“Hypocrisy”: AFR launches bizarre attack on Labor over NBN raids

115

news Conservative newspaper The Australian Financial Review has launched an extraordinary election attack on Labor over police raids of Labor premises, slamming the Opposition for what the AFR claimed was an irresponsible NBN policy based on the idea that “people would think fast internet was cool”.

The NBN project was initiated by the Rudd and Gillard Labor Governments from 2007, although the best-known Fibre to the Premises version of the network was not formalised as a concrete project until April 2009.

The NBN policy was a complex initiative designed to meet a number of high-level national policy objectives. It aimed to deliver high-speed broadband to all Australians, unlocking productivity gains and boosting the nation’s digital economy.

However, it also aimed to rein in the power of giant telco Telstra, restructuring the telecommunications industry to allow a more even level playing field for competitors.

Much of the need came about due to the fact that successive Coalition Governments had not structurally separated Telstra during its privatisation phase in the early 2000’s (as happened in other countries such as the UK) or blocked Telstra’s duplication of Optus’ HFC cable rollout, meaning Telstra continued to maintain dominant market power in Australia.

At the time, a hostile Telstra management team led by American executive Sol Trujillo was refusing to upgrade its own broadband network unless it was allowed to lock its competitors out of accessing it, in a move that essentially forced the Rudd Government’s hand on the NBN.

However, this morning the Financial Review newspaper published an extraordinary attack on the Labor NBN policy which appeared to completely ignore this context and history. Delimiter recommends readers click here to read the full article.

In its masthead editorial, representing the view of the entire newspaper (an article normally checked by senior editors), the AFR wrote that if Labor’s original NBN plan “seems ridiculous”, “it’s because it was”.

Referring to the Australian Federal Police raids last week on Labor premises designed to identify NBN whistleblowers, the AFR wrote that Labor was attempting to use the raids to embarrass the Government over NBN cost blowouts under the Coalition’s watch.

“What really sticks in the craw is that Labor still has many of the same characters that embarked on a broadband scheme that took every lesson learned about state-owned monopolies since the 1970s and ignored them,” the AFR wrote.

“All because it thought people would think fast internet was cool.”

The AFR’s view appears to be that Labor figures such as former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, viewed as the father of the NBN, are hypocritical to complain about NBN cost blowouts because they initiated the project to start with.

However, the newspaper neglected to mention the regulatory and industry structure history behind the NBN project, or the fact that the Abbott and Turnbull Coalition Governments have themselves markedly changed the NBN project since taking power in 2013.

The AFR’s article was immediately met with a strong degree of criticism on social media.

“Was that really the whole article? What a pointless, bullshit ideological spray,” wrote one commenter on Twitter.

The AFR has a history of flawed reporting on the NBN.

In February 2013, for example, the newspaper left critical information out of a story attacking Labor’s NBN policy, while in December last year Communications Minister Mitch Fifield labelled an AFR article about a NBN sale process as “wrong”. A NBN spokesperson said the article was “delusional shit-stirring”.

In August 2012, faced with AFR criticism on the NBN, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said those interested in accuracy with respect to the NBN had better read broadband forum Whirlpool, rather than the AFR.

opinion/analysis
I don’t know who wrote this bizarre AFR NBN rant, but they certainly did an appalling job.

The piece doesn’t even make much grammatical sense when you read it, let alone comprise an insightful analysis of Australia’s telecommunications regulatory environment.

I’d say today’s piece was more “delusional shit-stirring” from the AFR, to quote NBN general manager of corporate affairs, Karina Keisler, but to be honest I’m not sure today’s AFR effort could be dignified with even that label.

115 COMMENTS

  1. I won’t even dignify such a manure AFR article by spending my finite life span to read it.

    • Build it once,… Build it once,.. Build it once,… Build it once,… Build it once,.. Build it once,…

    • Problem is HC, there are plenty of voting-age out there that blindly agree with this BS just because it’s “in the paper”. Hence the 2013 result. NBN, Carbon Tax, Economy, The Boats. All scare campaigns that, together, worked a treat.

