Turnbull opts out of new NBN paradigm


Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday said the Tasmanian Government’s decision yesterday to mandate the connection of optic fibre to premises unless residents explicitly opted out was evidence that the National Broadband Network’s business plan depended what he called “compulsion”.

The opt-out model has been being discussed in Tasmania for some time and has the support of the state’s opposition, as well as groups such as advocacy group Digital Tasmania. But Turnbull – who is continuing his push for the Government to undertake a cost/benefit analysis into the NBN – wasn’t quite as positive.

“The Tasmanian Government’s push for new laws allowing the National Broadband Network Co to connect to houses without the explicit consent of owners confirms that the business plan of the NBN depends on compulsion and the elimination of competing technologies,” he said in a statement late yesterday.

Turnbull said the move added compulsion to what he said were Labor’s existing plans to shut down competing fixed line broadband technologies such as Telstra’s existing copper network and the HFC networks operated by Telstra and Optus.

Yesterday the Australian Financial Review reported that Optus was in advanced discussions with NBN Co on a deal similar to Telstra’s that would see its HFC customers migrated onto the new fibre infrastructure planned.

“If Australian consumers want a fixed line for telephony or internet access, they are going to have to use NBN’s line – like it or not,” said Turnbull, claiming the NBN had suffered a “poor initial take-up” in the early stage sites in the US.

The office of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday dodged a question about whether the other states would also follow the opt-out model – although Conroy himself has publicly backed the model in the past.

But Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett yesterday said the new “opt-out” model would take Tasmania forward faster.

“We must take full advantage of this once-in-a-generation opportunity, and ensure its benefits reach as many Tasmanians as possible, in the years and decades to come,” the Premier said. “Already, more than half the householders and businesses in the first three “Smart Towns” have accepted a connection to optic fibre.”

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull


  1. Turnbull is making himself look more and more like a douchebag every day.

    Given that every home will need a connection to the NBN – (remember, Telstra are coming along behind the fibre rollout and turning off the copper network) – it has to be magnitudes of scale cheaper than getting people to come back later and connect premises willy nilly.

    It has nothing to do with “compulsion” – once the copper network is switched off, it will become “necessity”, because if you want a fixed line service, the fibre will be the only option.

    Cut the political rhetoric Malcolm – misinformation is not the way to go here!

  2. Michael,

    You understanding of the argument Turnbull is put forward is quite floored. What he is pointing out is people’s lack of interest in the roll out in the first place. the NBN co have been siting connection numbers not live connections to support the argument for the network. Now they are going to put the fibre in unless you ask for it not to be installed. This will make the figures look much nicer with out a change in customer views. Don’t miss quote a statement for your own benefit. Misinformation is coming from the NBN co and the government changing funding reasons depending on who they talk to and who they are debating.

    • Chris, do you mean “flawed”? I believe your grasp of the english language is ‘flawed’ as your barely makes sense. All that is coming from NBN Co is information. Information about the rollout, about the network, and about the benefits.

      • Sorry I did get a full spell check on my comment. If you couldn’t read I feel sorry for you. NBN co has put out information about costings which are based on a take up where they currently DON’T charge for connection. They are still holding back on connection costs. Their CEO is stating that fibre is the ONLY way of the future when he KNOWS fibre is but part of the solution.

    • It is not that people are not interested – people just don’t understand. This is the fault of the government for not selling the network to people properly.

      • Agree, the government is doing a horrible job of selling the NBN.

        Instead of “Hi, you want Fiber installed? Will give you 1Gbit/s” they should say:

        “Hi do you want us to install Fiber? current plans start at $0 a month for phone, $19 for Pay TV, and $30 for Broadband – it’s free! and it will save you money!”

        • But that is the problem.

          Those who don’t have a computer or want to pay for a NBN connection wbut do want a phone line will have to pay $65 a month plus pay for a phone line on top of that $65 so if $30 is the standard government charge for a phone account then you’d be paying $95 a month just to have a phone line.

          A phone line won’t be free, they will charge for it, or how else are you going to pay back the 43 billion you shelled out for the NBN.

      • You mean like the home insulation debacle, the reason it did not work is because the Labor Government did sell it to the people enough?


  3. Malcolm Turnbull just comes out with something stupider every day. Then when you think he can’t possibly top the idiocracy of his comments the day before, he surprises again!

    He has absolutely no understanding of the technology behind the NBN and it’s implications for all Australians. Just because he has an iPad, and once was on the board of that joke of an ISP OzEmail in medieval times, he thinks that people will believe what he says, despite the fact that they make no logical sense whatsoever.

    There is no reason at all to keep decades-old copper infrastructure and HFC cabling when fibre can be run to the home, and provide all the same services but better. It would be like having two power lines running to your house, it makes no sense.

    At least it is amusing to watch him dig his own political grave.

    • Turnbull does completely understand what the NBN is, and how it works. The problem for Turnbull faces is that he has been instructed to “debunk” it.

      It is because he does understand the NBN that his attempts to debunk it are feeble.

      • It doesn’t take much to debunk the NBN, it can do it all by itself, as yet it looks like it’s going well in three the small areas of Australia’s least populated state Tasmania where it has been rolled out and it was all wrapped in a great big freebie box, as yet I have not seen any take up figures in those three areas of Tasmania, last I read it was about 45%, jeez it is virtually free and the majority of residences STILL don’t want it – amazing.

        [sarcasm on] But hey think of all those businesses flocking to Midway Point, Smithton and Scottsdale in Tasmania soaking up all that high speed taxpayer subsidised goodness they all supposedly crave, it must be economic boom time down there! [sarcasm off].

    • So the first ISP in Australia was a joke… OK. I was with them in the first years of the internet and although by today’s standards it is slow during those first years it was AMAZING! That comment really makes your other comments look quite silly.

      You are right that the copper network and HFC network may be irrelevant once the NBN is in place but what if the cost to connect to that fibre is more then to connect via copper. Should the network be pulled so that the NBN can force people onto high priced plans?

      To real tech heads that can look though the rhetoric and the I want fibre for me. It’s Stephen Conroy that has NO idea what so ever about the internet. Trends show a VERY different story to what it is that Stephen Conroy is saying.

      • Costs of connection? Depends on which ISP you go with, but from the looks they will not be dissimilar to current phone connection costs … I would think that many will ISP’s will absorb the costs by utilising 12 and 24 month contracts also. As for pricing and plans – you need to investigate a little more.


        Prices comparable to ADSL2+ now …

        As for trends … can you please provide a link to back up your statements please. Otherwise you are just pushing rumor and innuendo just like Turnbull and the CBA crowd

        • Again you miss the point. There is a cost per month with the NBN will charge! just for the government to pay the interest on THEIR loan and no other costs which the NBN will have (which I have listed) that must be $40. This is currently NOT charged by the NBN co so comparing current NBN plans is pointless

          • I missed the point because you could not explain it any better?

            Ok then …

            So you are now talking about line rental. You pay it now? You pay it then. What’s your point??

            Oh and please provide a link that says it will be $40 for said line rental. We pay 29 per month line rental now. Unless you provide something to prove that it will not be the same then I am going to go with that figure as being the one we will still have to pay.

          • you just had to look up in the comment you replied to but anyway I’ll quote it.

            lets take the $27billion which is what the government believes the network will cost them (not total just them) currently the government has no money. so this needs to be borrowed lets assume 7% because that’s what you do with an investment. $1.89 billion per annum. There are around 8 million houses. which means $236.25 per annum per household. Lets assume a 50% take up because Many people don’t have land lines now and it will only get worse. $472.50. That’s $40 per month. Remember this doesn’t include the loan the NBN is taking out, any Return on investment and any employee costs. By the way that is just to get the fibre we haven’t even lit the fibre or given it access to the internet…

          • @Chris, how many homes don’t have landlines now? There wouldn’t be more than a few thousand dwellings in the whole vast country without copper in place. Talk about a red herring! Where did you learn debating?

          • Doesn’t mean they use them… are you saying even if not connected people should pay for the fibre? I was point to the fact people don’t USE and therefore pay for the fixed line.

          • If the value provided by fibre is better, it is more likely more people will actually use their fibre connection.

          • Chris.. actually; no. afaik theres at least one fund the government can use to pay down some of the NBN cost straight up, say 6bn to start with for arguments sake. the NBN will also be a rolling investment, and in contrast to your suggestion, you *dont* take out the whole of the (you suggested 27bn) loan for it at once, you pay down work as its done. additionally the areas that have been done will kick in their revenue to pay down the build. so theres a bit more to consider than a straight division of the 27bn figure by households to derive a loan cost figure. FWIW i think the implementation study suggests year four is where the total incomings and outgoings cross over, with a peak govt cost of 18 bn sunk at any one time.

            i dont recall if that was pre or post heads of agreement, but if that deal comes to fruition and is fully signed by end of year as Thodey and Conroy hope, that math might change a little more again. and even then its too simplistic, its only an indicator and not any kind of useful data, the real figures could be anywhere, im not privy to anything at all im afraid to say….but im fairly sure assuming the govt doesnt have any coppers up its sleeves is being far too trusting of governments. the contingencies fund being a good example….

          • Data is between 25% and 1000% cheaper on the mainland compared to Tasmania depending in who you go with, even when NBNco start charging wholesale it won’t make a lick of difference.

            And your kidding yourself if you think iiNet/Node didnt factor this in already.

        • There is a “cost of connection” that no one seems to be talking about.

          Today, your telephone line probably enters your house via an aerial line from a power pole to the barge board. Internal house wiring takes that connection to a convenient point where your phone is located. Depending on the age of your house, that wiring was probably installed decades ago by the PMG or if your house is newer, the electrician cabled up your phone while the house was at the frame stage. When you bought your ADSL modem, you probably unplugged the phone, plugged in the modem and splitter, and reconnected the phone. If that phone point was in the study, your PC would have connected in nicely.If the phone was in the kitchen, you would probably have splashed out a little more for a WiFi router to connect the computer. One nice thing about ADSL that is often overlooked is that it works over simple 2- or 4-wire phone cables found in the internal wiring of a house.

          Now comes NBN. The copper is cut at the barge board and an optical fibre is run to where the old copper cable used to be. They are not going to run the fibre through your house to the kitchen at the back where the phone line ran. The ONT goes where the connection is – at the front of your house. Depending on your floorplan, that could be your garage, your master bedroom, the lounge, or if you are lucky, the study where the computer is. Fine, we can all probably find a nice convenient place inside to put the ONT (I understand NBN Co are not using external ONTs). But is there a power point nearby? If you are lucky there will be but if not, it means either a long extension lead or a visit by the electrician. One advantage is that the old telephone house wiring will be near the optical fibre entry point, so the sparky can probably reroute the internal house phone wiring to the ONT, solder on a RJ-11 plug and connect it in the ONT’s phone port. Your phone is now working (subject to having a service with a phone company, of course).

          Now you have a problem. Your WiFi modem is in the kitchen, but your broadband service is now terminated in one corner of the house (say, the garage). Will your WiFi signal reach throughout your home from the garage? If you are lucky it will and you can relocate the WiFi router to the garage, but if not, you will have to get a Cat-5/6 cable run from your garage to the kitchen or study. If you live in a two storey house with a concrete floor, you will have real problems. If you don’t live in a brick veneer house and have a convenient spot for the WiFi router on an external wall where there is a gap all the way from the ceiling to the floor, your problems will be even greater. You could use a second WiFi access point to repeat the signal from the garage throughout the house, but if everyone in your area starts installing lots of WiFi devices, the 2.4GHz radio spectrum is going to get pretty congested pretty fast. Whatever range you had will shrink in what will be little more than a RFscreaming match. Some WiFi routers operate at 5.8GHz, but that band will get congested too.

          If you live in a rented property, who is going to organise and pay for all of this work? Does the landlord care that you want 100MB/s broadband but can’t have it because he won’t pay for the rewiring? Would the tenant want to pay for a property improvement on someone else’s house? If the landlord does organise the rewiring, wont he just bump up the rent to cover the cost?

          Some in this forum will be able to do the wiring themselves, but for most people, they will need to hire a contractor. Initially, there will be a surge in demand but only the existing supply of licenced contractors. We all know what happens to prices when demand greatly exceeds supply. Then, when there is money to be had, we all know what happens next…need I mention the home insulation scams and roof fires?

          • You are wrong.

            The NBNco ONT’s have a DSLAM emulation port, if you want, they can rip your copper out of the ground and connect it to the ONT, wala, DSL2+ like the exchange is in your front yard, 25Mbit/s+

            $0 cost…

          • Which would be part of the setup cost when you sign up to an NBN connection with your ISP, or factored in across the life of the contract.

            You are right that there is no “ADSL emulation port”. All interfaces on the ONT are ethernet handoffs.

          • So you are telling me RSP’s will rewire your whole house so you are able to use the ONT? I find that hard to believe. At best they will put a cable into w/e your study area is and the user will use wireless, but you won’t be getting 100mbits through wireless (typically it will deliver speeds around 25-30mbits).

            This means that most people will have to pay a premium in order to use that 100mbits speed with the government is boasting about so much, or the RSP’s will have to pay for it

          • I’m not lying.

            Look here:

            Quote below:
            However, the ONT has been made specifically for the Australian market, providing four Gigabit Ethernet ports, two telephony ports and a single ADSL2+ simulation connection… that’s right – ADSL2+.

            The connection doesn’t actually use ADSL2+ technology, but rather delivers a data connection over the copper-based wiring that continues to lurk in Australian homes. That allows NBN Co to install ONTs on the front of the house and use the existing internal wiring, while also affording customers the ability to connect to the NBN through their existing ADSL2+ modem gateways without having to purchase additional equipment. It also allows Internet service providers to continue flogging existing ADSL2+ hardware, as iiNet has done with its BoB ADSL2+ wireless modem router to NBN customers in Tasmania.

            The two telephony connections will also mean customers won’t have to worry about purchasing analogue telephone adapters (ATA) normally required to use their standard telephones with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).

          • I don’t have a reply button on your post below for some reason Chris, the 25Mbps entry level speed will be no probs over it.

            Higher depends on what tech they use.

          • Please explain to me how the hell the NBN will offer ADSL2+ via a PON (passive optical node splitter – copper to fiber would need some active electronics which won’t exist in the proposed passive nodes of the current NBN).

            Yes this whole blind faith that “FTTH is best for us all” is a shonk.

            FTTH is far too expensive when public transport links need to built (after all they did promise them last election) and hospital waiting lists continue grow (they promised to fix that). It’s an expensive, high risk form of boadband. When the gubmint is presented with the economic realities of its FTTH rollout it will of course, default back to an FTTN rollout like those well established in Europe and the USA.

            We may as well short cut the whole expensive $43 billion debacle and go direct to FTTN and get high speed (50mpbs) in 12-18 months with significantly more ROI that it can be privately funded instead of waiting many, many years for 100mpbs. And then only connecting to some who are lucky enough to live in marginal seats or regional areas prior to the whole FTTH program being cut back to a FTTN program due to enormous cost blow outs and snail paced rollout.

            Remember there’s a good 2-3 elections prior to the full FTTH NBN rollout… plenty of chance for pork barreling and more redirection of NBN focus for political gain… don’t believe me that this will happen? Well it ALREADY HAS! Cast your mind back to August when Oakeshott and Windsor caused a refocus of NBN funding to the regions – all for JG’s political gain – i.e. the role of Prime Spinister.

            You’d have to be smoking some very strange grass to think you’re getting broadband via FTTH anytime soon if you don’t live in a regional, marginal or independently held electorate.

