Whirlpool users support NBN opt-out policy

49

An extensive survey of broadband users by online forum Whirlpool has found that most support the so-called ‘opt-out’ approach to rolling out the National Broadband Network, and that overall sentiment towards the NBN policy as a whole has rapidly improved over the past several years.

Under the ‘opt-out’ policy, residents won’t have to actively choose to have the fibre or wireless infrastructure installed — although it wouldn’t force them to actually pay for broadband services from an ISP. The policy has been adopted by Tasmania, but Victoria has rejected it and will force residents to actively signal their consent for the network to be rolled out to their premises.

Whirlpool’s survey was taken by some 23,513 individuals, most of whom rated themselves as either a guru, power user or at least ‘confident’ when it came to technology. Many of them worked in the technology sector, either as an IT manager, admin, developer or support agent.

“These results largely represent the views of informed opinion leaders, and informed consumers. We have not attempted to normalise the results to represent the broader marketplace, as we believe the information to be more valuable with this bias intact,” stated Whirlpool in the survey results.

According to the survey results published online today, 45 percent of the respondents noted they supported the opt-out policy, with 20.1 percent against, and the rest either undecided (17.7 percent) or not knowing what the policy was (17.2 percent). In addition, just 3.5 percent of respondents said they would ensure their house was opted out of the NBN when it was rolled out to their area.

In general, 42.8 percent of respondents indicated they would rate the Government’s handling of the NBN policy so far as either excellent or acceptable – a number up from 15.1 percent two years ago. 49.9 percent of respondents rated the Government’s handling of the NBN policy either poor or abysmal, with the rest not being sure.

58.7 percent of respondents listed their current sentiment about the NBN as being either positive or very positive, with a significant number being neutral – 19.3 percent, and 19.8 percent being negative.

One interesting item from the results was that despite the NBN fibre’s vastly improved technical capabilities over Telstra’s current copper network (speed, latency and reliability), only 56.9 percent of respondents said they would switch their internet service provider to the NBN immediately – with 43.1 percent stating they wouldn’t.

“Everyone switching to the NBN on day 1 isn’t a fait accompli,” Whirlpool said in its analysis of the survey results. “Further analysis on this topic isn’t available, but many factors could play into this. Many won’t be able to switch due to existing contracts or ISP limitations, and others may wait and see how the initial service pans out, or what deals are on offer.”

The survey also covered a number of other areas – such as what devices users use, what they think of the quality of their ISPs. One of Australia’s largest ISPs – TPG – performed particularly badly in the survey, with 30.9 percent of its customers rating the company’s customer service as “awful” and 20.7 percent being “outraged” with the reliability of their internet connection. Telstra also received below average results in the customer service category.

Image credit: Hanspeter Klasser, royalty free

49 COMMENTS

  1. Whirlpool tech geek users who frequent Whirlpool support the NBN – no surprises there with the skewed population sample.

    I like these conclusions.

    “These results largely represent the views of informed opinion leaders”

    Being opinionated is not the same as being informed, as the vast majority of posts in Whirlpool are from anonymous members it is interesting that they conclude they are from ‘informed opinion leaders’

    lol.

    “We have not attempted to normalise the results to represent the broader marketplace, as we believe the information to be more valuable with this bias intact,”

    That’s a classic, first of all they admit the results are biased but then that’s ok because we say it is!!

    • The Whirlpool results attract this sort of bullshit criticism every year — but they state their audience composition up front and disclose everything. You can’t fault their methodology.

        • “That’s a classic, first of all they admit the results are biased but then that’s ok because we say it is!!”

          The results are not “biased”. Whirlpool states up front that it is a survey of its audience base … they never claimed it was a mainstream survey, but so many people complain that it’s not.

          • That’s fine Renai admitting up front that there is bias, but what is ludicrous is coming to these two conclusions anyway.

            1.’These results largely represent the views of informed opinion leaders’ – how do you derive that conclusion from a anonymous forum? – on what basis do you decide who is a ‘informed leader’ and who is not?

            2. ‘we believe the information to be more valuable with this bias intact’ – err what? – LESS VALUABLE would be the rational conclusion of survey results with admitted intact bias.

  2. There should never be an opt-out policy for anything. People should have the right to be asked first if they want a service and then make their choice, not be told that they are going to be hooked up to a service and they have to take action to get out of having it.