      Let the 12 year olds vote dammit, at least they’d be influenced by “whichever internet is faster”.

      • > at least they’d be influenced by “whichever internet is faster”

        Are we forgetting that for 79% of Australians currently connected to FTTP at 25Mbps or slower that it wouldn’t make any perceivable difference if their connection was switched to FTTN, HFC or FTTB?

        • Hi Matty… still/again playing that same dumb tune I see… ROFLMFAO…

          Ah yes I smell and election and fear and desperation…

          Regardless, you screamed 50/12 for 5 years, now shown as clearly wrong and admitted so by err, YOU…

          So 5 years of stupidity, err, proven as the stupidity we always said it was… hasn’t been heeded but now simply retired and 79/25 (the one you rave about which proves your 50/12 wrong…lol) plus 1/1 have been promoted…as the new stupidity.

          Anyway, whatever dude, it’s obvious with you again peppering us, that you are on a mission (wink) at least until ohh, say July…

          But… A G A I N, I’ll ask since you whimpered off last time… how many choose 25Mbps or faster Matty…

          GO

          And more importantly, those on FTTN how many choose 25Mpbs but get substantially less…

          GO again

          You’re welcome.

          • > how many choose 25Mbps or faster

            By this do we assume that you think 25Mbps is a perfectly acceptable speed for high speed broadband?

            > And more importantly, those on FTTN how many choose 25Mpbs but get substantially less

            No idea, but plenty of complaints about people choosing FTTP and suffering from congestion.

          • @M it comes as no surprise they’ll be having congestion issues. The ACCC Wholesale Report shows for NBNCo’s 906,354 active connections (29Tbps combined download last mile capacity) RSPs have provisioned just 952Gbps of CVC or 1.05mbps / customer.

            The squealers have no idea (defending $20b spend to deliver sustained 1.05mbps).

          • Mathew,

            No idea, but plenty of complaints about people choosing FTTP and suffering from congestion.

            shh, FTTP is still bedding in, it’s just out of pilot phase, early days. 😀

          • @ Matty – “By this do we assume that you think 25Mbps is a perfectly acceptable speed for high speed broadband?”

            It is considered the bare minimum in the US for the name “broadband”…
            It is not considered “high-speed” anywhere…

            High-speed would be 10Gbps like in Singapore or the US or Portugal, or…

          • it comes as no surprise they’ll be having congestion issues.

            And it also comes as no surprise people will drop their tier because of that, why pay for something they wont get?

            Baxter is right, they need a new model, the CVC/ACV thing is flawed and the POI thing is just a joke brought in to keep Telstra/Optus happy.

          • Labor had the option of arguing that it was in the national interest and that a Government subsidy was justifiable if it can be shown to deliver benefits (e.g. education & health). This same approach is being taken for mobile blackspots in rural areas and roads.

            Labor could have decided to charge a nominal access fee to ensure as many people as possible connected (more risky for revenue) and charged for usage (greater probability of growth when everyone is on 1Gbps plans).

          • Well Mathew if we used your hypothetical argument within the next 10 years to 2026 they could have done just that which makes all you claim rather silly

          • @Mathew

            “Labor could have…”, “Labor should have”. I agree (and even they do), they didn’t do everything right.

            But as there is no use in crying over spilt milk, what should the Liberal government have done about it? What should the next government do about it?

          • And once again Mathew you refuse to answer a simple fucking question, now asked multiple times.

            And your trusty side kicks joined in too… it was like watching an old 3 stooges movie, classic work.

            But now back to the gist.

            If you say 79% are on 25Mbps or less tell us…

            Q. how many are on 25Mbps or more…
            A. add a simple percentage (sans BS and tap dancing) here…..

            GO

            You’re welcome

        • Are we forgetting that for 79% of Australians currently connected to FTTP at 25Mbps or slower that it wouldn’t make any perceivable difference if their connection was switched to FTTN, HFC or FTTB?