          • How is this any different to getting Foxtel out to install cable? Foxtel don’t even have any competition (except from free-to-air) and they often waive the installation fee for connecting up your Foxtel cable. . They’ve got to run a new cable from the street to wherever your TV is. Right this minute they even have a deal where they’ll install a second box (and hence second piece of cable) for free!

          • It will be just like Foxtel – they charge for installation. I have Foxtel and am familiar with how the cabling is done. When it was connected to my old house, the could not run the cables within the walls, so I had ugly conduits on the external face of the front of the house. It didn’t worry me too much as a few years later I demolished the house and rebuilt. When the house was at the frame stage, I downloaded the Foxtel specs and ran a coax cable from the point where the Foxtel cable connects on the house to where the TV would be. Two weeks ago, I decided to run a Cat-6 cable to the same point. I couldn’t. It was on an internal wall on the ground floor of a two storey house built on a concrete slab. I could get the cable to the external wall near where I wanted it, but I had to put a separate plate to terminate the cable.

            The difference between Foxtel and the NBN is that you have a choice to connect to Foxtel and you with Foxtel, you not being forced to pay an installation fee just to retain a service you already have. With the NBN, if you have a broadband service today that you want to retain after NBN is connected, you will have to address the wiring issues in your home, and that will cost.

          • Speaking as a landlord, I’d want to make my property as well equipped to provide good service to future tenants. It just makes good commercial sense. Contrary to popular belief, we want happy tenants.

            My spies in conveyancing tell me they don’t routinely enquire about internet connectivity now which I find amazing. I think they will in eight years’ time.

      • If you think OzEmail was a forward-thinking ISP then you should be the last person commenting on the NBN. OzEmail was Australia’s AOL. It was an ISP that relied predominantly on dialup access, and when broadband began to take off it couldn’t adapt and simply floated into oblivion until it was gobbled up.

        OzEmail’s services were the horse-and-carriage of Internet access and the NBN is the airplane. To think of it, Turnbull would now seem perfectly suited to be assigned as the “NBN” debunker, together with his horse-and-carriage experience and attitude!

  4. Chris, there is a vast difference between a dial up provider and an ADSL/Fibre provider.

    Knowing about one doesnt provide you the knowledge to judge the other.

    Try running a fibre connection off livingstone port masters. Won’t work will it. Its a different technology.

    When Turnbull has had some time in the fibre trenches, and stops spouting out pointless negative rhetoric, then im sure people will pay more attention to what he says. At this moment its quite obvious he’s just talking up the Opposition for Opposition’s sakes agenda.

    • Paul,

      You are right Dial up is different on a technology front but why to you assume he has no knowledge of Fibre infrastructure? As a Business man he has strong networks and I would say being part of OzEmail would have opened quite a few doors with relation to tech companies and Turnbul is a knowledge based trader so I would say he would have (from an investor’s point of view) have got a very good understanding of the IT sector. Your assumption assume he did nothing after OzEmail. From what I understand he was still on the board when they were doing ADSL.

      Why is it pointless rhetoric? If it was pointless we would have a cost benefit analysis because the government would have be able to use it for planning the network and it would stop Turnbull’s “rhetoric”

      • Turnbull was a lawyer/finance type who was on the board at OZEMAIl.

        This does not make him someone who has good knowledge of the systems in place then and definitely not now … at least it goes to show why he wants a CBA for a socialistic infrastructure build … his corporat hat is still well and truly on and is looking for massive ROI for something that does not need one.

        Oh and again I will provide a link gor you to actually get your facts right.


        • at what point did he say anything about massive ROI! Your just making things up now! Lets just see whether it will break even…

          • Anythng over 14% is a fair whack of ROI and one I have seen on countless occaisions as being the benchmark for numerous companies.

            Government provided a statement of something in the relams of 6% over the lifetime of. Huge difference in returns there.

            Libs are known to be of a more corporate nature and being able to sell an asset at a premium .. thus a CBA is of benefit to them. Labor is of a more socialistic background and ROI/CBA is of little relevance.

  5. “NBN forcing people onto high priced plans” – don’t be ridiculous!! Charges are falling.
    As for the Coalition – they’r simply trying to hand on cherry picking opportunities to
    little friends in the wireless sector . Result – then we really would be left with a hodgepodge
    of crap for a broadband infrastructure

    • Companies around Australia have been investing in FTTH for years. As the business case is there this expands but LTE and a like is more then capable of see use though the next 10-15 years. The technology continues to get better and as we start to see LTE networks pushing +12Mbps in real world conditions with possibilities for +100Mbps without Government intervention (in a financial sense) why wouldn’t people quest the “investment”. Every investment our company makes always requires a devil’s advocate. It’s part of any good investment decision.

      • I actually question the Coalition “alternative” in regards to investment value.

        $6.5b to give everyone 12Mbps…okay, right now, possibly fair enough.

        What next? What happens when 12Mbps is not enough? We spend more money to make it 30Mbps? $6.5b + how much?

        What next? What happens when 30Mbps is not enough? We spend more money to make it 100Mbps? $6.5b + how much + how much again?

        You see the pattern. Will it cost a lot more than $6.5b? I think so. NBN pilot and test sites are already coming in under budget, and ahead of time.

        The fibre being laid by NBN is capable of 40Gbps, so it’s not likely to need upgrading – (like the Coalition plan) – to get faster and faster over its lifetime.

        The spectrum required for the Coalition plan is not available until 2014 when analogue television is turned off – (presuming that timetable doesn’t slip at all).

        The NBN is not a “rocket-science, smoke and mirrors” scheme. This has been done before – it is almost an exact copy of a much larger Verizon FttH project in the US. Verizon have also already been heavily consulting with NBN on the design.

        There are a lot more facts out there about the NBN and what it will be than exist for the “drawn on a napkin” Coalition solution.

        • @Michael Wyres – Verizon and AT&T have both indefinitely postponed their FTTH rollout. Not sure if that (Verizon) is the example you should be citing as the guiding beacon for the NBN…

          The ALP is telling the community that this project will generate a commercial return, and that private investment will make up the difference between the taxpayer’s $27B and “the rest” (whatever that ends up being)- will you be dipping into your own pockets and investing?

          Unfortunately as taxpayers, we have no choice to invest, but I am genuinely interested in your and other pro-NBNers answer to this question – would you tell your mum to invest your inheritance in a managed fund which relied on the NBN to turn a profit?

          If the answer is no, then the ALP’s whole premise for the NBN funding model is deeply flawed.

          Disclaimer: This product may or may not meet your expectations please seek your own independent financial advice before investing ;)

          • The initial rollout was completed.

            They have chosen not to further expand, as they don’t currently have “other areas” to viably extend into.

            You’ll remember that the NBN will only give us 93% fibre coverage, because the other 7% is not viable. The economics are no different in the US.

          • The HFC rollout was not viable in Australia either and it passed the high density population areas of biggest capital cities then it was halted fast before Telstra and SingTel bled more $$ than they already had.

            The NBN will bleed $$$ as well, but ISP’s and businesses that will gain the benefit don’t care about that, you think they give a stuff that the next three generations of taxpayers will be paying for it?

          • They had to legally commit to completing the rollout in areas where they had negotiated deals with municipalities but they’ve found the take up to be much lower than expected and so the whole dang thing has been commercially non viable. They are not seeking any more ‘deals with municipalities’ to roll out more FTTH.

            The main reason is that HFC and, in particular, FTTN technologies have much higher ROI and are providing customers with more than enough speed. Why would customers pay a premium for a Ferrari if they only ever travel on roads that go to 100km/hr – a Toyota will do that no trouble? Verizon had to pull the pin on FTTH before they went bust.

            Around the world there are examples of FTTH rollouts that have been cancelled, on hold or deferred because of financial non viability and the GFC. Greece, Italy, Spain… were all going to be rolling out FTTH by now but things have ‘cooled’ down. In Greece a private consortium have just announced they will roll out FTTN. Strange that.

        • Michael,

          I think you have confused Stephen Conroy’s sound bites about the Coalition with the facts. The previous Shadow minister had no idea so couldn’t explain the policy.

          I have talked to our local member about amendments which would improve this but the current policy is very different to what you are talking about.

          1) Fibre Backbone (enabling competitive backhaul at exchanges)
          2) 12Mbps by any means at the cheapest price

          Basically how this works is companies would bid for government money to install any technology they see fit. Some area would have a good ROI with fibre installed some would have a good ROI with wireless. It would be competition which would govern this. The government is not proposing a new NBN co. the only thing the government would own would be the fibre backhaul until they went though a bid process with that but this part of the policy could have change to be much like the last mile.

          This policy was to accelerate speed increase not to have a government sponsored network.

          If you crunch the numbers on the NBN you can come out with some very interesting numbers…

          lets take the $27billion which is what the government believes the network will cost them (not total just them) currently the government has no money. so this needs to be borrowed lets assume 7% because that’s what you do with an investment. $1.89 billion per annum. There are around 8 million houses. which means $236.25 per annum per household. Lets assume a 50% take up because Many people don’t have land lines now and it will only get worse. $472.50. That’s $40 per month. Remember this doesn’t include the loan the NBN is taking out, any Return on investment and any employee costs. By the way that is just to get the fibre we haven’t even lit the fibre or given it access to the internet….

          Just at the $40 price tag I think a lot of people will not want it.

          No one disagrees that Fibre is the BEST option if money didn’t come into it but it does and fibre is too costly and will be a chain around our leg for decades.

          • Here’s the problem you have.

            Government ROI needs to be minimal as it can be in it for the long haul. Corporate ROI needs to be greater for short term gain and profits for shareholders. Corporates will not invest in anyhting over and above (will hit capacity wait for complaints then upgrade). Government is doing it as a one off to get us to a point where capacity can build naturally of the next 40+ years.

            Stop being so short sighted.

          • Just like everyone else in this debate, you have TOTALLY miss read my points! The cost on the loan is $40 per house hold for the government part of the loan. I mentioned many other thing which increase the cost. NBN co will require an ROI because the government wants to sell them!

          • So you are complaining about $40 per household??????

            Ummm why?

            Government will retain 51%. Conjecture as to whetehr that will be sold off in the long term or not (resistence to that from some).

            ROI will goverment holding a 51% stake does not need to be high. The rest will come from th likes of those institutions holding money for Super … long term investments that bring in a stable ROI over a very long period of time.

            Stop posting wishy washy statements if you are finding it difficult to get your pointas across.

          • Matt,

            you are STILL not listening $40 is JUST for the INTEREST REPAYMENT the government needs on it’s 27 Billion. NBN co will borrow more and will also employ people! If the figure is less then $60 I will be more then surprised. I’m thinking around $80 for with NO internet connection. Sorry but granny will not pay even $40 per month so she can video chat with the family. It’s just not going to happen… Food is much more important to people then the internet and on the pension most older people can afford the basics!

          • Granny in 20 years time will be as savvy as gran kiddy. Stop being short sighted. Until you can actually provide links that say “this is the cost … oh and by the way we are adding more tio it to make up for repayments” then all you are doing is pushing innuendo and trying to pass it off as fact!

            Right now pensioners etc can get part or most of the line rental waived due to the lack of money that they are able to get in.


            Why would it be any different in the future?????

          • The calcualtions are here This is the second requote!!!

            lets take the $27billion which is what the government believes the network will cost them (not total just them) currently the government has no money. so this needs to be borrowed lets assume 7% because that’s what you do with an investment. $1.89 billion per annum. There are around 8 million houses. which means $236.25 per annum per household. Lets assume a 50% take up because Many people don’t have land lines now and it will only get worse. $472.50. That’s $40 per month. Remember this doesn’t include the loan the NBN is taking out, any Return on investment and any employee costs. By the way that is just to get the fibre we haven’t even lit the fibre or given it access to the internet…

            if maths is easy assuming 7% interest and 50% uptake in 8 million homes
            $27,000,000 * 7%/annum / 8,000,000 / .5=
            $1,890,000,000/annum /8,000,000 / .5 =
            $236.25 /.5
            $472.5 per annum or $39.375 per month

            I don’t really know how to make it any clearer! The 27 billion is from the LABOR figures
            7% is the figure you always use for assuming interest rates
            and 50% is the only figure I had to massage but do what you want there. and remember this is the Labor COSTs per annum and nothing to do with the loan repayments or the debit the NBN will raise or the employee costs or the cost to power the network.

          • Many of my points show actual mathematical calculations. Not one person has refuted them but instead steps around them and miss quotes something else. Someone will need to pay the cost the interest on loan and minimum need to be repaid! and there are so many other costs. We need this ALL on the table so people can REALLY see what the NBN will cost! That’s what a Cost Benefit Analyse does. You can still make your own decision based on the information but at least it’s out there. ROI is a figure which of course can be changed if they believe it does not require a commercial rate of return

          • So as people are connected to the NBN, and their ISP start paying the wholesale fees to NBN to access the network for those customers, that money, what, disappears somewhere?

          • Where are the calcs? You have not shown anything yet. No links, no methods, nothing!

            No one steps around them – you do not make yourself clear. Case inpoint: You talked of 40 dollars per household. Questioned on that you then said it was a loan figure. You added more costs to it (up to 80 I think you got) and then Granny couldnt pay … you keep changing your own non defined goal posts.

            How have infra costs been paid for in the past? A road would be difficult to gain anythign back from. The intial copper outlay would have been the same. The costs of access will include these figures and subsidies will be provided as they are now for those who need them. To suggest $80 is ludicrous until you can actually show this to be fact.

            Scaremongering really does not work anymore.

          • @ Chris – you replied to the wrong post.


            Calcs are heresay still even from Labor – take into account that both Telstra and Optus (in the news today) are looking to transfer infra to NBN then the costs keep getting lower. Add in the fact that the Tas Pilot was 10% under budget and your figures begin to change.

            Link it all up and provide facts. Assumptions and approximations do not help you case whatsoever and provide your own unproven calcs to something that requires more than one persons on ideas to become fact.

            You cant make it any clearer??? Then you are struggling like Turnbull. When NBN Co state the set prices for access and ISPs put forward all their plans and Telstra and Optus give details of what they are handing over and for how much then you will be able to apply your maths to the arguments here.

            Until then … LOL

          • What allowance are you making in your calculations for
            business, industrial and institutional users and the
            contribution(s) they should make to the equation???

          • Chas,

            It’s a simply avg calculation but currently connection are charged at the same rate whether Business or Residential (the service is what adds the cost)


            had to reply here since we are replied out in your thread.
            So you are saying that the cut from 43 billion to 27 billion could be lower. come on. This is the closest to a realistic figure anyone can come up with. Just because you don’t like it it’s wrong? Show where and why you would change it.

          • Sorry miss understood the question. I know what you mean and I will have a look. It’s finding the figures which is hard. You would have thought it would be easy to find! if anyone knows the number of premises in Australia that would be good…

          • “Not one person has refuted it”
            try one of your earlier attempts to explain it, i have answered there.

          • More fiber to exchanges won’t change a thing.

            1) Telstra will still charge up to $150 for ULL in non metro areas.
            2) Most exchanges already have Optus Nextgen and Telstra backhaul to one, many more have PIPE, Amcom and others.
            3) If you sync at 1Mbit, your not going to get more than 1Mbit regardless of if there is 100Gbit or 100000000000000000000000000Gbit backhaul out of the exchange.

            FTTH is the only way we will get a upgrade.

          • every heard of range extenders? They are quite cheap (install costs would be quite low and the user could pay directly for them. It’s a win win. I know I would pay a few hundred to get good adsl. Would you?

          • Nice way to massively increase the maintenance costs! 8 million premises…that’s a lot of range extenders. I’m also sure that if that was a good idea, it would have been done long before now.

          • not all or most need range extenders. If you went with the 12Mbps figure you would cover around 85% of people without one. They are a set and forget item. Lets face it Telstra don’t do maintenance at the moment so why would they on this item?