    I’m all for technology advancement, being a computer and IT professional for over three decades, but I demand to be given the choice of what services I want in my house, rather than have to opt out of them.

    When I built my house, nobody forced me to have electric power, telephone or gas – I had to opt-in and ask for these services to be connected. And that’s the way it should be with anything, including NBN.

    • “People should have the right to be asked first if they want a service”

      The opt-out policy is about providing a connection, not a service. Once you’re connected you can choose to enable a service or to ignore it completely. Nobody is being forced to do (or pay for) anything, so what’s the problem?

      • Problem is property rights, cant have people digging out your front garden with out permission.

    • “There should never be an opt-out policy for anything.”

      Never ?

      So if your unconscious and need brain surgery …

    • You’re right! How dare this government build sewers, electricity and gas pipelines into my house without my express permission. If we want to live in the stone age, that’s our right. I’m with ya buddy.

  3. “There should never be an opt-out policy for anything. People should have the right to be asked first if they want a service and then make their choice, not be told that they are going to be hooked up to a service and they have to take action to get out of having it.”

    I may not agree with your stance, but I defend the right to make it.

    Having said that – there is a large (ne chasm) difference between a utility connection, and a service connection. NBN is being built largely as a utility. Like gas and electricity. There is a seperation point between the cable being laid to the premises, and a *connection* to the premises.

    Not unlike an old fashioned copper tail; it still requires a paid service commitment to *use* the end result.

    The internet has becone a utility. Whether or not it’s a benefit, is highly debatable, but the plethora of connectivity options and rapacious demand clear illustrate that fact.

    When you built your house, the power was feed along the street, you had to tap in to it. Whether that point is 6 inches away on the other side of the wall, or 60 feet away at the kerb is really rather irrelevant, if *neither* depoyment options work without an active account and service connection.

    The only difference is the cost to the end user. $connection fee, versus $cable + $connection fee.

    It’s also amusing defending the right to say no, when you can still say no (though I do undertsand your point) – either way, as suggested, the end result is the same. :)

    I think, throughout, Conroy has been fixated on arguing the case for building the NBN, rather than simply selling it. People still fill the void with assumptive reasoning, because the idiot is trying to put out fires that don’t really exist.

    The libs may well be “against” the NBN, but even they aren’t so shortsighted to (quietly) know something has to be done. They only difference is that Labor is more likely to pull the damed trigger.

    In 15 years from now, people will be wondering what the heck the hubbub was all about.

  4. It doesn’t really matter what Whirlpool thinks, the policy will be decided by each state, the two most populous states NSW and Victoria resoundingly booted out the incumbent Labor Governments at recent elections so far into orbit they will be struggling to get back anytime soon, both Governments have decided on opt-in.

    Qld I think is still deciding, the other states relatively speaking don’t really matter one way or the other on the National roll out scale.

  5. Whirlpools survey Always provide an interesting cross section for analysis but are always widely ignored by the politicians making decisions discussed in the survey. Last year it showed an overwhelming hostility towards the filtering policy amist even more hostility from other areas and yet the policy is somehow still on the table.

    The problem with the data is the snapshot is now quite old. It is possible with all the stuff going down that the position may have skewed since then. Regardless, it will be widely ignored by State governments in regards to opt-out and both Mr Conroy and Mr Turnbull in regards to general support etc.

    • “Whirlpools survey Always provide an interesting cross section for analysis”

      Except it is the opposite of a cross section, it is a myopic biased small section.

      “but are always widely ignored by the politicians making decisions discussed in the survey.”

      It should NOT be ignored why?

      “it will be widely ignored by State governments in regards to opt-out and both Mr Conroy and Mr Turnbull in regards to general support etc.”

      Support in tech geek blatantly biased over moderated Whirlpool for opt-out does not translate into state voter support for opt out, the long term Labor Governments of both NSW and Victoria were booted out by Coalition Governments, obviously support for a opt out NBN policy was not a high priority on the electorate agenda.

      • So you would ignore the opinions of those confident in the field just because they are biased?

        You’re biased against Labor, obviously I should ignore any misgivings you have against the party.

        Alain, I understand what you are trying to say, that a collection of geeks does not a reliable representation make, but that doesn’t make their opinions invalid.

        But since they are the people most likely to sign up to the NBN (i.e. the early adopters) it is important the government understands what their position is.