          And what would you like the Liberal government to do about that Mathew?

          • I would have liked the same people complaining about FTTN now to have stood up in 2008 and said “12Mbps is not acceptable, 100Mbps is barely acceptable”. If they had done this and Labor or the independents had listened then FTTN would have been so much less of an option.

            Consider these statements to understand why Labor’s decision to build an NBN financial model with speed tiers enabled the Liberals to introduce FTTN:
            1. More than 80% on FTTN will have the same speed as if they had a FTTP connection.
            2. Everyone on a FTTN connection will not be able to access the FTTP minimum speed of 100Mbps
            3. In 2026 under Labor’s plan less than 1% will have a 1Gbps connection. Currently 79% are connected at 25Mbps a speed easily supported on FTTN so most Australians will notice no difference.
            4. The 15% who require 100Mbps or faster should expect to pay for the privilege.

          • 1. Nope becuase now they are getting a 1sec in a day 25Mbps connection.
            2. Yet you make comments claiming FTTN would be faster than FTTP
            3.In 2020 under Coalition plan less than 1% will have a 1Gbps connection. Currently 79% are connected at 25Mbps a speed not easily supported on FTTN as it’s only for 1 sec in a day.
            3.The 30% (coalition own target for 2020) who require 100Mbps or faster should expect to pay for the privilege.

          • I understand what you are saying Mathew, and repeating it wont make me “understand more” or something.

            I’m asking what would you like the Liberal government to do about it?

          • “More than 80% on FTTN will have the same speed as if they had a FTTP connection”

            Quigley began 1Gbps in 2012 (I know a few who are on it) and began a research group for 10Gbps at the same time (probably NG PON 2) So no…your statement is ridiculous.

            “In 2026 under Labor’s plan less than 1% will have a 1Gbps connection”

            Again…just ludicrous.

            Your thought-bubble is that while the rest of the world is on 1Gbps or more, we in Australia will be just fine on 15Mbps?
            What Planet do you come from?

          • @Chas
            If you think that what I’m saying is ludicrous then you I suggest you read each of the NBNCo Corporate Plans that Labor published because you’ve in effect described them a ludicrous.

          • @Matty – ” I suggest you read each of the NBNCo Corporate Plans”

            All of us have read the Corporate Plans Matty…and nobody but you think that the worst case scenarios were actually expected to happen by anyone.
            That is the “ludicrous” part…

            Did you know that in the US, the packages on irons actually say “Do not iron clothes while wearing them”.
            Would you say that most folks would require that warning? No…it is a means of covering themselves, just like the doomsday predictions in the Corporate Plans…

  2. I have written comments on here far longer than that.

    Did the work experience kid get a hold of the account?

    • I got the impression some kid got on their dad’s computer and had a tanty. There was a high crayon factor to it…

      • Nah, it was uncle Bob- the familys indigenous dodgy building inspector! Everyone should live in a McMansion built by their dodgy uncle Bob….

  3. The article in the AFR is under half the length of this article yet I doubt anyone would call this an editorial.

  4. Once again disproving the mindless followers here, who also talk such nonsense and keep saying BB is of no consequence to the election…

    Whilst I’d certainly recognise and agree that BB is not on everyone’s top list of issues, why then the utter desperation by the conservative rags to talk down a plan which hasn’t been in action since Sept 2013, each and every day.

    Did someone say election?

    Oh perhaps like the trusty apple polishers here, it’s simply, err look over there at what (supposedly, add lies 1-10 here…) they did, simply to deflect from the worst construction debacle in Oz’s history, known as…

    Correct… MTM…

  5. Badly written, factually inaccurate and full of crap. As someone with many years in the industry including the nanagement of a major online post-secondary education program, all I can say is that this drivel would be bad even coming from the current government.

    All I can say is that if their financial expertise is only half as bad then following it would be a sure way to go bankrupt.

    • Fairfax should just give the AFR to Murdoch, it’s a perfect fit for his stable of delusional conservative publications.

    • @ Anthony. Did you mean to type nanagement because it is an awesome descriptor in this debate.