          • Range extenders require A/C power.

            So we are going to dig up every phone line in the country, at a similar cost to FTTH with far worse performance, to run electricity alongside the copper cables??

            Gives a reason to ‘dial before you dig’ I guess….

          • @ Chris

            You keep talking about 50% market penetration for land lines. Is that because copper in C21 does not do what people want to do with their fixed connection in C21? Other posts have mentioned the existing explosive growth in ADSL data downloads and that Is WITH the current handicaps. What will happen when the brakes are released and when new uses come on line?

        • “The fibre being laid by NBN is capable of 40Gbps, so it’s not likely to need upgrading – (like the Coalition plan) – to get faster and faster over its lifetime.”

          Of course, that 40Gbps cable is shared and services 32 premises, hence the ‘we can increase the speed up to 1Gbps’ claim before the election.

          Optical fibre technology has been changing rapidly, as has the electronics sitting at each end. The one thing that is certain is that the technology lifecycle today is a lot shorter than when the coppper rolled out. Whatever is rolled out today will need to be replaced in a relatively short timeframe. Sure, the fibre itself will last a little longer, but it too will be rendered obsolete in the near future by technically superior and cheaper alternative. It is a bit like buying a PC. There is no benefit in buying well in advance because if you wait until you actually need to updrade, there will be newer models that will be better than what you have at a lower price.

          I am not saying that we should not roll out any optical fibre now, we should just to it as required. The taxpayer will benefit by waiting as the technology will get cheaper and the end user will benefit because the technology will get better. Like many people, I have an ADSL service that is adequate for my needs. If it is not adequate, Optus have a HFC cable that runs past my property that can give me up to 75Mbps. If that is not adequate, Telstra has a HFC cable that can give me up to 100Mbps. Should the taxpayer (of which I am one) really be expected to pay for the overbuild of a fourth broadband service past my house? I know there are many who are in the same position as me. There are 1.6 million households with access to both HFC networks, and a further 800K with just Telstra’s HFC network. This is out of a total of 10 million in the country, so it does represent a fair percentage. There are also a lot of people who are not so fortunate and who probably just want broadband – any broadband. This is where the focus should be. The time and money spent giving me access to my fourth broadband network would be better spent giving others access to their first.

  6. Hehehe, I love how anyone who disagrees with anything to do with the NBN is instantly an idiot or douchebag!
    Investing huge sums of money into “nation building” without any thought for cost/benefit and what might happen if there is a downturn in the economy or commodity prices is not without precedent.
    The infamous Railways Construction Act of 1884 demonstrates that “build it and they will come” is a very risky proposition, especially when it is being bankrolled via commodities (wool at the time) and foreign investment (London and Paris back then).
    If you substitute iron ore for wool, and China for Paris/London, one may see many parallels to the present…
    P.S. I’ll beat the first NBN fanatic to it – I’m a stupid douchebag!

    • Yep, add me to the list of doucebags. Spending $43 billion on something that the private sector should be doing and does already is plain stupid. Why should i be forced to invest in technology so that some private companies can sell it back to me?

      What we have today is good enough for most things; unless you’re browsing pr0n in HD or leeching torrents, there’s no real need for such fantastic speed. Besides, what happens to our existing connetions overseas? Will they need to be upgraded by the taxpayer when they become a bottleneck?

      • $43bn is only 1/7 what the government makes a year, considering the NBN is a 10yr project that becomes 0.175% of the budget.

        For something that reaches 100% of the population?

        Get real, why is anyone questioning this?

        • Also your delusional if you think what we have now is good, seriously.

          Look at this thread for example at Whirlpool:

          Those guys pay top dollar for a service that is worse than dialup, they live in Brisbane metro area…

          They get crap speeds due to Telstra cheaping out and installing what is called a RIM.

          These are isolated cases right? WRONG! There are 1.2 MILLION of these little shits in Australia.

          What we have now is pathetic… There is still 200,000 BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT customers on Dialup.

          • Ow yes, of course, it’s cheap! In fact, lets give them $100bn to burn, why the hell not?

            And as for those poor sods in unfortunate areas (i’m in a not so good area myself where telstra is the only option for adsl), there are alternatives. Even if there weren’t, why should i have to fork out for these people? Why am i forced to pay? Don’t I have a say in the matter?

          • I don’t get a say in where my tax dollars go, and most of the time it gets spent on crap that doesent effect me on a regular basis.

            NBN is 1% of the budget, for something that will cover every person in the country….

            I don’t see how anyone can argue it’s not a good investment.

          • Well how about they give us our money back instead? We don’t need any of this crap that they provide; they never do a good job of it anyway (like you said: crap).

            And if you think it’s cheap, just think of the money the government is going to have to borrow to fund this potential disaster – that money will have to come from somewhere and will crowd out and drive up interest rates; stuff will just get more expensive.

          • Why would they do that? Taxes have been here for ever and a day. They are never gonig to go away. Premise is to pay for services for the betterment of many (nation, state, city, suburb). What crap and what are they not doing a good job of?

            Interest rates are under pressure now and have nothing to do with infrastructure projects. The money is in the budget (which comes from the revenue (mining boom anyone) and is a stable % of GDP). If it was not being spent on the NBN then it would be spent on other infrastructure projects … it would not make a lick of difference to you at all (as you would not see any benefit apart from a road running past your area perhaps.

            The rates right now have to do with the population’s spending habits and our own use of debt. Housing is putting massive pressure on the rates now (it is also why the dollar is near parity with the US).

            Please stick to stuff you know … which is nothing that I have read so far.

          • So basically what you’re telling me, Matt, is that when the government borrows money (i.e.: deficit spending), it does nothing to interest rates? Owkey…

            “Why would they do that?”

            Indeed – why would they do that? When you have John Q Taxpayer spending 40% of his time working for the government, why would they give that up?

            “Premise is to pay for services for the betterment of many” – Ha! More like to tax us to death so that they may spend it on things that they like whilst throwing us a bone every now and again.

            “The rates right now have to do with the population’s spending habits and our own use of debt” And, of course, government deficits have nothing to do with interest rates going up now, do they?

          • What money are they “borrowing” Frank??

            They may raise extra captial through issuing of bonds which then provide a low yeilding long term investment opportunity to those who take it up, but the rest is coming from th revenue streams already in place.

            If you have issues with the overall Tax system in place then that is another story and I agree with you there. The Henry Tax review should have been brought in for more scrutiny and I believe wholeheartedly that reform is needed urgently there, but Frank, that has nothing to do with the spend on the NBN. The taxes would still be used on a mutlitude of other services and you would still be griping over having to pay.

            Governmetn deficit s ahve to do with spending over what is in the budget. If they are saying there is a ROI (approx 6%) then that is including repayments. Out of pocket? No.

          • “What money are they “borrowing” Frank??”

            Oh, so the Labor government isn’t borrowing money to spend? Well, obviously i was mistaken then!

          • The funny thing is, is that you berate Telstra for using RIMs at their exchanges, yet the NBN will eventually be sold of to become Telstra 2.0 – another government created monopoly.

          • It wont.

            Telstra = Retail + Wholesale (conflict of interests)
            NBNco = Wholesale only (no conflict of interests)

          • Huh!? What’s that got to do with what i said?

            The government intends to sell the NBN, that is a fact. They’ll potentially create another monopoly (i.e.: Telstra 2.0)

          • A monopoly isnt necesarrily bad.

            A monopoly with conflict of interest is bad.

            Whenif NBNco gets sold, only 49% of it will be sold, the rest will stay in government hands, and I’m certain everyone would force them to sign a agreement saying they won’t jump into retail also.

          • A coercive government monopoly is always bad. They’re extorting funds from us (which is what they always do) to kill off any competitors and maintain a huge barrier of entry into the wholesale market. Because they’re doing this, there is very little chance you’ll see a competitor enter the wholesale market again and when they sell off the nbn, this will remain the case. The government is simply propping up another behemoth (Telstra Take 2 – even if they don’t allow retail) that’ll be difficult to compete against in the future, and why would you want to? Who in their right mind would invest in infrastructure in this country, when the government is just going to cheat and get the funds anyway?

    • And looking at an infrastructure project by just a CBA is as stupid as that also.

      Intangibles here are massive … especially provisioning for future requirements which a cobbled together network as we have now (aging copper, wireless and satellite) will not be able to cope with.

      Stop the rot on saying a CBA is needed here. It is not. “If” there were other forms that were able to adequately quantify future benefits then that would be handy … but for anyone who has had to deal with any form of CBA now you know that it is skewed for high percentage returns (be it savings or revenue). That is a corporate model – not a government one where an ROI is not as important as the benefits gained for a general populous.

  7. I want to know where Malcom Turnbull’s cost benefit analysis is to upgrade and maintain the copper network and the various exchanges which can’t give Band Aid ADSL services. Oh he doesn’t have one.

    People He is a CONSERVATIVE. He wants to keep the old Dinosaur working or should I say limping along.

    What we are talking about is Data Transmission at High Speeds. And not band Aids on a Voice network.

    I don’t care about the politics of it. Its a Great idea.

    See the prices come down and the offerrings go up. Optus are a case in Point. People must be flocking on board because my speed is dropping all the time and it never got over 1Mbps on the cable anyway.

    There is a lot of money in the Optus and Telstra networks. They are way out of date and Australia deserves a lot better.

    Telstra went wireless because it is cheaper to install a Wireless service than it is to install a land line. And don’t they charge for that.

    Consequently they haven’t concentrated on upgrading either exchanges or lines in the interim. These people have cash cows and don’t want to lose them. They have to come on board or they will be Toast.

    The cost of the first Telegraph line between Baltimore and Washington in 1844 was US$30,000. For one line.

    That is the equivalent of US 30,000 today is (Average Value) 677,000, pounds or AU$986,000 and that is only for a distance of 40 miles. That was 166 years ago. The later lines installed could transmit at a speed of 50 words per minute.

    In 1980 I bought my first computer, an Apple IIe which cost a lot and could do little. I remember the questio asked always. “What will you be able to do with computers?” I think the answer 30 years later doesn’t really need to be answered. The same question is being asked of the Broadband network. And all you need to do is do it and it will change our lives (just like the computer did 30 years ago).

    Do we really want to live in a “Telegraphic world” or move with the times. We need to catch up with the computer age and all the unknown benefits it will bring to us.

    What the existing Telcos are afraid of is that the technology will make them redundant (look at Skype) free overseas calls and with Video.

    Bring it on I’m excited.

    Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull off to the Museum where you belong. When you get there we will lazer write your story and have a Multimedia presentation, which will be available on the broadband network.

    • “In 1980 I bought my first computer, an Apple IIe which cost a lot and could do little. I remember the questio asked always. “What will you be able to do with computers?” I think the answer 30 years later doesn’t really need to be answered. The same question is being asked of the Broadband network. And all you need to do is do it and it will change our lives (just like the computer did 30 years ago).”

      So perhaps the government should invest in designing computer hardware ’cause Intel/AMD/nVidia/etc aren’t doing a good enough job?

      The thing is, Vince, is that Apple invested the time and money to produce that technology and wore all the risks associated with that investment. The key difference is that us as taxpayers are bearing that risk. Another difference is that Apple is the one who’s making a profit here; with the NBN, private companies are the ones who are making profits.

      I don’t think telcos are any more afraid of Skype than they were 10 or 15 years ago. Skype has been around for a long time. CUSeeMe was one of the first (or maybe the first?) and that’s been around since the early 90s. Skype and the like won’t take over the world with an NBN any faster than what it does today.

  8. This is hilarious. Do you know who was the SINGLE BIGGEST PROPONENT of an opt out model here in Tas? Not the Premier, it was the Liberal member for Bass and former Federal colleague of Turnbull, Michael Ferguson!

    That’s right, the state Liberals are the ones who were pushing the hardest for an opt-out model of roll out! Not only that, he positively CROWED ABOUT IT on his website! http://michaelferguson.com/2010/07/nbn-for-the-record/

    For the record, opt-out was neither his, nor Labor’s idea first, Digital Tasmania has been advocating it since the roll-out started here.

    • Warren,

      Yep you are correct and you know it should have been opt-out. and I think even Turnbull agrees with the principle. What you need to understand is the NBN co use this data as uptake. So there data will be even more misleading then it currently is. Maybe as part of this change they should be required to supply a lit connection figure. So we no the TRUE uptake

  9. If Tasmanian customers are slow to take up the NBN, does it say something about the decision to favour the regional areas? I have Telstra and Optus HFC at the door and went ADSL years ago for a better, cheaper service.

    Wouldn’t it be great if everyone could sign up in advance to show how much interest there is in the more technically literate parts of the country? But could NBN handle the flow of applications?

    Turnbull is also saying people will have to have their houses re-wired. With wireless routers and cordless phones, he must know this is WRONG. He would be better off educating his parliamentary colleagues on these issues rather than committing political suicide at Tony’s invitation and spreading FUD in the nation.

    • Richard,

      I’m not planning on connecting my phone outside the house….

      but you are right I think the install cost is quite inflated and it needs to be a little more realistic. But then again maybe the government should re wire everyones house for free! It will only be another $20-30 billion think of all the amazing things you could do.

      • You can use the existing copper to connect to the ONT for free ffs… this has been told so many times, why do people continue listening to the illiterate Abbot’s claims??

  10. Probably not much of previous comments matter.
    The NBN will develop a life of its own.
    When the Conservatives again regain power
    they will just flogg it off to Telstra or a reincarnation of Telstra.
    ” life gets tedious don’t it “

  11. Frank,

    You have of course left out my major point about Turnbull and his cost benefit analysis for upgrading the existing “out of date ” technology so that their Policy works.

    Also the NBN are not inventing the network either. It has already been invented.

    I am a believer that it is Governments responsibility to provide some Nation Building things. And this is one of them. I am not bearing the risk and it is my choice whether or not I decide to buy the thing.
    Just like i decide not to buy the computer toys that are manufactured now.

    “So perhaps the government should invest in designing computer hardware ’cause Intel/AMD/nVidia/etc aren’t doing a good enough job?”

    One could also mount the Argument that the Government shold not spend Billions of dollars on Defence, especially Helicopters that don’t work and Abrahms Tanks that are second Hand.

    Or what about an illegal war in Iraq. How much did all of that cost.?

    Governments always try to tell people what to do. Sometimes its for good and sometimes its for bad.

    At least an NBN wont get anyone killed

    If you are trying to verbal me you havent even come close.

    At least those companies go ahead and continually invest in new products. They don’t sit around trying to wreck and critisize. If you do that nothing happens. If you hoard surpluses and tell everyone how good you are for 11.5 years nothing happens.

    Guess what Frank. Something is Happening. And its good.

    I think the Networks are not just frightened of Skype or any other piece of Application software. They are frightened that thier reason for existing will be taken away. Once fibre is at the home it will just replace the PSTN. But if you just have a set against an investment in new ideas then I pity you and all the other people who just follow the Abbott line.

    When I worked in the Industry someone said that Telstra was a Rapacious Hungry Beast and they were right.

    They have been ripping us off for years as have Optus and Microsoft. And a lot of other software companies.

    And now for some reality.

    My computer guy has a sister who lives in a town which is in Part of the old country of Chezechoslovakia.

    She has Fast Broad band which is 60 Mytes per second for AUD$35 per month with no download limits.

    That was a third world country until 1990. In the last 20 years they have emerged into the 21st century.

    The only reason her system is not faster is that they already had cable reticulated into their building. The Optic fibre comes in to the building and then is joined with their cable network.

    Thats what the Telcos are frightened of Frank. Getting found out. for the poor expensive service
    they are providing.

