that is why the “Labor” NBN is listed as “100%” FTTP. As in, of the 93% who will still have “fixed line” broadband through the NBN, 100% of them were to receive FTTP.
This is just utter contempt for the Australian people now. Even for a politician, this is just poor form.
Renai, keep it up.
Dont forget to point out…
He is DELIBERATELY MISSTATING FACTS (from his own report). He’s the one that chose to make the spurious claim, so point that out as well as the lies.
It’s all too little too late. Australia voted for this mob of braindead facists beholden entirely to Murdoch and billionaires. They are The Bogan Borg.
This is the price we all pay because of the equally braindead morons who voted for this mob. It will continue to be a brutal lesson which costs us all dearly.
Turnbull couldnt care less about being pinged by Renai or anyone else. Theatening him is useless – swinging voters and the vast majority of voters will always be unaware of Delimiter, Whirlpool or anywhere else where people who know the real facts can be found.
“Just walk away, Renee
You won’t see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You’re not to blame”
Except of course, Renai and all of us in the IT industry ARE to blame. We had the chance to prevent this fiasco, but we didnt. We have allowed our country to be trashed and now there’s no way to stop it.
Both capex and opex are costs. Renai’s “basic accounting” claim is untrue. The difference between the two expenses is the period of utility and therefore their tax treatment (deduction vs depreciation).
Turnbull is 100% accurate when saying according to the review one plan will cost billions less than the other.
The PBO’s statement refers to the budget handling of NBNCo as a GBEs, typical of Conroy’s abuse of the public service during his reign and is misleading. The argument is over NBNCo’s qualification as a GBE (which requires a “commerical return” for taxpayers funds, not a marginal return). This was granted exclusively with their corporate plan, which at the time was unrealistic (and history shown it to be so).
Thirdly listing a ROI figure doesn’t mean it will be achieved. Over $8b has already been spent for NBNCo’s 180k active customers, an unimaginable figure. The value of the assets is worth significantly less than the money invested. If marked to market the immediate losses would be enormous and would certainly force a reexamination of its GBE status.
This is the second time the cost issue claim has been raised as a lie when it is not. Therefore, as one qualified in accounting, I feel it is my duty to point out everytime this misrepresentation occurs.
Do you also feel a duty to misrepresent figures, like highlighting the cost per premises passed currently?
The only people who I have ever seen throw around those figures are those who are pathologically opposed to the Labor government. I’d expect the same from Alan Jones or even from Bolt.
Sadly for you, readers at this site have seen this argument being abused over and over again, and know exactly the type of ideologue who tends to promote it.
Given the disingenuous nature of your commentary I am disinclined to pay attention to the content or your claims of authority as a subject matter expert.
Plus your claim that the cost will be more than the asset is worth seems spurious. Particularly in comparison to the alternative MTM. The difference between asset cost and asset worth when looking at FTTP vs MTM make FTTP a clear winner.
@ Bewildered…
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/NBNBudgetStatements
:/ Amazing
“Turnbull is 100% accurate when saying according to the review one plan will cost billions less than the other.”
This is simply not true, because Turnbull does NOT have complete costings for the CBN (Coalition Broadband Network).
To properly cost his version of the network, Turnbull needs to be able to answer the following questions:
Does the Coalition’s capital expenditure include the cost of paying Telstra for access to its copper network, and what will this cost be? As the Coalition’s made a commitment to buy it, Telstra can charge whatever it likes.
Does the Coalition’s capital expenditure include payments to Telstra for immediate remediation of existing faults to the sections of the copper network that they’ll need, and how much will this be?
Does the Coalition’s capital expenditure include the eventual cost of upgrading the national network to FTTH, given that Malcolm Turnbull has admitted that this will, eventually, be required? This will include not just the cost of replacing the existing copper with fibre (both connections paid for by subscribers, and connections replaced when the network is upgraded), but also the write-off costs of all the fibre-to-copper equipment, the batteries and the nodes themselves, which will all become obsolete.
Does the Coalition’s capital expenditure include the cost of the extra power generation capacity to run the fibre-to-copper nodes? Recent estimates have suggested the need for another three power generating stations.
Does the Coalition’s annual operating cost include rental of Telstra’s network, and what is this cost?
Does the Coalition’s annual operating cost include Telstra’s maintenance charges for its network, and what is this cost ?
Does the Coalition’s annual operating cost include the cost of the extra electricity that tens, or hundreds of thousands of fibre-to-copper nodes will require? This cost will also include the cost of replacing the batteries that provide backup power to the node.
Does the Coalition’s annual operating cost include any estimate of the business THAT WILL NOT BE GENERATED because there will be no universal high-speed access to the network?
Does the Coalition’s projected completion date include the time required to negotiate new arrangements with Telstra? Does it also include negotiating planning permission, or over-riding the need for same, for the placement of fibre-to-copper nodes from local governments?
Until Turnbull can answer these questions, he simply DOESN’T have a costing. Until he has a costing, he can’t compare his with the original NBN.
It’s funny how he hasn’t but the transcript of either TJ or Law talk on his website
Confident little bugger, isn’t he…
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/response-to-the-senate-select-committee-on-the-nbn
Comments are closed.