  6. “…that took every lesson learned about state-owned monopolies since the 1970s and ignored them,” the AFR wrote.

    What, like, they deliver the outcomes they’re charged to?

    (unlike privately-owned monopolies/oligopolies, which apply a rent tax to all economic activity in a country, and screw people for enormous profits while delivering service that’s average, at best, and non-existent for ‘unprofitable’ areas)

    • Call down Bernard, you’re acting as though you consider anyone at the AFR has a chance in hell of being reasonable, listing to facts or, you know, having a functional brain. Reset your expectations ;-)

    • They have trouble reading the calendar I guess and someone thought they should put an April 1st article!

  7. Maybe it was AI auto-generated journalism software that was set to Clickbait mode times 10.

    • Yeah, what was that Microsoft twitter-AI-bot that became semi-racist after a few hours? Maybe they thought they’d try again on a much smaller audience that may be more inclined to forgive such bias?

  8. The person who wrote it wasn’t even courageous enough to put their name to it. I thought the AFR was at least a semi-respected publication. This really isn’t worthy of a high school newsletter.

  9. LOL!

    But then again, noticed an editorial written by child scribe seeking the dissolution of the CFMEU. The fallacious claim, the CFMEU operates above the law. The union has fought a number of aggressive cases and won them in the Oz law courts. Double lol!

    Who benefits from trash editorials, that fail the smell test?

  10. Great article! Definite pattern developing (where have we heard it before?).

    Renai writes
    “The AFR’s article was immediately met with a strong degree of criticism on social media.”

    Really social media;-) (rofl). What about the eloquent commenters’ analysis here?

    “The AFR has a history of flawed reporting on the NBN.”

    Fairfax publications flawed, as are all News Ltd like The Australian and even the ABC (Ross dismissal). Everyone is flawed but the fanboy position; called out for years.

    Still unable to acknowledge Trujillo announced his departure before NBNCo even formed, Thodey wanting to engage with govt. Also unacknowledged is Quigley’s cost blowouts and rollout failure (actual v forecast even graphed here; a delimiter scoop (feel free to use it):-).

    • Still tilting at windmills eh Richard?

      For such an educated guy you’re a very slow learner!

    • Blah, blah, blah… and yet more stupid diversions from Dick…

      Of course none of these concerns are legitimate according to Dick. These wonder articles (eh Dick?) from newspapers who openly endorsed the Coalition prior to the last election are all of a sudden conveniently just happening daily again (like they did around August 2013)… what a shock.

      Coincidence obviously.

      And as we can see, all of the faithful helmet polishers are here, hear, hearing as they must…lol.

      So speaking of unacknowledged blowouts… how’s that obsolete, copper based, $29.5B Neanderthal plan for all Aussies by 2016, the one you proudly proclaimed was if you’d been commissioned to write … going Dick?

      Wanna clue begins with F, next letter u ? No still can’t quite get it? Thought not.

      Of course you say government out to desperately try to excuse the debacle known as MTM (you could have written)… the largest construction disaster in Oz’s history… to try to escape from your own words… PRICELESS desperation from you and that massive ego.

      Oh why did we replace those precious iron wires again Dick?

      You’re welcome.

    • Blah Blah Blah – considering that Quigley hasn’t been in charge for a while, your post (like the AFR) has incorrect opinions in it.
      Another great post full of half truths (at best) from “Dick”.
      Good old Dick – like night is day – he will always post opinions as facts.
      You keep ignoring the cost blow out by the LNP it seems – 29.5 billion to 56 billion.
      If that’s not gross mismanagement, what is?

      • What was incorrect?

        Dont fall for the squealers bile, I’ve acknowledged the blowouts in LNP and ALP NBN policies; actually predict both delays and cost blowouts, now predicting negative IRR (highlighted underperformance as actuals became available to their abuse). However mismanagement is the failure to meet your own targets (eg CPs), not a failure to achieve the latest politician fantasy.