    • “You have of course left out my major point about Turnbull and his cost benefit analysis for upgrading the existing “out of date ” technology so that their Policy works.”

      That’s because i have no interest in addressing it. To me, whatever he says is bulltish anyway – i don’t care for either Labor or Liberal’s policies on broadband.

      “Also the NBN are not inventing the network either. It has already been invented.”


      “I am a believer that it is Governments responsibility to provide some Nation Building things”

      Sure, have at it – any chance for me to opt out? Nope, i’m a tax payer – i have no choice in the matter.

      “I am not bearing the risk and it is my choice whether or not I decide to buy the thing.”

      That’s a rather skewed way of thinking. You’re forced to pay for it whether you access the NBN or not. Those of which get by just fine using ADSL1 and have no use for higher speed broadband are getting a raw deal – they’ll pay whatever their share is, and have no benifit. Where’s the choice in that? I’m fine on ADSL1 – i have no need for NBN, why do i need to cough up for it if i’m not going to use it?

      “One could also mount the Argument that the Government shold not spend Billions of dollars on Defence, especially Helicopters that don’t work and Abrahms Tanks that are second Hand.”

      All i’ll say is that It is the government’s responsibility to protect individual rights. If they screw up, then they need to be held accountable.

      “Or what about an illegal war in Iraq. How much did all of that cost.?

      Governments always try to tell people what to do. Sometimes its for good and sometimes its for bad.

      That’s a discussion for another day – again, if you believe that the war was wrong, they need to be held accountable.

      “I think the Networks are not just frightened of Skype or any other piece of Application software. They are frightened that thier reason for existing will be taken away. ”

      Businesses are always “frightened” of competition, that’s the beauty of competition. It ensures the free market is kept in check.

      “When I worked in the Industry someone said that Telstra was a Rapacious Hungry Beast and they were right.”

      Ok, so you think it’s ok to create Telstra 2.0? The government have already stated that they want to sell off the NBN eventually. You think creating another monstrosity of a monopoly is a good thing?

      “They have been ripping us off for years as have Optus and Microsoft. And a lot of other software companies.”

      What a moronic point of view. If you don’t like Optus and Microsoft’s offerings, don’t buy. Who goes and purchases a product knowing that they’re being ripped off (especially when there are alternatives) and then complains about it afterwards? By the same token, do you like being ripped off by the government? Because that’s exactly what happens time and time again when they go on a crusade like this. The difference is, Vince, is that YOU HAVE NO CHOICE – YOU HAVE TO PAY.

      “She has Fast Broad band which is 60 Mytes per second for AUD$35 per month with no download limits.”

      Well i’m sure she’ll be happy to leech HD movie torrents at such phenomenal speed, but how is this relevant? Who cares what the rest of the world’s doing. We don’t need to be forced to purchase a purple stick just because someone else has a purple stick.

      Next time press the reply button so i can receive a notification that you replied. Otherwise it seems to me that you’re just trying to avoid getting a response from me.

  12. Guys it is really very very simple.

    The NBN represents what the Copper line to house represented all those years ago.

    Imagine if houses and business had the option to Opt Out of getting a copper line to the premisses … we would be called them absurd, short sighted. When we move into a house or business we expect a copper line to be available, it’s a service like water , gas etc.

    The NBN is the replacement for the copper to house … it should be required as it will be a country wide service that each premisses will then decide what services they want on their fibre, phone, tv, internet and things we most likely have not even thought of.

    Gas, water, Power, NBN it’s just a service conduit.

    Anyone who cant see that is being short sighted , it is not just about an internet connection but a service connection over which traditional internet is just one service provided.

    • The bottom line to this entire “opt-in”/”opt-out” debate has been completely missed here so far.

      This is not about forcing people to pay for services on the NBN. This is about a fibre line being taken from the street to the premises and TERMINATED on/in the building. Nothing about using it.

      At such time that the copper network is decommissioned in a particular area, it is true that people who wish to maintain a fixed-line service will need to have their service transferred onto the fibre – but what happens if the fibre isn’t there on the house. Someone will have to come out – (and be paid for the privilege) – to run the drop from the street to the house, before the actual service can be moved onto it.

      Can you imagine the backlog of work when, say, a 6-month deadline is imposed, and thousands of people have no fibre drops? Come the 6-months, you would end up with people with no copper OR fibre.

      Ever heard of the Universal Service Obligation?

      If the majority of premises have the drops installed during the street rollout – (which is what this “opt-in/opt-out” concept is all about) – you can have services provisioned on the fibre from DAY ONE. No delay, no piss-farting around doing line qualifications and sync-tests. Connected up, over the phone, or even on-line.

      This is what this is about – not some pissing contest about the costs and the philosophical and political debates!

    • Agree.

      Who would opt out of a free electricity connection?
      Who would opt out of a free TV antenna?
      Who would opt out of a free satelite dish?
      Who would opt out of a free connection to the road network?
      Who would opt out of a free water connection?
      Who would opt out of a free septic connection?

      Why is a free broadband connection being treated the same way? Anyone who opts out of it clearly is clueless, you are not forced to use it, why not get it anyway? As others said, it will instantly add over 10,000 value to your house.

      Do you know how many young people have ‘Check distance from exchange’ ontop of their checklist for renting a house these days??? LOADS…

      • It’s NOT free, it will cost up to $43 billion, has anyone asked the taxpayers who are totally satisfied with wireless for all of their communication needs and they have access to ADSL2+ and HFC cable today if they mind paying for FTTH to pass their door and that they will not use?

        • Nothing ever is.

          It will cost approx $27 billion over nearly 10 years. Rest made up from private funding, not to mention the cash flow that will come in as more people take it up.

          Have you asked? I am totally unsatisfied with wireless. I cannot get ADSL let alone ADSL2+ I am living in RIM central and there is nothign available. There has been no upgrades in over two years in my area (as long as I have been there) … so there was ample opportunity for the likes of Telstra or Optus or whoever to do this and NO ONE did. More houses go up around me everyday and the lack of ports is unbelievable. Not to mention the contention on wirless (both Telstra and Optus) which has slowed me down to near dial up speeds msot of the day. This is not a one off occurence. Look at the problems msot outer suburban peeps face in any state (go look at Whirlpool and actually see what people are screaming about).

          So I do not mind paying for FTTH … seeing as the services it will provide and the costs being bandied about STILL make it cheaper than what I could only possibly hope for now (+plus other services FOXTEL etc).

          People post so much FUD about the NBN without actually looking at the why because of a silo driven mentality and a lack of understanding (read ignorance) to the problems many people face in regards to communication services now.

        • Stop being so self centered, I pay for shit I don’t use in taxes all the time.


          • Yeah how dare I be so selfish to decide how my productive labour is spent. Perhaps I need to be more altruistic and be a 40% slave to a government that takes without consideration for what I want. They have no morals and neither do you as it’s easy for you to justify the fact I’m being fleeced. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being self centred for wanting freedom of choice. Well f-you pal, damn straight I’m selfish -i refuse to be dictated to by you or people like you about what I want. it may be realty now but this reality sinks.

  13. Hi Chris,

    Get over it, NBN is the way like it or not.
    History always showed that something new has introduced conflicts and confusion, till people adopt to it. Years later you ask them and they tell you “How did we survive without it”

  14. Turnbull is attempting to build a mountain out of a molehill.

    Most people do not know what “the NBN” is. Low uptake is in part due to said lack of understanding, combined with people having to expend effort to sign up. Laziness and the nanny state seem to, increasingly, be the order of the day.

    Opt-out should have been the solution positioned from day one. It means people can decide they don’t want to have a garden bed ripped up now (and pay a couple hundred dollars in the future to connect) if they wish.

    The NBN is building a replacement for the CAN. It’s not “instead of”. That hasn’t been sold to the people, primarily because DBCDE and Libs have spent enormous energies squaring off with each other and ignoring the public. So the natural assumptive question becomes, “why do I need it?”

    We’re only now starting to see NBN advertising and even it isn’t actually telling folks what the NBN offers.

    Libs would like to suggest a lack of interest shares a 1:1 correlation with a lack of need. It isn’t. It’s a lack of education combined with a lack of effort-interest.

    • I totally agree with you (as previously stated) but they need a different metric to measure uptake if they are going to make it an opt out system. currently the only figures we get out of NBN co is Fibre Termination. Not lit fibres. If the OPt out system is picked then we need to know lit fibres. Too see if the project is viable long term

      • Chris – if you move into a house and choose not to have a phone line connected, do Telstra come and rip the line out of the ground?


        This “opt-in/opt-out” is about terminating the line UP TO the premise, not into it. It is then up to the occupants to choose whether they pay for services on the fibre.

        If the fibre drop is installed during the rollout, it will be part of the rollout.

        If ten years from now you decided to get an NBN-based service, and you have no fibre drop installed, someone will be forced to come and install one – that cost will be passed on to you.

        If you want to pay the extra…go right ahead and opt-out…you have the choice.

        • man you love not listening to a word I’m saying. I said I agree. I jsut added that a NEW metric needs to be in place to show uptake. they currently ONLY supply the amount of physical connections made. Lit fibres is more important.

          • I’m not the one calling people “idiots” and “tools”…personal attacks are the lowest common denominator of debate. You should be a politician.

            As for you question – I chose to fob it because I’ve already answered an umpteenth number of times elsewhere in this discussion, and don’t believe in having to repeat myself over and over.

            But in case you missed it, and for the people in the cheap seats…”I disagree with your views on the NBN.”

            For the sake of fairness, I will admit that it is quite clear that you disagree with my views on the NBN, and that is completely your right to do so.

            But for having a different opinion, I do apologise.


          • so you choose to make a statement total irrelevant to the thread it was on. This thread was to do with the actual article. the Opt out option. I have no time for people who just want to corrupt a topic.

          • Have you opted out of other tax payer contributed builds (roads, hosptials, schools, etc). They may not be relevent to you or in your area, yet you still pay.

            Stop posting utter nonsense.

          • The nonsense is posters like you relating the NBN build to essential services like roads and hospitals in a emotive attempt to pretend they are have some kind of equal footing as a community need.

            You conveniently overlook my point because it does not help your argument one little bit that the majority of people today have the full access to fixed line BB services, multiple ADSL2+ suppliers and two choices of HFC cable services, and still decide they don’t want it.
            I don’t really care that Optus and Telstra have laid HFC through the trees outside my house, I don’t use their service and more importantly I didn’t pay for it as a taxpayer anyway, you think I should care they bled big $$ on that infrastructure rollout?

            The magic pudding called NBN is rolled past customers doors sometime in the future and they still decide they don’t need it, but stiff s***, you are paying for through the nose as a taxpayer anyway.

            I am positive they would like a ‘opt out’ choice as a taxpayer concession if asked.

          • No convenience whatsoever. There are quite a few that cannot get fixed line BB. I know this or a fact due to the areas I have lived in for the last decade. ADSL2+ is not even offered in many areas if you are on a RIM (outer burb delights) and limited ADSL1 if you are lucky to be able to get a port (2 years and waiting for me, 4 years for the family next door). Get you head out of the sand and actually look at how the incumbents have eroded the value of what is currently there by constant profiteering for shareholders with hardly any investment back in (apart from maintenance). Expnsion is costly for something that is a cash cow when you have demand beyond actually capacity.

            I dont give a rats either about what is outside you house. All it means is you have a choice. That is not the case everywhere. You honestly think having a congested tower that offers expensive, slow wireless and that has not been upgraded in over a year is good competition and that they will not do a damn thing about alleviating the lack of fixed line BB in the outer suburbs??? Governments have a chance to invest where corporates will not due to the “public” benefits that come over many years, not just a few.

            Here’s a thought. Start your own political party and bring in the rest of the miscreant who look enjoy silo driven mentalities that forget the plight of others in areas that do not have access to amenities that you “choose” not to use.

            Opt out can be your fledgling parties “policy” maybe you can form a coalition with the Libs and ensure nothing ever gets improved by passing everyhting on to private concerns. Please make sure you get a user pays system going for all other services while you are at it. Less confusion that way.

          • Once again you totally ignored my point and went waffling on at a totally different tangent that had nothing whatever to do with the thrust of my argument.

            It’s quite simple, many thousands of residences today have a multiple choice of fixed line BB including today’s nearest equivalent of the NBN the HFC rollout, and decide they don’t need it.

            The SingTel and Telstra HFC rollout was concentrated on the supposedly lucrative suburbs with highest population densities of our biggest capital cities, and it still LOST money, the main reason is that the uptake was so poor, it runs down my street and only one residence has it.

            Why the NBN will be ‘magically’ more successful than HFC has yet to be explained, would you like to explain it?

          • I’ll try to explain it.

            Over the years, I have had both HFC services. First a trial subscription to Optus cable TV, cancelled: too much sport and movies, no time to watch anyway. Then BigPond cable internet till I realised I was being ripped off and got faster speeds in both directions, no upload charges, more quota for less money on ADSL2+ with another ISP. So people may not be using existing services not because they don’t want them, but because the deal is inferior.

            No wonder they lost money when they were fixed cost, over-provisioned services designed to deliver multicast data in one direction. A similar outcome could be expected if they duplicated the CityRail network.

            I don’t see that happening with NBN.

    • The uptake numbers are going to be interesting actually.

      Since the copper network will be decommissioned, telcos will necessarily need to move their customers over to the NBN, as that will be the only form of fixed line premises access for them. On that basis alone, the uptake will be close to 100%.

      In fact, since each fibre drop will be able to deliver up to four separate and distinct services into each premise over the one piece of fibre, it is quite possible that the uptake figures will go BEYOND the 100% mark.

      Again – the Coalition leave out the points that hurt their position.

      • You really did just make that up didn’t you. 100%… come on. PSTN is on the decline Fixed line is on the decline everywhere in the world. What studies anywhere in the world point to a turn around in this? Most renters will use wireless and I know of quite a few friends who own their own house and still only have a mobile and wireless internet. The lower plans are in fact CHEAPER already.

        So you would have a connection charge for each service? So you don’t think everything will come via IP? Sorry to shock you but it will be one connection everything delivered over IP. It’s just a smarter way. If I had the choice of paying an addition even $10 per month for phone over free VoIP that the ISP would set up for me I know which one I’ll be picking….

        • Chris – you seriously keep demonstrating just how little you know about how the NBN will actually work. You seem to be completely stuck in the thinking that has been perpetuated that “broadband” means “internet” and nothing else.

          Broadband is a layer-2 concept, internet is a layer-3 concept.

          Broadband can deliver internet. Broadband can deliver many other things too.

          Access fees for each? Sure – why wouldn’t there be? I pay $50.00 a month for internet via ADSL, $50.00 a month for telephony via copper PSTN, and $90.00 per month for Foxtel via satellite.

          If I suddenly kept paying $50.00 for 100Mbps of internet over my fibre, $30.00 a month for a VoIP service over my fibre, and $70.00 a month for a multicast-based Foxtel service over my fibre, I’m saving $40.00 a month, and getting better quality of service.

          Right now, if it isn’t raining I can get 4Mbps on a good day, if it is raining, maybe 2Mbps, if it rains REALLY hard, I lose internet and telephone. And the Foxtel rains out.

          So do I want to spend $40.00 less a month and have a higher quality service? That is more reliable, and significantly more useful?


          • You’ve worked in the Industry for 15 years but still pay $50 a month for telephony via copper? *blinks*
            If your mum is going to invest in the NBN, you and she might both need the savings ;)
            I’m going to get back to making money so that I can pay for this NBN for you guys to download pr0n and torrents (dons flame suit).

          • Newsflash – spend $25.00 a month on line rental, $5.00 for a silent number, and make a few phone calls and $50.00 comes up quickly.

            VoIP is completely unreliable over broadband in my area – and would be a waste. Shit, I’ve been developing VoIP solutions for the last five years, and I can’t get reliable VoIP service out of my broadband connection even when I piggy back it for nothing through our data centre.

            The copper network is dying. Telstra want to abandon it, and their HFC cable. Optus want to also drop their HFC cable.

          • You missed my point…. AGAIN. just because it’s cheaper to you does not mean it will be cheaper to everyone which means the demand for Foxtel as a service will be low because people like me will use IP services to do the same. And If i wanted a home phone I would get VoIP for much less then $40 per month.

            The infrastructure will be layer 2 that is a given… If it isn’t it will be a very bad decision. but Multicast was invented for a reason. It would allow foxtel to send packs from one location rather then via a server in each exchange (or what ever they call it in the future)

            Micheal I get YOU need fibre but most don’t and won’t. If it’s there they will expect it at a price point it will need to compete with wireless. I have had Three, Optus and Next G and all work well for web surfing and watching youtube.

          • yep that’s what i said… you are simply an idiot if that’s the conclusion you came up with from what I just said. Was talking about the vast majority of people. That’s all they care about. Yes you can do more but they won’t not with out a consumer product and need.

          • No need to get agro, Sir.

            The vast majority of people have no idea of what they will be capable of with the NBN. When the first bus-sized computers were built, Thomas J Watson, the then president of IBM declared:

            “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers”

            Hilarious now, but you can’t attack the man for the comment because nobody knew how computing would develop.

            How did the economy transform itself when the electricity grid was installed?

            How did the economy transform itself when the now 65-year-old Customer Access Network (CAN) was installed?

            How did the lives of people in the outback transform when the first Aussat satellite was launched in 1985?

            All bloody expensive for their times, but imagine how the economy would grind to a half without them now?

            Anybody who cannot envisage a massive shift in the way the economy will be able to operate with what will be possible with the NBN has abolutely ZERO ability for insight.

            Yes – initially the NBN will be massive overkill for a lot of people. That doesn’t mean you don’t do it. You do it to transform an economy on a macro level so that Australia becomes significantly more efficient in doing what Australia does.

            Who needed an electricity connection when the grid was installed? Not everyone.

            Who needed a telephone when the CAN was installed? Not everyone.

            Who needs an 1Gbps connection installed on the NBN right now? Not everyone.

            Who will need it in 10 or 15 or 20 years from now? Many people.

            In the meantime, if we don’t do it, every other nation will have better infrastructure, and we’ll slip further down the economic ladder.

            Other countries aren’t doing such huge fibre rollouts because they are scared of the cost. Possibly fair enough, but again, that doesn’t mean they are right.

            I genuinely believe this is the right way to go, and 20 years from now, we’ll be the envy of the world for having the foresight to do it. While all their wireless infrastructure is getting clogged out and costing massive amounts to upgrade every few years.


          • Who decided it’s the government’s responsibility to take control of all these “essential” services?

          • Wow so I’m getting fleeced as a taxpayer so that you can have these essential services like cheaper foxtel and faster innernets? Make sure you leech heaps of torrents – gotta make sure you get good value out of my money!

        • Further – as someone who has been working in telecommunications for 15 years, and someone who has attended every available technical industry briefing that NBN Co has put on, I can assure you, there is provision for multiple services over every connection.

        • Fixed line is stable. Wireless is on the rise yes … but look at the investments the incumbents are putting into areas where RIM hell is a reality and ports are full and no new ones are to be seen.

          I use wireless and have no home phone – not because I want to but because I have to because there are no other options. Wireless is horrible and congested. If I can get 30Kbps then I am lucky. This is both Telstra and Optus (I have both).

          Fixed will always be better to the home/business where multiple devices can connect through. Wireless is awesome for roaming – NOT as a home service.

          Oh and I rent and I know plenty that do and would rather the ability to use a fixed line service over the crappy wireless service that are expensive and give you no real limits of any kind before you hit the 15c per meg area and cost rise massively.

          Homes (rental or otherwise) are bastions of PC’s, laptops, Ps3’s, phones, internet enabled devices of every kind and growing. Wirelsss just does not cut it (Even LTE will not – all are shared services and LTE offering 100Mbps will be much less than fibre offering the same. Streaming to the home … forget about it).

        • Fixed line is NOT on the decline, Don’t listen to Telstra’s stats – they are the worst ISP in the world.

          Look at this for example:

          Oh hey look every ISP other than Optus and Telstra lost customers, what a suprise!

          DSL is still rising also, look at the ABS stats, another fun thing:
          Between 09-2010
          28,482,000GB extra was downloaded over fixed line.
          -921,000GB LESS was downloaded over wireless.

          Yes, that’s right, even with 600,000 more wireless customers and only 83,000 new DSL customers, the amount downloaded over DSL grew by 28Petabytes, whereas wireless almost lost 1Pbyte.

          Wireless is a slow service only good for mobility and people who are poor and can’t afford the $30 for a fixed connection, or in the case of many, have no other choice.

          Why is wireless growing faster than DSL? Because it’s a new technology…. As mentioned it’s good for mobility, I have 3x wireless connections and a DSL connection, but all of them suck compared to DSL.

      • @Michael Wyres
        Come on big fella, lets be fair dinkum here. A heads of agreement only has been signed at this stage re decommissioning the copper network. This is not legally binding and does not compel Telstra to do anything.
        No other forms of fixed access you say? There are two HFC networks running down my street. They pass a lazy couple of million Australian homes.
        You haven’t answered my question – would you advise your mother to invest her own money in the NBN?

        • And just so you know, Optus are currently negotiating to move their HFC customers onto the NBN when it goes national. So they no longer have to maintain that expensive piece of infrastructure. Just as Telstra are recommending to share holders to accept the deal also.

          The only hold up is Steve Fielding blocking the enabling legislation.

          • Where is the link stating Telstra are recommending to shareholders to say yes to the NBN Micheal? – last I read was the Telstra Board were still considering their position on the NBN, let alone putting anything in writing to the shareholders.

        • “There are two HFC networks running down my street.”

          Optus is seriously looking into the NBN. Any broadband supplier would be foolish not to. HFC, copper will both mean the NBN has to be competative from day one. And, amazingly enough, it is. ISPs are pricing at a pot not-disimilar to ADSL2+.

          The NBN, if it lasts at leasr as long as the CAN, will provide a massive return in the long term.

          I would anticipate Telstra would, along with Optus, seek to eventually pull HFC from the market. Why continue to have the maintence costs when you can supply the same (or in fact better) services over fibre?

          Also – Chris,

          The NBN will see a flat pricing structure across the technologies. Unlike the Zone 1,2,3 tomfoolery we have now. You cannot tell me that means outer-metro (RIM based) users, or those in Zones 2 or 3 are worse off, for example.

          Competition is fierce between players. That won’t stop simply because the underlying network switches to the NBN. We’ll see the exact same range of options, from bargin basement pricing, to value add rich service offerings.

      • Well yeah the uptake figures will be interesting if you have a fixed line BB connection and there is only one monopoly supplier choice of a fixed line link.

        Conroy can then gloat about how successful it is, what you might call a compulsory success figure of uptake, a lot like my water company gloating how ‘successful’ their water supply and sewage connections are, or my local council quoting 100% uptake figures for their rubbish collection.

  15. So what if I am ‘forced’ to signup with NBNco?

    At current I am forced to signup with Telstra, who provide me with a worse service that costs me more.

    Seems like a no brainer to me!

    • Why are you forced? Our company uses Internode on a Telstra DSLAM. You should talk to the ACCC if you believe you have been put under the impression that Telstra is your only option.

      • Chris – who owns the piece of copper in the ground between the DSLAM and your premises?

        When you come up with the answer, remember that the answer to this question is the same for every single xDSL connection in Australia.

        • Wow so Telstra owns the copper wow that’s earth changing. They DO NOT own every DSLAM so your second point is VERY wrong. It also doesn’t mean you need to connect with them. Let Internode or iiNet deal with their lack of customer service. Internode do all the dirty work for me. I call up someone answer (normally with in a minute) and they fix my problem

          • [headdesk]

            Seriously…do you read back what you type before you submit?

            I’ll spell it out MATHEMATICALLY for you.

            – let’s say you pay $50.00 for a DSL connection.

            – let’s say a normal margin of around 10% is on this – (margins in internet connectivity are WELL below traditional corporate margins of around 30%), so that’s about $4.50 margin. Call it $5.00 for simplicity, so the cost is about $45.00 for the ISP.

            – that includes a number of components
            — access to a DSLAM port – (many options eg: Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Internode, AAPT, etc)
            — access to the local loop – (one option, TELSTRA)
            — back haul from the DSLAM to your data centre rack
            — raw open bandwidth onto the net out of your rack.

            Notice that there is only one local loop option? Telstra?

            Regardless of who you sign up with, whose backhaul you use, whose DSLAM you use, whose upstream bandwidth you use, the local loop cost still returns to Telstra.

            No way around this.

            Telstra gouge pricing mercilessly. I worked for an ISP who was getting charged $25.00 pcm by Telstra for each DSLAM port/local loop WHOLESALE access. Telstra themselves were selling broadband connections for less than $15.00 RETAIL.

            Telstra would also regularly kill provisioning requests as being “too far from exchange”, but then snaffle up the customers and provision them anyway, despite supposedly being “too far from exchange”.

            Telstra. It all comes back to Telstra.

            But guess what? They want the NBN – so the change is coming. If the Coalition had their way, we’d be handing Telstra another golden handshake to keep ripping the market off.

            No thanks.

          • My impression is that the profit margin is lower but, irrelevant. Yes Telstra is a pain and yes the last mile in most cases is theirs… but not all. Pipe have their own last mile to inner city. Seven’s Vivid have their own and Transact have their own last mile fibre and last mile copper…And there are other examples. All commercially viable. My problem is I want my tax dollars going into schools, roads and hospital not internet. There is Commercial return out there but instead we are going to rip it all out and start again. Why does everything have to be done at once? Why not build the backhaul. Then build to businesses. Then build to residential. This way our taxes won’t be going in to funding a few geeks (me included) how will utilize the network.

          • “My problem is I want my tax dollars going into schools, roads and hospital not internet.”

            It’s not an either, or scenario. The money would have gone elsewhere. And based on both of the main parties choices, neither would have invested ex-NBN funds in ANY of the above.

            “There is Commercial return out there but instead we are going to rip it all out and start again.”

            We’d not have replaced the over-land telegraph with the POTS network, following that logic.

            “Why does everything have to be done at once?”

            Cheaper to build a full network, than in pieces. What the Lib’s aren’t telling you is their broadband scenario is stop-gap and conveniently ignores Telstra’s rapid abandonment of the CAN.

            It’s not a case of simply not investing. Or investing a pitance and hoping private industry carries the can (pun intended). The CAN is degrading. The costs to maintain are non-trivial and a gross underinvestment for many years means bleeding money endlessly.

            We have to spend money. Lots of it. Eventually. And anything the Federal Government might throw into the CAN is dead money as it will, eventually, have to be replaced.

            “Why not build the backhaul. Then build to businesses. Then build to residential. This way our taxes won’t be going in to funding a few geeks (me included) how will utilize the network.”

            Because the viability in a number of areas precludes deployment. You also damn RIM based users and Zone 2,3 to virtual abondonment.

            Undertand that the returns on the investment will more than recover the investment. The CAN has proved the long term returns are there.

          • “Seven’s Vivid have their own”
            Seen the performance of that? They are doing all sorts of crazy things and limiting traffic even :|

            “Transact have their own last mile fibre and last mile copper
            Seen the prices on that? They make Telstra look cheap!

            “My problem is I want my tax dollars going into schools,”
            State issue, already $320bn of federal cash going into it in the same timespan as NBN.
            Obviously more from state budgets..

            State issue, already $120bn of federal cash going into it in the same timespan as NBN.
            Obviously more from state budgets..

            State issue, already $560bn of federal cash going into it in the same timespan as NBN.
            Obviously more from state budgets..

            “Why not build the backhaul.”
            Because the backhaul is ALREADY THERE, my exchange in suburban Perth has like 6 different optic cables into it, building extra backhaul will not make a lick of difference…

          • “My problem is I want my tax dollars going into schools”

            And what happens if I want my tax dollars to go into something else? It is noble of you to want money for schools particularly if you do not have or the prospect of having school aged children.

            But do you want “more schools” or “more education”? And if you really want the latter, it could well be that a ubiquitous broadband network will do more to enhance education than building more classrooms.

          • You also conveniently omit to state that that the Telstra local loop is under ACCC legislative jurisdiction on access and price control, and has been for about 13 years now.

            This very same ACCC will oversee the NBN Co monopoly on access and price control on their ‘local loop’, but don’t worry it will all be better than Telstra because umm err it just will be.

          • Telstra charge ISP’s to use the copper.
            Telstra charge ISP’s for the power they use in the exchange.
            Telstra charge ISP’s for exchange space.
            Telstra constantly delay ISP’s entering the exchange.
            Telstra charge fees every time they need to do so much as hit a button in the exchange.

            I’m on TPG as is, but my connection is at the mercy of Telstra.

  16. Chris – you talk of 8 million households in your arithmetic but –
    What allowance are you making in your calculations for
    business, industrial, institutional, govt and defence users and the
    contribution(s) they should make to the equation???

  17. Hi Michael Wyres,

    I find it vastly amusing that people who have no idea of what they are talking about, slam the NBN.

    Its obvious that you do know what you are talking about.

    I used to be in the Industry (PABX product management) and went through the implementation of ISDN and the 64kbs paradigm. We had a digital switch and in the 1980’s Nothing seems to have progressed at all.

    The people who are calling you an idiot have no idea that the PSTN was engineered for voice and voice only and that the Limitation is a copper pair.

    Not only shovelling Digitised voice down it. but also High speed data. The whole debate (by the ones calling names) is based on a complete lack of understanding of the network, the technology and how it works and how it developed. The hole just isn’t big enough. Even with Fast packet switching, compression algorithms etc.etc.

    I wrote a short piece on the history of Telegraph and Telephony the other day for a friend who wanted to know about why we needed an NBN. He thanked me when he read it because he was going to buy Telstra (while they are cheap) and now thanked me for telling him the truth about that risk.

    He’s also an accountant and said the following words to me “Well if thats the case its a bloody cheap investment for the country!” Completely unsolicited by me.

    The bloke above who wrote the hypothetical about rewiring his house must have had fun writing that fiction.

    Any competent person can install their own network. Details of how to do it are available on the Internet. You can buy the shielded Cat 5 cable at Middy’s and a suitable tool to make the connections for about $22 ( per Krone tool and crimper) at the computer swap meets. As well as the connectors. The females can also be bought at Middy’s. All of this equipment is new and the same as sold through consumer outlets. The only difference is the price. I have seen Cat 5 crimpers for $180

    I have enjoyed reading your input Michael and you are so right when you say that the NBN is about so much more than the Internet.

    I do agree with the comments that the labour party haven’t sold it very well. But I would also make the comment that people who just want to critisize others efforts are a waste of Space.

    Empty Vessels make the most noise. And they are at about 120db a the moment and It is painful.

    Oh and just a quick one about Wireless. I have an optus Wireless Broadband router/DHCP. I cant pick up the network in my workshop 20 meters away.

    • You’re right that it’s easy to wire your house yourself with CAT5. And because it doesn’t actually carry significant current, I don’t believe you’re required to get a professional to do it (like you would be for electricity, say).

      Also, most people today only have one or two telephone outlets in their house, so nothing will automatically change that with the NBN rollout: you’ll still only have one outlet and will have to wire up your own cabling or use Wi-Fi internally to get more access points. Why would you expect/want to get more than that?