        Therefore actual vs forecast performance was charted by myself. Quigley v Morrow relative performance you can conclude for yourself.

        ABC jumps in with another gem:
        “However some customers, among the first to be connected to the NBN’s fibre to the node service, say they’ve had long-running, ongoing issues.”
        http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4468293.htm

        Long running issues for a technology release late last year? I was intrigued.

        Lucy interviews two customers with connection issues. Both claim connections from 2013. What tech could they have been using?

        Continuing today’s lazy journalistic approach the story goes to reporting the social media of radio for its analysis; talkback.

        Without any technical understanding RSP contention can’t be identified (hmm 1mbps, where has that number been previously identified;-). If only they read delimiter comments, where one of us correctly called it day one.

        The ABC receives $1b a year of taxpayers money; performs at the NBNCo / GBE standard:-(

        • RSP contention was what everybody said was the likely cause except you pretend you were the only one to understand you are a liar.

          Pathetic that you resort to lying but not unexpected.

        • @ Dick…

          You have indeed claimed blowouts in the ALP’s (your politicized description) plan.

          Umm yes… you have disingenuously spun and cherry-picked figures, to exaggerate, if not out and out lie perpetually, in relation to FTTP.

          You also have taken to the LNP (ditto) MTM plan that “you could have been commissioned to write” accordingly so.

          I.e. completely defensively and very guarded, with many an excuse… as if your baby and at least ooh twice…. All to desperately try unsuccessfully to justify (non-existent) impartiality…

          So I’d suggest people shouldn’t fall for the copper Neanderthal’s lies..

          You’re welcome.

        • Yes James, don’t fall for the facts, fall for Richards carefully constructed…er….model? mashup?

          What exactly do you call your agenda Richard?

        • @Rich – “I’ve acknowledged the blowouts in LNP and ALP NBN policies”

          Acknowledged? I would say reinvented is more accurate…but moving on.

          “mismanagement is the failure to meet your own targets”

          I see…so the best managers are the ones who can change their published targets the quickest?

          “Therefore actual vs forecast performance was charted by myself”

          Lovely…so in that chart, how many FANS, POIs, FW, and Satellite designs did they each do?

      • James,

        You keep ignoring the cost blow out by the LNP it seems – 29.5 billion to 56 billion.

        You keep ignoring your cost blow quote is incorrect.

        If that’s not gross mismanagement, what is?

        Deliberate misquoting perhaps?

        • And yet alain, every time you parrot this, when asked to prove it “wont be $56B” you are completely unable to do so…

          d’oh… so who is the deliberate misquoter?

          Anyway…try starting to prove your claim right, here…

          https://delimiter.com.au/2015/07/20/hockey-says-govt-spending-70bn-on-nbn/

          GO

          And if you or anyone readily accepts that UPTO (lol) $70B by 2020 isn’t gross mismanagement, for MTM promised “fully costed at $29.5B to all Aussies by 2016”, well you have a math or eye problem, I’d suggest.

          You’re welcome

        • You keep ignoring the cost blow out by the LNP it seems – 29.5 billion to 56 billion.

          Not a lot of difference between that or “up to 56b” anyway.

          • It’s not hard, the MtM funding figure estimates were updated in NBN CP 16 released August 2015, and well publicised in all media at the time.

            The NBN future funding requirements as stated in CP 16 were stated again in the Federal Budget 2016-2017 released earlier this month.

            It is easy to quote the correct figures from CP 16, unless you want to deliberately mislead.

          • Lol devoid there isn’t a mis quote the CP16 has $56B clearly written in it

            True Jason, but he is right when he says “up to” about it.

            It’s also worth while taking the advice of the many disclaimers in CP16

            Additional disclaimer: management and the Board
            do not give any guarantee or assurance that the
            results, performance or achievements expressed
            or implied by the outlook will actually occur. The
            Operating Plan addresses the period FY15-FY22
            only, Management and the Board have not taken
            a view on assumptions beyond that time, and no
            better estimates exist than the assumptions applied
            in the Strategic Review dated December 2013.