      • Wiring your house with twisted pair ethernet has very little to do with the NBN; indeed the service supplying “the internets” is entirely irrelevant in that respect. :)

        The CAN has given decades of service and as a result has become quite profitable. But it’s life-span is rapidly coming to an end. Suggesting we don’t “need” the NBN is like telling someone they don’t “need” a heart transplant when they’ve 6 months left to live.

        Sure, they might get a few more months out of a suspect ticker, but it *will* stop at some point; and just as a transplant will be attempted before a person dies, an upgrade to a network should occur before the old one fails.

        • Brendan,

          I think I speak for every one of the people who disagree with the NBN when I say we ALL know it’s a better technology it’s just a question of the cost.

          to use your example. you have 6 months to live and you have the choice of the bypass but you know it will cost you and ten people in your family their life savings. Is it a no brain? do you just do it? or do you sit and have a think for a minute. Why are we in such a rush. If it waited one more year would the whole world come to an end? All we are fighting for is due diligence. Give us real numbers focus on the real issues and benefits and a Cost Benefit analysis can take into account other factors like benefits in health and education. Lay out the figures. If it is worth the money show us! I promise we will stop complaining! I can only assume they don’t because it doesn’t support their argument. Say the analysis can show a government saving of 8 billion a year well that would show to me that there is a benefit to the government given my calculations (the 8 billion is irrefutable) but you would have to sit down and work it out below this which is all things the cost benefit analysis would do! Give us our information! What is so hard about that

          • A quote

            ” Scope of the implementation study”

            “The purpose of this implementation study is to advise the government on how best to implement it’s stated policy objectives, not to evaluate those objectives, given that the policies have already been agreed by government”

          • The policy objective being “to build a fibre-to-the-premise network with speeds of at least 100Mbps”.

            I think you’ll find there’s a lot more in that document than just that.

          • Pointless comparison since the NBN isn’t going to cost your life savings.


            It seems like a no brainer…

        • Yes, I actually agree with you, Brendan. I was responding to the suggestion that you’d need to rewire your “whole house” to get the NBN, which is simply not true. One cable into your house is all you need, to replace the one copper line that is your telephone line.

          In fact, my house is already wired with CAT6 and so when the NBN (finally!) rolls around to me, I’ll just unhook my ADSL router, and plug in the NBN cable and I’m already set for 1Gbps!

    • Vince

      Don’t get me wrong – there are many questions still to be answered over the NBN which will be answered in due course. Final wholesale pricing and its effect on end user pricing is still a grey area which poses potential problems, but that’s a wait and see at the moment.

      But with dying 65-year-old infrastructure surrounding us at the moment, and the ludicrous idea that 12Mbps will be enough in just a few short years from now, I don’t understand what the opponents think we should do.

      Brendan’s example of replacing a heart so “they might get a few more months out of a suspect ticker” is a perfect analogy. You have to do something before it stops, or you have nothing. If we let the copper network collapse before we do anything about it, we’ll have nothing.

      The CAN has served us well, and paid for itself many many times over in the last 65 years. There is no reason whatsoever that the NBN will not have the same said about it 50 years from now.

      Because like the copper network was back then, the NBN will soon become the only fixed network we have.

      The people who want wireless should throw their hands up right now for a tower to be built in their backyard – because to cover Australia adequately with even 12Mbps of wireless per user will require thousands of towers, and we’ll still need to build the massive backhaul to support it.

      It will be no cheaper than the fibre NBN.

      • Big call to say it will be no cheaper. The backhual is the cheap part!

        the Liberal want private enterprise to pay for the infrastructure so no real cost there… Where is the massive cost coming from?

        If the CAN has paid for it’s self what is the $30 per month you pay currently going into(I belive it has I just want you to tell me how the new network will be cheaper if they have to pay for the infastructure on top of the admin) ? what does that pay for? Does that mean that could be cost born above the cost of the initial network.

        • Why hasn’t private enterprise done it already?

          More costly? Definite chance…$6.5b to get everyone to 12Mbps…then what? How much do we spend to get everyone up to say, 30Mbps down the track? And then 100Mbps a few years later?

          When you factor in the fact that the fibre being rolled out – (already) – is capable of 40Gbps, there’s not a lot of replacing and upgrading to be done for a long time. There would need to be an equipment upgrade at the approximately 200 or so PIC sites, but that’s easier than upgrading literally THOUSANDS of towers, several times, without getting anywhere near 40Gbps.

          More expensive? Very very possible.

    • Funny, as a registered building cabler I would just like to point out that you cannot legally run your own communications cabling within your house – unless you are a registered building cabler.

      An NBN made of fibre will not change all of the reasons for that law.

      I can do power cabling – but I don’t because it is not legal for me to do so.

      Think that is silly ? What about ceiling insulation installers needing to have training, and those that didn’t being electrocuted.

      Rewiring of the house comms outlets is an expense many will need to prepare for. As is the dependency on supplying power to the active equipment at the premises end. Got a UPS for that so the phone still works when the power is off ? Oh, that’s right everyone has a charged mobile and we never have natural disasters or strikes….

      But all this still doesn’t answer the original question posed by Turnbill does it ? Surely the millions in consultant fees included some cost/benefit analysis ? Why does the government not present the information ? Could it be that the assumptions made will be shown not to match reality ?

  18. No one will uptake NBN until they reduce prices and offer unlimited, currently ADSL2+ is cheaper.

    • Dodo has already comitted to offering unlimited over the NBN, you’ve all seen their prices.

      Just wait until NBN gets onto the mainland and Dodo and TPG start releasing their prices.

      Internode’s NBN vs Internode’s DSL – What’s cheaper? NBN
      iiNet’s NBN vs iiNet’s DSL – What’s cheaper? NBN
      iPrimus’s NBN vs iPrimus’s DSL – What’s cheaper? NBN
      Exetel’s NBN vs Exetel’s DSL – What’s cheaper? NBN

      Seems obvious what the result is going to be ;-)

      • Wow, isn’t it wonderful? We as taxpayers front up the cash for this massive investment (without having a choice) and these private companies get to profit by selling it back to us – risk free, investment free, but they get to profit.

        • Risk free investment? you have no clue about running a ISP do you?

          If you think the only expensive that has some form of risk is the wholesale network, you need to research the costs a ISP needs to pay for a little further.

          • “you have no clue about running a ISP do you?”

            Oh I’m impress! You know how to run an ISP! Clever lad!

            So what has that got to do with anything? Sure, there’s always risks in running a business (specifics are superfluous and do not support your argument) even with government handouts, but the risks are somewhat mitigated by the fact that the taxpayer is funding the infrastructure.

          • The taxpayer pays for the high risk no ROI multi billion dollar NBN rollout, ISP’s sell it back to us with a hefty margin, so effectively we pay for it through the nose twice, the economics of ‘profit and loss’ don’t come much better than that do they?

          • It’s great isn’t it? And eventually you’ll get the crazies on the far left complaining that capitalism and the free market is ripping off the little guy. A rather bizarre form of “free market” this one is gonna be. Seems to happen over and over, like groundhog day…again…

          • Paying twice? That is why RSP access to the NBN should be free, like access to my local library or http://www.trove.nla.gov.au is free.

            And “hefty margins”? The ISP market has all the aspects of Perfect Competition and the competition seem savage.

          • Yeah right pull the other one, that’s why ISP’s have been queued up at the ACCC for last 13 years trying to get Telstra Wholesale cheaper, even in October 2010 we still have ISP’s queued up at the ACCC trying to get Telstra Wholesale ADSL2+ cheaper.

            I expect the “get NBN cheaper here” queue at the ACCC will stretch around two city blocks and will be permanent feature.
            That’s how fixed line BB ‘competition’ works in Australia when you don’t wear the high risk and high cost of infrastructure rollout.

          • Richard, Richard, didn’t i already hand you your backside on a silver platter on the “What are your thoughts on the pro’s and con’s of this network?” facebook page? Come here for another serving, have we?

            “RSP”? Did you mean ISP, or RSP (Revolutionary Socialist Party of Australia)?

            The funny thing about this “free” NBN you’re wishing for is that, like your “free” local library, it’s not free. Typical self-delusional whackjob lefty – somehow you think that being forced to pay for something makes it free.

  19. The only people that want NBN fibre are the script kiddies that want to download more pr0n & illegal copyright movies.

      • Truth hurts huh? There is no social benefit from NBN FTTH – whatsoever. A lot better to spend $43bn on hospitals, schools, roads & rail. Of course those wanting a taxpayer subsidised oversized fatter pipe would disagree.

        • Hospitals already get $560bn, but it’s a state issue.
          Schools already get $320bn, but it’s a state issue.
          Roads already get $120bn, but it’s a state issue.
          Rail already get $120bn, but it’s a state issue.

          No benefit from NBN? What about the people stuck on the 1,2 million RIM’s in Australia? What about the 200,000 business’s still using dialup as they have no choice?

          $43bn is 1% of the budget over the timespan of the NBN, stop trying to claim it’s a big number, it’s not.

          Abbot’s parental leave bs was going to cost far more, and being it only effected pregnent women, that’s what, 0.5% of the population? NBNco will reach 100% of the population.

          Seriously, stop claiming the NBN won’t effect people other than nerds, you have no clue, this country has a multi billion dollar online economy, it can only get better with decent internet speeds.

          • Besides I never catch the bloody train, see nothing wrong with the roads we have at the moment, recently had a grandfather hospitalized due to a heart attack (he lived!) and our hospitals are in top notch condition, schools – My mother is a teacher and nothing bad going on there either.

            Our communications network on the other hand…

            So, why should my tax dollars go into those things? I spend tax, you spend tax, about time it got spent on something I am interested in.

          • The states have been neglecting hospitals, schools & shutting them down for years.

            Anyone stuck on dial-up is legally entitled to the government broadband guarantee.

            Anyone stuck behind a RIM can still get ADSL speeds.

            Like I stated, there are far better social needs than wasting $43bn on NBN fibre.

          • If the backhaul is the problem, then fibre the node (FTTN) can resolve that, far cheaper than $43bn NBN FTTH.

          • FTTN isnt necessarily cheaper, not to mention it’s a far inferior technology that will suffer exactly the same symptoms that DSL does.

            Telstra wanted $10bn to FTTN 75% of the population with 24Mbps a few years ago, labor prices always rise, and the part after 75% is the hard part.

            Plus FTTN locks out competition as ISP’s can’t install their own DSLAM’s.

          • Using your own figures, you prove that FTTN is far cheaper being only 23% of the cost of NBN FTTH.

            NBN is anti-competitive as it will remove all competition networks such as dsl/cable, also NBN Co has expressed that it may be a retailer that will compete with other ISPs.

        • no social benefit – whatsoever? just because you cant think of any doesnt mean they dont exist.

          me, id be looking forward to having the ability to do proper high bitrate and high refresh two way video calling, not at all possible on 3g and barely possible (with Annex M) on DSL. Given im hearing impaired the ability to do sign language for a call i would consider a social benefit. thats (just) one example, and its a side spinoff from the telecommute abilities of the NBN, which are equally a business item as social.

          in any case beyond social there certainly will be businesses that can use it, pharmacists, lawyers and accountants coming to mind as some of the most common. take off the dark glasses and have a look around; theres a lot more interested in it than just the scriptkiddie crowd.

          BTW it may seem like an ‘oversized’ pipe to you but im keeping in mind a minim 40y lifespan at the end of which 1Gbps may well be regarded as a milkshake straw. stop looking at it as if it is something to do with ‘now’ and more as what it really is, an investment for the ‘next X decades’. for the cost, to government of somewhere in the region of 27bn dollars for something that lasts at least 40 years the $ per year of lifetime spend is something i have no difficulty with – have a look at the yearly spend on road upkeep, and think of it this way – this is the upkeep for the telecommunications hardware, and going on the copper experience it wont have to be done again for another two score years at least. and unlike the road the spend is returned with interest.

          its needed to have been done or at least started by now, talk has been on about a new network since 98 at least. but Telstra has clung to its copper and dislikes the idea of giving up those earnings, doesnt want to have massive outgoings on the balance sheet for a new network (and anyways it will have to share it – again) and no alternative to Telstra would want to risk it after the HFC debacle. stalemate. well the government has broken the stalemate – that is actually a good thing. truth hurts – Tony didnt earn the PMs seat, so this is the way its going to go.

          • So you want us to pay $43bn of our taxes to subsidise your video conferencing? What’s wrong with doing it over ADSL? If you absolutely need a higher bitrate, then perhaps you should install your own fibre?

          • The only video conferencing you can do over ADSL is Skype-pixelated-32px-box-that-barely-resembles-a-person conferencing..

          • Perhaps we should install our own Fiber? Hah.

            What would you say if I told you third world countries have access to unmetred 1Gbps for $15AU.

            Honestly, as far as communications go, we are a disgrace to first world countries.

          • Skype is far better than a 32x32px (an oversized icon).

            $15 AU for unlimited 1gbps? Sounds like BS, or a plan that is heavily subsidised by tax payers, or with heavy conditions attached, or poor speed connections outside the ISP’s network.

          • 1Gbps for $15AU is possible in other countries.

            All dues to population densities and being able to scale quickly and cheaply.

          • btw, people need to stop beating the population density drum.

            In just Sydney 21% of our population resides, if you add up population for our top 10 cities it’s 71% of the population in less than 1% of the landmass.

            Our population density is only poor when you start running Fiber to the farms in the middle of nowhere, which I understand NBNCo is doing, but it CANNOT be blamed for private sector’s failure.

          • Nope, 1Gbps is pretty much standard for <20AU in Romania. In most of Europe 100Mbps is standard for <20AU also. Japan, Hong Kong, and Korea are similar stories.

            Consistent speed, not heavily oversold..

          • With respect, the prices you quote sound far too cheap to be true without major strings attached. Furthermore, it’s not like we’re going to get any prices like that here. In the CBD’s, TPG offers 100mbps symmetrical unlimited for $599 p/month over their own network. I can hardly see NBN offering anything substantially cheaper anywhere near your quoted $20 AU prices.

          • no merely saying its a social benefit that comes concomitant with the business ones. no i cant install my own fibre(can you?), and in any case the people im talking to at the other end would need it as well. i want bitrate so a person signing at normal speed at a decent resolution isnt turned into a slideshow (which makes understanding sign a little tricky) and i understand that takes at least a few mbit of uploads; annex M tops out at 2.5 mbit uploads – if you are next to the exchange. so thats the difficulties with doing it on DSL (which im not connected to atm anyway).

            all im observing is that i can see at least ONE social benefit to my circumstances with the NBN build so i disputed your ‘no social benefit whatever’ comment. there are probably others with other things they regard as a benefit.

            if you want to make it a question of “do i want 43bn (27 really, cos you are whingeing about the taxpayer portion, right?) to subsidise my teleconferencing”? no i dont want a subsidy, but as at this point the network *is* going to be built i can see something i *can* use it for that can improve my life and qualifies as a social benefit. there are more than a million who use sign language who would benefit besides me, does that make it any better?

            since you ask, what i DO want the government to spend 27 bn on is a world class network that will last us at least 40 years in the future, cost us less to maintain than the current copper, provide ubiquitous connections that open up all those who never had a decent connection before to the market (and people will be happy to sell to them too). fix the blackspots, give the rural aussies a chance at a metro comparable service – cos ive been there and lived that life and any improvement out there is a boon.

            and in any case the word you used in this case shouldnt have been ‘spend’ 27bn; its ‘invest’ 27bn, because the dollar comes back to the govt to be used again on another expenditure, or to be invested again in a new vehicle for the cycle to start over. im happy for my taxes to go into that. if you are unhappy with that all i can say is i believe there are much much worse investments to make that dont return anything monetary let alone socially.