            So as Reality pointed out, the assumptions in both CP16 and the Federal Budget 16/17 are based on SR13 as “no
            better estimates exist than the assumptions applied
            in the Strategic Review dated December 2013.”

            Which are the best assumptions money could by after all.

    • and I thought I couldn’t get any more dumbererer after reading the AFR piece.
      At this rate I’ll have an IQ of an Richard *boom-tish*

    • Are you really so desperate for attention that you misrepresent comments within this article just so you think someone is talking to you today?
      If not, are you really this dumb?

    • “Quigley’s cost blowouts and rollout failure”
      That $2b and 2 year delay? A travesty and much better that we have todays $40b and 4 year delay.

      • Lets compare blowouts (again, for the goldfish memories):

        ALP 2007 election NBN policy was govt contribution of $4.7b “not a cent more” (deployment completed CY2012). Quigley’s CP11-13 peak funding $~40.9b (CY2020), CP12-15 $~44.1 (CY2021), CP13-16 draft ~$45.6b (CY2021). SR13 S1 $~73b (CY2024).

        LNP 2010 election NBN policy was $29.9b “fully costed” (CY2016). SR13 S6 $~41b (CY2020). Morrow’s CP14-17 $~41b (CY2020), CP16 $~49b (CY2020).

        Conroy’s blowout $4.7b (CY2012) -> $73b (CY2024).
        Quigley’s blowout $40.9 (CY2020) -> $73b (C20Y2024).

        Turnbull’s blowout $29.9b (CY2016) -> $49b (CY2020).
        Morrow’s blowout $41b (CY2020) -> $49b (CY2020).

        Politician’s performing very poorly (many voters still not learnt). Again detail devastating for the squealers’ claims (why they never provide any).

        • Ah Richard ignorance of history shows again
          LNP 2010 policy was $9.7B FTTN tender Kali labor was in 2007.

          But Richard you said we can’t compare SR figures to the cp16 figures as its not comparing apples with apples.

          But please keep rewriting history as it makes your comparison a complete joke. A bit devastating that numbers man can’t even get his own figures correct again.

          • “But Richard you said we can’t compare SR figures to the cp16 figures as its not comparing apples with apples.”

            Ah no, can’t compare S1 & S2 figures with CP16 S1.5 $74-84b. Note the S1.5 figures weren’t used.

            “A bit devastating that numbers man can’t even get his own figures correct again.”

            ROFL;-)

            The rest of your post is incomprehensible (as usual).

          • Lol Richard your claiming the 2013 policy as 2010 you didn’t add the ducts and pits to your own figures before mostly likely deliberate. What a failure numbers man can’t count.

            So the LNP 2010 policy
            A $9.7B
            B $29B

            Ahh so we can compare s2 $64B with the MTM up to $56B blowout

          • poor JK; LNP didn’t win the 2010 election.

            A sensible policy though, before NBNCo had committed much of its largess its Telstra DA still several months away.

            Private sector to deliver in commercial serviceable areas, govt subsidies targeting others. Pointed out at the time (and before, whilst you posting stalking bile despite my encouragement to learn something) like UK’s successful upgrade (and Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Austria, Switzerland, … shh not allowed to be discussed here )

          • And yet poor Richard you claimed there 2010 policy as $29B when it was $6B. A $23B fail numbers man just trying to rewrite history as per usual

            “LNP 2010 election NBN policy was $29.9b “fully costed”

          • Lol or was it. Would be a simple mistake for us simpletons here but not numbers man.

            But if that was the case you complete miss there 2010
            So really
            Turnbull’s blowout $6b (CY2016) -> $49b (CY2020).

          • Poor Richard still a policy that failed

            But then to used that same excuse of yours Conroy isn’t the Comms Minster when they finished either lol

            But please enlighten us with your numbers skill and explain to us why the SR figures for FTTP is $4100 while the CP16 are only $3600

        • My apologies. That should have read ‘That $5b and 2 year delay? A travesty and much better that we have todays $40b and 4 year delay.