          • I can install my own FTTP if I’m willing to pay the cost for the need. ATM, I don’t have a need for it & neither does 99.99% of Australian residential homes/units.

            Furthermore, high definition video conferencing brings no social benefit whatsoever.

          • Then you can opt out and pay for it at a later date. Sweet, now thats sorted we can move on.

            Have you asked 99.99% of the population if that is the case? Wireless is only available to me and not even FTTN will fix that problem (RIM hell). I can say that 99.99% of the population out where I am is in the same boat … but I would be incorrect. Perhaps 50%? Even then I am making it up because no one has ever gotten a true figure for the plight of those in postions where we are being treated as a “non cherry picking” area by all those who are able to provide services. FTTP will stop the rot.

            Cloud computing would bring benefits where a distributed netowkr makes producst and services cheaper. This could include High Def offerings. Go look it up. There is a whole new world out there if you bother to open you eyes and mind.

          • What do residential users need cloud computing for? Any businesses that may use it can pay for own access to it. No need for $43bn tax payer funded FTTH.

  20. Turnbull has really lost the plot! Just ignore the puppet he is not exactly intelligent!

  21. So as a small IT business owner, when is Mr Turnbull going to listen to me when I say ADSL2+, VDSL and HFC simply is unable to give me enough upstream bandwidth to conduct my business.

    Or should I just suck it up because the rest of the country can’t see more than 5 years into the future in what people internet demands are going to be like.

    There is nothing more frustrating than having to listen to people say how the internet is just for porn and movie/music downloads.

    • If it’s as important to your business as you suggest, why don’t you pay for a business grade service with symmetric speeds? Have you heard of Optus XYZed and Telstra BDSL and AAPT EOC and Soul EFM and numerous other copper/fibre/microwave business grade symmetric services? Why do you expect the taxpayer (me) to subsidise this cost of your profit making business? Would you like me to pay your electricity bill and rent as well?

      • Because wasn’t the whole point of the NBN was to encourage new business and innovation? How can you do both when services cost several thousand dollars per month to install and maintain? And If I can setup in my own home outside of a city centre, surely there are more positive enviromental impacts I would be making.

        • When I go to the country, I use a mixture of wireless & satellite for a remote session to a server at work & a datacentre. I don’t need a $43bn taxpayer funded handout for NBN FTTH.

        • Japan has one of the worst GDP growth rates in the developed world. South Korea is struggling to maintain an average GDP growth rate.
          Please, what evidence is there from Japan and South Korea that fast internet access encourages businesses to flourish and innovation?Your time starts…now.

          • Don’t worry ‘Me’ all the NBN pundits will let that one go through to the keeper or say that Australia is ‘different’, it’s funny how Australia is ‘different’ when you point out the negative traits of FTTH rollouts overseas including that only 40% of Sth Korean households that have access to FTTH have actually signed up for it, that’s when Australia is suddenly designated as being ‘different’.

            How it will be different is never explained, but never mind it’s all in the ‘National Interest’ and it’s up there with the Snowy scheme and Harbor Bridge builds – queue sound bite Advance Australia Fair and fade in Australian flag blowing gently in the breeze (preferably on top of Harbor Bridge).

          • “queue sound bite Advance Australia Fair and fade in Australian flag blowing gently in the breeze (preferably on top of Harbor Bridge).”

            I’ve already got a tear in my eye. Damn those NBN deniers who would take away our precious NBN against the NATIONAL INSTEREST! They should be hanged!

          • Oh dear …

            Looking forward to seeing your alternative Frank. Costed of course with tax evasion opt in options.


          • “Looking forward to seeing your alternative Frank”

            Easy. A freakin’ refund. I don’t want to be taxed though the nose any more.

          • It will be different because the copper network will be switched off over here, in Korea and Japan it is not, although I feel the take up figures are higher than you claim.

            Note that including DSL Korea and Japan have over 90% coverage, in Australia that 90% would be on NBN.

          • Oh I see the NBN will be more ‘successful’ here because the choices will be ripped out of the ground and in the case of the HFC pulled out of the trees.

            Makes the current Telstra local loop monopoly look like a walk in the park, but don’t forget the NBN Co monopoly even though it has ZERO fixed line wholesale competitors will be a more friendly benign monopoly (trust me I’m a politician), all Government created monopolies are like that!

          • Assuming it IS sold (and with luck by the relevant time, we will have a better informed electorate and have got over our obsession about debt) the government will realise, like e.g. public transport, it should be kept.

            Alternatively government will have learnt more about regulating monopolies and do a better job next time.

          • …. by creating a monopoly called the NBN Co that is even more powerful than the Telstra monopoly, that’s ‘doing it better next time’ is it?

        • Hey if I set up a courier business do you think I can get the taxpayer to front the bill for my van fleet?

          • Yes. If you were expected to carry everyone’s business at prices the lowest denominator customer could afford.

          • The gov’t funding systems are seriously not worth the hassle. If you’re a small business & maintain personal ownership, then you may be eligible to a reduced capital gains tax rate when selling up (see your accountant).

          • @alain,

            “Subsidy” for your courier business is a perfect illustration of what is proposed.

            The government is supplying the roads/fibre and the PMG provided the copper for your phone calls. Perhaps you don’t need them in YOUR courier business.

          • The NBN rollout is not a ‘subsidy’, a subsidy implies that less than 100% of the cost is being met by the Government, as in the end user or private company contributes a portion of the cost.

            The NBN rollout is 100% taxpayer funded, how do you think ISP’s and end user businesses that will take profitable advantage out of such a deal feel about that?

            Oh they are right behind it! – jeez that is a surprise!

  22. I havent read the rest of the comments…..

    The fact is copper network is years past it’s used by date. Yet we keep being told how good people are for supplying us something that should have been done at least 5 years ago. Governement is putting in so much money for the NBN how much are the private companies putting in that will be connected as NBN. I would like to know the actual full cost of rollout.

    • “The fact is copper network is years past it’s used by date”
      So why is that a justification for the government to spend our money (and a lot of it) to build us something better?

        • Private companies, Richard, they can volunteer to fund what they wish to sell to us – it certainly beats compulsion.

          • The private companies will certainly be very happy about reselling NBN Plans back to the very same consumers that paid for the building of it.
            I wonder how ‘happy’ they would be if Conroy said the NBN Co is going to retail BB Plans at just above wholesale cost?

            A business is very happy to take the cream off the top, if the underlying infrastructure that underpins their FTTH BB Plans bleeds millions into a bottomless sinkhole for decades, do you think they care?

          • “do you think they care?”

            Nope – in fact, i might get into the ISP business so that i can profit off a taxpayer funded/maintained infrastructure!

          • And which private companies might they be and where have they volunteered to do it. As to any thoughts of a USO, with the new railway delivered after years of promises we now have a service to the city to doe for.

            I think I should start lobbying against the waste of my taxes to build the north-west line.

            Does anyone give a thought for the war veterans and others who did not oppose the costs of the copper network, which now delivers an albeit imperfect access to www and dry feet when we cross the Harbour, coming out of their taxes? Does this leave us with some sort of obligation to future generations? Or have we just become spoilt brats? The Me Generation?

          • Oh, cry me a river, Richard; governments just waste, waste and waste, didn’t you know? And we’re mean to pick up the pieces.

            Right now consumers in Victoria are forced to have these smart energy meters installed which will screw over the poor left right and centre. These things are great technology, no doubt – it allows energy companies to save having to send people around to read the meters – but are they passing on the savings to consumers? Bzzz!! wrong! Not only are they gonna jack up the rates but they’ll charge us for the privilege of having these meters installed – which actually saves them money! Great business to be in, when you can get the government to make the laws for ya, hey?

            “Or have we just become spoilt brats? The Me Generation?”

            The “spoilt brat” “Me Generation” are people who want faster innernets to leech moviez and warez and youtoobs and pr0n – and they don’t give a damn where it comes from – if it’s coming at the tax payer’s expense, they don’t care.

            “Does anyone give a thought for the war veterans and others who did not oppose the costs of the copper network”

            Is that a fact? No one opposed it? Were those who opposed it forced to pay still? Of course they were! And the legacy of that compulsion? Ta-da! Telstra! Woohoo! Golf claps all ’round!

            “which now delivers an albeit imperfect access to www”

            Yeah, you would know – you’re such an expert in all matters www you’d be the first person i’d ask how imperfect ADSL is.

            If we should be forced to fund an NBN, perhaps it’s a good idea for me to force you and every other tax payer to pay me to start a company to develop a new operating system. An Australian operating system for Australian computers for the harsh Australian conditions!

            Too long have we been FORCED to purchase Microsoft and Google products to do our day to day computing activities in a non-Australian fashion! The alternatives are a joke! Linux? Too hard and i’m too lazy to learn! Don’t we have an obligation to future generations to provide them with an operating system they can be proud to call Australian? Whilst we’re at it, we should also put tarriffs on any software developed overseas to protect Australian software development jobs and companies. Same goes for hardware. For too long have Australians been able to afford cheap imported computer hardware (and other hardware – TVs, Hifi, microwares, etc) at the expense of local electronic engineers. This has got to stop!

  23. Stop your whinging! Tax payers are not paying for the network. All those idiots who bought telstra shares for $9 are. The govenment made 3x what the company was worth and using investments would have a lot of money for this.

    The money for the NBN will be spread out over 10 years, this is not an overnight thing. They should have money’s already because they knew that the copper network was passed it’s used by date.

    What you should worry about it that telstra will still have an monopoly on everyone else. They are after all going to use the same trenches and exchanges that telstra own now to house equipment and the line to your house. And I am sure there will be a lot of people saying “it’s housed in telstra exchange so it must be telstra” the exchanges are still going to have telstra written on the door, I know there will be a lot of people saying that telstra is the wholesaler and not the retailer, which really sh**s me off.

    • Wow the comments are getting more bizarre everyday, it’s not the taxpayers paying for the NBN it’s Telstra, your sure it’s not Qantas or the Commonwealth Bank, the Government privatised those too!


      • Trying to make a point about how telstra will win out again. They WILL be paid money from the government to use space in exisiting exchanges, they also WILL be charging a lot higher prices for FTTH.

        I also didnt say telstra was paying for the NBN. Please read before replying. The proceeds of the sale of telstra shares went to who? The Govenment. Who is paying for the NBN? The Goverment.

        • “Who is paying for the NBN? The Goverment.”


          So, where does the government get its funding from?

          The taxpayer!

          “The proceeds of the sale of telstra shares went to who?”

          Uhh… i think they’ve already spent that!

          • If you really want to be a prick about it the tax payer is NOT paying a thing toward the NBN.

            I have not received any tax bills for the NBN. It using money that they have budgeted for this. They have been planning the fibre network for 20years.

            And if you really want to feal like you are paying for the NBN, go to the bank and get a couple billion and do so.
            Personal Tax to the government makes up a percentage of revenue but not enough to pay for an NBN unless they started 20 years ago when they knew they would have to re-run copper lines or upgrade to new technology.


            Seriously! How old are you? I am not being sarcastic just wondering, 12? 10?

          • I’m 11!!

            Even a 10 year old understands that if you want to spend more money than you have you have to borrow it. I never received a tax bill for myki or the pink batts scam but I know that I’m still paying for it through many other indirect means at the government’s disposal, like inflation, higher interest rates, corporate tax (which PEOPLE pay for as only people can pay tax, not companies). Just because you’re not seeing it doesn’t mean you’re not paying for it. Nothing’s for free – especially something that costs $43b.

          • Your not paying for it frank your only 11!

            You dont know how much the goverment has to spend! The fact is they should have this money already!
            They have know for to long that the copper network was about to be out of date and now is out of date. Relistically the amount of money spent over the time it not really a dent.

            Dont bring up the Pink Bats scam as
            1) Wasnt the pink bats anyways it was the aluminium sheets that were the problem
            1a) Aluminium sheets are cheap and nasty and every one knows that.
            2) Like every other time government decide to offer these rebates, it floods that market every idiot and his dog that are to stupid to realise that rebates come and go. None of the businesses make any money because there are so many companies offering the same thing the new companies go broke when the rebate stops the existing companies keep soldiering on. ALWAYS HAPPENS. The new companies need people to go into hot roof’s, the employees quit new idots are employed and told “Just cover everything” and if you can work out for your self that putting a staple through live electrical wiring whilst on a conductive materal has a very high chance of making it live and killing you, then we are better off with out you.

          • That has to be the most brain dead response so far in these comments. Who cares if it was pink batts, aluminium sheets or purple gorillas? Fact is that the government its spending shitloads of cash and it needs to run huge deficits to do so and you and I are paying for it in increased costs of living.

          • lol. You brought it up. Costs of living are going to go up ALWAYS thats what happens, it is decided that we have money to spend so costs go up until it blows up in our faces and no one has any money, not even the companies that we have been paying all the extra money to.

            Brain dead repsonse..lol. You should read all of it again and see some of the other BS thats in there.

            Centrelink will pay out the double the amount in the 8 years it will take to build. How about we shut that down for 4 years and make the money to pay for it, and some income tax as well when they have to get jobs.

            Trying to make such a simple point and yet no one will actually read what I write.

            HAS TO HAPPEN! Thats it no if buts or maybes, old network is past used by. Great new future proof technology to install and it’s fast. We could wait another 5 years if you like before we start and stretch the crap out of the copper network but by then it will cost about another 11-15billion.

            No that sounds like a great idea! We will keep using the old technology thats past its used by date by so many years it no funny and whinge about it. I bet you wont be complaining once it’s connected at your house, or maybe you will….some people are just not happy with anything they get.

          • Well maybe you should have a read of my other posts to see where I’ve been going with all this instead of blabbering such incoherent nonsense. There is NO justification for the government to extort money from us to create a monopoly, they need to get out of the business out maintaining any infrastructure, copper, fibre or otherwise, and leave it up to the free market. It is simply not their job to get their great mits involved in doing what the private sector has done and will always do better at no expense to anyone who chooses not to participate. Anyone who disagrees does nothing more than justifies servitude.

  24. I am over it.

    Your one of those wankers who says this is what I stand for and if you think differently then your wrong.
    BTW There not extorting the money out of us, they already have it from us. NBN Co will not be selling to you or your next door neighbour it will be a fight between the retailers for the monopoly.

    How things would ever of got build in the past with out the government. I would rather the goverment do it then several companies doing there half arse job at it. It would be anarchy. At least we know now that the only difference between ISP’s will be there backhaul.

    • “Your one of those wankers who says this is what I stand for and if you think differently then your wrong”

      Now you’re getting it! It’s called “principles” and I stick by them. You, on the other hand, like to just drivel on about nonsense hardly ever addressing any of the points that i make; there’s no point debating you, I’d get a better response debating the train seat I’m sitting on at the moment.

      “BTW There not extorting the money out of us, they already have it from us.”

      So you’re saying that they’ve already extorted it from us? Well, yes they have, but they need more because they’ve run out of cash again, hence the deficit spending and the large debt they’re accumulating.

      “NBN Co will not be selling to you or your next door neighbour it will be a fight between the retailers for the monopoly. ”

      Huh? Relevance?

      “How things would ever of got build in the past with out the government. I would rather the goverment do it then several companies doing there half arse job at it. It would be anarchy.”

      Really? Is that what you say about the computer you’re typing this drivel on, or any other technology you use on a daily basis? Just because the government here has a stranglehold on how and where infrastructure is built doesn’t mean they’re better at it than the private sector, it only means that they are the ones who make the rules and make it very difficult for the private sector to do anything efficiently. Seriously, if you’re gonna make such uneducated statements like that, why should i even bother? Your grammar sucks anyway so i guess you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed.