          You ‘forgot’ to take note of the most recent figures available, taken from Hockey costing MTM at $71.6b. Obviously Liberal FTTP cost projections mean less than nothing, especially those coming from the much-debunked, criminally paid-for SR13. Let’s not forget the $40b blowout.

    • Lol failing to acknowledge that Trujillo didn’t want to invest the $B you claimed was out there. Failing the acknowledge the the bus had already left when Thodey turns up. Also failing to acknowledge the cost blowout of reusing infrastructure from a policy he could have writen himself.

      • The bus had left? Trujillo announced his retirement in Feb 2009, NBNCo formed Apr 2009, two years before Telstra Definitive Agreement signed (cheque of $13.8b) Jun 2011, two and a half years before FTTH product launch Sep 2011.

        When not posting bile their ignorance is easily exposed.

        • Lol yes it is Richard your ignorance is easily exposed you of all people should know if what you do numbers man knows that a business just doesn’t start over night. But then it is after Telstra decision to not roll out FTTN and the decision to go to FTTP

        • David Theody didn’t take over at Telstra till the 19th May 2009.

          Are you suggesting NBNCo should have just sat around waiting to see what Theody would do, after trying for…what? 5 years?…to come to an agreement with Telsrta?

          • Yes, Conroy should’ve re-engaged. Not his style.

            Telstra DA negotiations hadn’t started, wouldn’t conclude for another 2 years.

          • Telstra DA negotiations hadn’t started, wouldn’t conclude for another 2 years.

            And yet they’d already signed the Terms of Engagement in Dec 2009.

          • That NBNCo and Telstra engaged 6 months after Thodey appointment is a problem for who’s position?

          • That NBNCo and Telstra engaged 6 months after Thodey appointment is a problem for who’s position?

            Yours.

            How long should NBNCo have sat around sitting on their hands according to you, just so they could restart further negotiations that failed to achieve anything after 5 years?

            Your idea that they sit around burning money in the vague hope they may finally get a deal because Telstra had a new CEO seems very unbusinesslike…

          • Un-business like but extremely ideological…TM

            Let’s do an overview…

            It’s apparently completely unacceptable mismanagement, to wait months/a year/couple of years, beyond estimation for an on budget, big bad lefty FTTP build… umm, just because Richard says.

            But it’s quite acceptable to wait 4 years and it’s not mismanagement, for a righty multi $B inferior retrograde (so called faster/cheaper) MTM build…. because, well Richard could have written it…

            Or wait even more years/infinitely for a maybe/conjecture/let’s hope/cross fingers that Telstra who wouldn’t err, magically will… save the day…. because Richard’s extreme L(l)ibertarianism cult ideology, says.

            Classic brainwashed partiality, to the point of lunacy.

    • A great article. Even though several of the statements are factually incorrect and ill-informed?

  11. Don’t worry the medias perception of Labor and their NBN folly of the past will all be fixed when Labor release their for July NBN election policy ‘real soon now’ (the midnight dice rolling must be in panic mode).

    Based on the $29M FTTP pork barrel for West Tassie we can expect in conjunction with the ‘more fibre’ throwaway one liner, higher funding requirements and extended completion dates.

    “What to do with FTTdp? shit, wish we hadn’t mentioned it”.

  12. At the time, a hostile Telstra management team led by American executive Sol Trujillo was refusing to upgrade its own broadband network unless it was allowed to lock its competitors out of accessing it, in a move that essentially forced the Rudd Government’s hand on the NBN.

    It was called a special access undertaking, but let’s get the historical record straight here.

    Telstra was not the only player for a NBN rollout in partnership with the Government, the rival bid from the Optus led G9 consortium also required a similar special access undertaking, which was ultimately rejected by the ACCC in 2007.

    The Rudd’s Government hand was not just forced by Telstra.

    • This whole issue was caused by the Howard government who did not split Telstra into retail and wholesale.

      Howard only cared about the short term money but long term this short sighted idiotic move has cost the Australian people Billions of dollars in lost productivity plus the costs to start and build the NBN.