      “At least we know now that the only difference between ISP’s will be there backhaul”

      Yay for us. That’s such a relief!

      • I am a little confused by what your principles actually are.

        You dont like paying tax? And you stick by that? Or is it that you want a say in how your tax is spent and you do not like how governments never ask you?

        Ok then …

        Deficit spending happens on the odd occaision. Usually when the corporate world heaves under greed and then collapses to the point the country needs to be propped up for a time until that engine begins to start working again. That or the corporate world “cherry picks” and ensures areas of high returns are catered for whilst all others miss out or get a sub standard service. Unfortunately for Australians, many of the services that were in public hands are now sold off and no cashflow comes back in to the Australian people. Look at the rising energy costs and where they are predicted to go. Are you refusing to pay those costs? Are you getting a say there too? I’m sure if you contacted your gas/water/electricity provider that they would be very synmpathetic to your arguments and ensure that you are well catered for with future requirements and to get your rubber stamp of approval for any changes in what they do and how much it will cost.

        The private sector has shown that profit does not drive equality. All it does is shore up the widening divide between the haves and have nots. It does not matter what sector it is. It always happens because returns for shareholders is what matter most.

        • “I am a little confused by what your principles actually are.”

          If you take a look at some of my other posts here, it should be reasonably clear.

          “You dont like paying tax? And you stick by that? Or is it that you want a say in how your tax is spent and you do not like how governments never ask you?”

          The government’s function is to protect individual rights. That means a police force, military, court system, that kinda thing. It should not get into the business of economic or social control. It really sucks at it.

          “Ok then

          Deficit spending happens on the odd occaision. ”

          Odd occasion? Well we must be in some really odd times because it seems to happen a lot in today’s world.

          “Usually when the corporate world heaves under greed and then collapses to the point the country needs to be propped up for a time until that engine begins to start working again.”

          Greed can be a good thing, but only if the government doesn’t encourage it. I don’t buy this Keynesian crap. The government controls the big 4 banks (who also control the government) and our currency. It’s nonsense that only serves to make the rich richer at the expense of you and me. When the taxpayer props up failed corporations, it’s a slap in the face for the rest of us; who the hell are they to get away with their incompetence at my expense? Why do i not have a choice as to whether i should support their failures or not?

          “That or the corporate world “cherry picks” and ensures areas of high returns are catered for whilst all others miss out or get a sub standard service.”

          And the government in this instance (the NBN) is providing another avenue for high returns off the taxpayer’s back.

          “Unfortunately for Australians, many of the services that were in public hands are now sold off and no cashflow comes back in to the Australian people.”

          See what i mean? How is this fair? Why give the government the opportunity to repeat the same mistakes in the first place? It does not work!

          “Look at the rising energy costs and where they are redicted to go.”

          Have a read of my comments on the smart energy meters (search for “smart energy meters” on this page). How is it fair that the government gets to make these rules so that the private sector can benefit at the taxpayer’s expense? It’s a disgrace!

          When i ask “what’s in it for me” when they install these new meters, i get told that my energy costs will rise, and it’ll save the energy companies having to employ people to read the meters, and i’ll have to pay for the new meters even though these private companies will save bucket loads from having them installed. Is that good value for money for me? No! But do i have a choice? No! The government made a law! Great business to be in, hey?

          “Are you refusing to pay those costs?”
          Of course not – i have no choice if i want to live the lifestyle i wish to live. The government does not provide me with any other viable option – it’s either be a part of their coercive monopoly, or live in a cave.

          “The private sector has shown that profit does not drive equality.”

          In many cases, I can’t agree with you more. Take a look at the computer you’re typing on. These days computers are so powerful and so cheap; i doubt that would be the case if there was heavy government influence. Greed, in this case, is good – the competition gives excellent value for money to the consumer at no expense to the consumer. Take a look at utilities, that have been “privatised”, but not really – they are so much under government control that they are a burden on the consumer. Energy should be getting cheaper nowadays, not more expensive! Look at what’s happening! It’s private greed, yes, but funded by public money and under government control; the worst of both worlds.

          “All it does is shore up the widening divide between the haves and have nots.”
          The have nots, these days, still are able to own the most powerful computer technology (even the most basic mobile phone is miles ahead in processing capabilities than, say, a desktop machine of 10-15 years ago). The have nots, on the other hand, struggles to pay the power bill, gas bill etc and all of that is going up.

          “It does not matter what sector it is. It always happens because returns for shareholders is what matter most.”

          And without the public/private bastardisation, high shareholder return will mean good value for money for the poor. High shareholder return in its current state seems to happen at the expense of the consumer.

          • It is and it isnt. You dont want to pay tax on anything you dont like, that is clear.

            Individual rights? So when the private sector only plump up for those areas that they get good returns on then the rest are left with what? Who then protects them?

            They do and dont. Yeah we paid back a shite load due to some financial fun in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Liberals did well in getting that under control. Then we all got hit again due to corporate greed and structures that collapsed and needed propping up. Again a private sector unregulated that took risks for massive returns. Awesome. So far all I see is the priavte sector taking and the government having to prop up a system so entrenched that to let it all die would be catastophic to millions and millions.

            Governments have only encouraged greed through Liberal ideals of private sector ownership and participatiion. Labor jumped on board as the Right Wing world we now live in got stronger and stronger. If you were to apply this to Broadband in Australia now and looked at a heat map of ISP’s/Telcos and where they sell services you would see that there are areas that are grossly over represented vs those that are sparse to non existent.

            Again. Where is the protection that government should be providing?

            Smart Meters and the projected rise in costs are totally unacceptable, I agree. Unfortunately successive governments decided to sell out to the private sector and all regulators have been able to do is hold back some of the increases. There is no protection any more. We sold the rights to the highest bidder.

            So the lifestyle wou wan to lead will have some parts that are paid for by your tax and some parts you pay for the services provided or you buy outright. Broadband is just one of those things that will kind of fit across all three. Paid for initially by the government because no one will build anything to reduce the annoyances/congestion and lack of service in many parts of the country, you will pay for the service as you do with ISPs and Telcos now and you will buy some cabling and a new modem perhaps to run around your home. I do not agree with them ever selling off the asset at the end of it all as the cashflow could end up turning out more important than a one off massive payment to reduce a manageable deficit (maybe they can then begin buying back all the other servcies they have been selling off??).

            The problem with your PC/Laptop analogy is that it was never government owned in the first place. There are regulations around the peripheries of these instruments we use in our daily lives as set by governments, but you buy it solely as an indvidual for your tastes. In a sense you will get the same sort of offering from ISPs etc (this plan vs another vs another ISP’s offerings vs going totally wireless). Choice will be there as it is now for some … just that there will be many more choices to many more people in the long run and ISPs/Telcos can stop playing in the infrastructure sandpit where they have shown they do not belong.

            Greed can be great for some advancements … not all and never anything that is beneficial to all unless the returns are great whilst the costs of delivery are low. It will not happen in the Broadband context ever unless the government steps in to get the ball rolling. As long as they keep the ball then good. Let the government be greedy on another front (and maybe one day reduce taxes a little to compensate for the money they bring in from running efficient services that command consistent wholesale rates or return).

            When has a high shareholder return been a good thing for the poor? GMH closed down Flint, Michigan to ensure that the high profits they were expeirencing at the time were maintained and grown. Manufacturers in Aus are continually pulling out and contracting overseas to ensure low costs for increase margins. They have not helped the poor or those rely on those industries to have a living.

            Private sector returns, margins and cashflow are ruled by those that make sure that it is an ever increasing possiblity of m)ore money for them by any means possible. Sustainability ( a smaller return over many more years) does not cut it in this day and age due to said greed and a now attitude.

            Anyways this may all be getting a little off topic, but in some respects it does drive at the heart of what the NBN represents and how it is implemented. The social benefits, the returns, the private sector nuances, future growth and who should be doing what and in what capacity.

            Lots to discuss.

          • “You dont want to pay tax on anything you dont like, that is clear”

            Look, I’m a software engineer by trade, so you would think that it’d be in my best interest to support a huge project that would no doubt benefit me. No, i don’t discriminate between what would benefit me at someone else’s expense or what would benefit others at my expense.

            “Individual rights? So when the private sector only plump up for those areas that they get good returns on then the rest are left with what? Who then protects them?”

            I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here, but i think you’re judging “individual rights” through the lens of what the government offers us today.

            “So far all I see is the priavte sector taking and the government having to prop up a system so entrenched that to let it all die would be catastophic to millions and millions.”

            So the government sets up this system for us, has to bleed us dry to stop catastrophic failure, and that’s the right thing to do?

            “Governments have only encouraged greed through Liberal ideals of private sector ownership and participatiion. Labor jumped on board as the Right Wing world we now live in got stronger and stronger.”

            Yeah, ok. Let’s have a bash at the libarals, since we’re on the labor team.

            Look, I’m not going to disagree with you. When the government props up public ownership of resources, it’s clearly socialist. When the government props up and controls the private sector, it’s leans towards fascism. You may not think that the socialist route is not that bad, but as far as i’m concerned, both are bad. Both are coercive, both are statist. Both are evil.

            “Smart Meters and the projected rise in costs are totally unacceptable, I agree. Unfortunately successive governments decided to sell out to the private sector and all regulators have been able to do is hold back some of the increases. There is no protection any more. We sold the rights to the highest bidder.”

            So why do you think that the NBN will be any better? The government already told us of their intent to sell it off, why in dog’s name would you wanna go down that route again? The government screws you and me over with its decision making and you still want them to maintain control?

            “When has a high shareholder return been a good thing for the poor? ”

            When there’s no or relatively little coercive government control. I already explained this.

            “GMH closed down Flint, Michigan to ensure that the high profits they were expeirencing at the time were maintained and grown.”

            Oh, come on. The motor industry represents the prime example of how government can royally screw things over. Why would you choose that as an example of how the private sector screws over the poor?
            And another thing, i don’t see how it’s fair that the government spends zillions of taxpayer dollars on roads that help these companies sell their cars, do you?

            “Private sector returns, margins and cashflow are ruled by those that make sure that it is an ever increasing possiblity of m)ore money for them by any means possible.”

            Including making the laws for the government to force on us.

            “but in some respects it does drive at the heart of what the NBN represents and how it is implemented”

            Correct, there are issues here that are more fundamental than the NBN itself. And you’re right, there is lots to discuss, and i’m at work (and i should get back to it!). 40% (or more?) of my productive work goes to the government which, more often than not, help prop up monopolies and oligopolies (public and private) and make stuff more expensive for me. To me that’s involuntary servitude.

          • And I am in IT also, but am not looking at it from that point of view. As a whole there are social benefits that allow for those who are disassociated in the current environment to begin to reconnect (pun intended) with a value proposition that encompasses both a private sector mentality (user pays) v a public sector protection (one for all and all for one). As a software engineer you should be able to see the benefits to many in regards to cloud computing and the attraction of rich applications for a smaller price on hardware that does not need to be big expensive and beefy due to the distributed nature of the potential app.

            Individual rights are slowly whittled away by lobby groups who push for changes to laws passed on by successive governments that benefit a select few. Individual rights in this case could be considered something more altruistic and for the masses if it is kept in government hands (and the rules and regulations of access are maintained on a FOI/non blacklist for everything/no filter situation).

            There is intent to sell it off, but there is resistence (Greens for one) and at the very least 93% of all will have something that is viable moving forward. I would prefer to stay in the hands of the government … that would be my say on the matter. Pragmatic enough to know that this will most likely not happen.

            Coercive control by the government is a balancing act and depends on the government of the daty and the agendas they have. The last liberal government was all about freeing up the private sector (finance espscially) and the FTA’s with other countries. This in turn moved us into a deregulated environment which lead to the GFC. Not so much here as some regulation kept things in check. US etc … a bit of an “ooopsies!” moment.

            The motor industry represents many things. That example represented the ability of GMH to close plants even though at the time the profits were rolling in. Government can only try and sweeten the deals in staying in that instance (tax concessions etc). GMH would still walk away if it meant less on the bottom line. If you are talking tariff’s etc then perhaps they could have done more to stop importation of other cars … but in the US they like their cars to be gas guzzling … and that is what GMH and Ford are good at over there.

            Here there should be more protection for manufacturing, but ultimately no matter what happens, companies will go with low cost options to get greater returns. No government can really stop that.

            Roads are required for many things … not just for cars in general. Freight, bringing in people and business to certain areas and opening up new avenues for all this to take place. Good public transport can take you only so far. Freedom to move between still required.

            Making laws in what sense? Deregulation for greedy returns? You say greed is good. Yet you are annoyed when the government puts laws in place to make this happen?

            40% here also goes to the government coffers. Some things I am all for, some things I am not … in the end it evens itself out and the NBN is a win for me and the people around me (outer burbs). There are groups that have too much power (lobbyists) that represent the private sector and solicit favors and business through the government … they have the money to do it (wonder where they got that from?) Yet here we are the rest of us, either working for the man, or scratching out a living working for ourselves and finally having something given back to a vast majority instead of certain small factions that seemed to have had too much passed there way lately (Christian right for one).

            Oh and as for Liberal bashing then yes I have that in spades, because right now they are a whining pack of naysayers that offer nothing but negativity instead of a true alternative … their plan was a money waster of a greater magnitude if extrapolated out over the same approx 40 year life of the NBN. In saying that I have no love of Labor either. Their policies and reactionary politiking puts them in the same category … there is no real alternative. Very glad the Greens and Independents have balanced things out somewhat. It may look a little ugly and unwieldly … but at least there will be some accountability and balance brought back to public debate.

          • Well, that’s way too much for me to respond to right now (i’m at work), but i do appreciate it. I’ll have to get back to it later.

            What i will say now is that, sure, the social benefits of such a large project are significant, no doubt, but does that give anyone the right for anyone to take away the fruits of my productive labour to fund such a project? I’d argue that there is no more justification for the government to spend money on my behalf on the NBN without my consultation any more than there is justification for them to prop up private energy companies who continue to rip me off. Just because one initiative is seemingly more noble than the other still does not give anyone the right to take my money by force without my consent. To me that’s servitude.

            “Oh and as for Liberal bashing then yes I have that in spades, because right now they are a whining pack of naysayers that offer nothing but negativity instead of a true alternative”

            Of course you do, and the problem there is that they’re trying to play the labor party game when they shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t support any form of an NBN, they should state without hesitation that it’s not the government’s responsibility to provide such services. There’s no way they can be as effective as the Labor party in selling an NBN in any form to the public when their hearts are truly not in it.

          • Work is work is work. A little more “liberal” for me due to the nature of 24×7.

            The problem you have with the consultative process is that they “have” justified it via consultative means. They used the election and the NBN as part of their platform. They won and got the independents on board who wanted it too (even Katter wants it, but will not side with them). You may have said “Nay!” to the NBN with the way you voted, but there were many others that did not. A majority then has the ability to push through policies (admittedly there were not many …) that they deem won the election. In this case (and from the way the greens and indies indicated support) they seem to be right.

            The Liberals realised that the NBN would bring many that were disenchanted back to Labor and came up with something so knobbled that it was never going to be meaningful and it highlighted the fact that the private sector will not bring equity into an old and unmaintained network that is currently available.

            Maybe if they had gone in with something that made it attractive for the privates to invest … they had nothing, thus no alternative and thus one of the only true differences between the parties in the last election.

            Sure people were fed up with Labor (I did not vote for them, but ensured I voted in a way that whoever got in had checks and balances put in place), but perhaps they were swayed by something that had not been seen in Australian politics for a very long time (even if only in one real instance) – a social agenda that had benefits to many instead of a few. Who knows? From the looks many may have thought so.

Comments are closed.