    • Biggest drama was, and always was, the last mile copper. The vast majority of which was owned outright by Telstra.

      So when Telstra didnt want to come to the party, it created massive issues with the original FttN plans. How do you do FttN cheaply if you dont have the last mile copper?

      Telstra playing ball was always crucial to any FttN rollout, and when Sol was in charge he wanted none of it. The rest is history.

    • The Optus led G9 consortium’s bid was somewhat ridiculous. It involved pretty much the government confiscating Telstra’s last mile copper and giving it to G9. That was never going to fly.

      • The G9 consortium was formed to make it look like there was a viable alternative to a private/Government partnership other than Telstra, and to stall a Telstra deal while the ACCC reviewed the G9 SA, that took nearly a year, in the end they were never a viable alternative.

        • OMG… I actually err, pretty much, if not completely, agree with alain…

          G9 were indeed a sham (as I’ve said multiple times – glad you’ve finally paid attention) and the fact they refused to submit an RFP doc at all, proves it.

          But Telstra’s were no better, they didn’t want to invest either. 2 times they refused, withdrawing (in 2006 iirc and submitting a non-compliant RFP doc).

          Q. Why?

          Once again…

          A. Because Telstra and their so called competitors/wholesale – resellers, were all happy with the obscene, retrograde, profitable copper status quo.

          So I’m chuffed that you are now finally understanding, to the point of again using the very info I educated you with (like the RFP’s being for not only FTTN but FTTP – remember?).

          You’re welcome.

          What you and I have done here, partner… is demonstrate the myth of ideologist fools, that the markets will deliver err, because they fucking didn’t and had no intention of doing so…

          So please inform your mindless ideologist mate(s) who “literally” to this day, claim markets would have… but, err, they could have if they wanted, but didn’t…

          It’s not rocket science even to the likes of L(l)ibertarian flat earthers. So anyone who believes otherwise, IMO, is either gullible, subservient or plain stupid. Which in this instance you obviously aren’t… hey partner?

          Anyhoo, I’m glad you are finally getting it.

    • They where not the only player devoid but they where the ones in control of the copper or do you suggest that the other companies rollout new copper

      • The ACCC had legislative control of the monopoly Telstra copper and decided who could access it and what wholesale price access seekers would pay for it, they are still doing that now well after the G9 era.

        The G9 consortium venture fizzed out after the ACCC rejected their first SAU, Telstra had nothing to do with it.

  13. Awww, look how frantic the LNP fanbois are becoming. Not long now and you can have a good cry. This folks is what happens if you don’t love your children, you raise selfish bitter selfish conservatives.

    • Don’t be so sure – the coalition may win the next election and then we’re all neck deep in the poo of an expensive to run, massively expensive to upgrade MTM :/
      Let’s hope votes understand the basic economic issues behind ‘doing it once, doing it right’.

      • Personally (and this is just my opinion)… the only thing I believe we “possibly may have in our favour is”…

        The previously more liberal (note small l) Mal, is currently simply, the new salesman for Tony’s extreme policies via TA’s posse of hang ’em all, redneck lunatics.

        However (and I’m certainly not advocating a vote for MT whatsoever, I’m just saying)… when/”IF” Mal is voted in as PM on his own accord (and yes I know we don’t vote for the PM directly, work with me here…) hopefully most of these 1950’s Abbot throwbacks, will be put to the glue factory and Mal can then say, I’ve now been elected as PM… so you STFU and get back in your kennel, Im now running the show and here’s how we will differ…

        Unlikely but hey…!

        But at least we have hope that our Bush/Trump experiment in Abbott, was noted by not only voters, but by the Coalition… as the complete disaster it was… and if MT is (re)elected as PM, he has the balls to stand up to the faceless men (just like the others have) who obviously dictate policy in his party too.

  14. Looks like the AFR kicked off with the LPA “Youth Jobs PaTH program” early! But what could you expect from a “free” intern??

Comments are closed.