        Because if geeks have absolutely no interested in the NBN, there is no way in hell the general public are going to want it.

  6. *The internet has becone a utility. Whether or not it’s a benefit, is highly debatable*

    lol. of course, the internet is a BENEFIT. does anyone really question that???

    *I think, throughout, Conroy has been fixated on arguing the case for building the NBN, rather than simply selling it.*

    he has been selling it, e.g. “NBN will give everyone 100mbps”, “NBN will result in retail competition nirvana”… all of which are outright LIES. either he’s so incompetent that he doesn’t understand the implications of CVC pricing or he’s intentionally lying. under either scenario, he should resign.

    *People still fill the void with assumptive reasoning*

    assumptive reasoning? and the NBN business case isn’t full of assumptions? astute businessmen do not make assumptions? engaging in rational analysis based on reasonable assumptions isn’t desirable?

    *because the idiot is trying to put out fires that don’t really exist.*

    in other words, SH and B should take a chill pill and have a lie down because they’re seriously deluded. lol. right.

    • @toshP300…

      Brendan… *The internet has becone a utility. Whether or not it’s a benefit, is highly debatable*

      tosh… “lol. of course, the internet is a BENEFIT. does anyone really question that”???

      tosh (next paragraph) “NBN will give everyone 100mbps”, “NBN will result in retail competition nirvana”… all of which are outright LIES”.

      Seems you contradictorily, just answered your own question tosh…apparently one does…!

        • Trollgator,

          *The difference between you and I*

          i’m assessing the proposed NBN purely on its merits. you’re just a one-eyed NBN Co fanboi.

          *if the same NBN was Coalition policy*

          it’d still be rubbish policy.

          93% FTTP = destroying the cost-competitiveness of our fixed-line communications infrastructure = building a network nobody can afford to use = worsening broadband affordability = plain stoopid.

  7. Whirlpool/mostly I want to scream hell yeah it’s over moderated and then some,however he says calming down, re: the skewing of the sample:I get why people think this and they might be right an I don’t know what proportion of the posters who just chat about best fridge/w/machine/solar power/car dealer/camera brand/tv show/adds on commercial networks/personal computers/macs/etc voted but the spread of the population might be wider than some respondents here imagine.Isn’t it time theoritically hardcore computer geeks realised how many of us every day people treat the internet like any other utility.Get over yourselves and catch up.

    • “but the spread of the population might be wider than some respondents here imagine.”

      Yeah sure it is, 30% of the respondents that answered the survey were in IT, the next nearest highest category was Retired at 5.2%.

  8. The IT people are passionate and respond,understandable.The other 70%? This provides diversity.

    • “The IT people are passionate and respond,”

      Is that ‘nice speak’ for the survey is biased by that industry sector?

      “The other 70%? This provides diversity”

      Oh I see, so why bother with any other job categories then, just make it IT 30% Other 70% – makes analysis simpler.

      • Yes, typical alain, you only want to hear the information which suits your agenda, otherwise you have you fingers in ears…or worse simply discount/ignore such info!

        • Well here is the rest of the information; you can decide if it represents diversity.

          Guru 32.9%
          Power User 35.4%
          Confident 25.4%
          Still Learning 5.3%
          Beginner 1.0%

          I dont know many people outside the IT industry that would consider themselves ‘confident’, let alone Power User or better, according to the Whirlpool poll.

  9. Hi alain,actually I was just being a bit glib.I still think there’s a wider spread of people at whirlpool than you think.It can be a weird place sometimes though, anyways have a nice Easter mate.

  10. *From day one, the NBN has been “entirely about cost”*

    cost is a paramount consideration in determining how much to invest.

    if you overbuild, you’ll either saddle our small retail broadband market with the burden of servicing a disproportionately large asset base via unnecessarily high access charges, or, you’re laying the groundwork for a future taxpayer bailout. that’s not how an economically or fiscally-responsible government conducts policy.

    “93% FTTP” was never Labor’s “plan A” – it’s “plan B” (or the political philosophy of “if something is too difficult, keep throwing more money at it”). i think we deserve better than a “plan B” (especially when “plan B” costs a fortune).

    *leave the “profitable areas” where the NBN can make that very ROI you all previously demanded, to private enterprise and now he says that the government should build a totally unprofitable network in the unprofitable areas, only…What about the “waste”, “viability” and that “precious ROI…”?*

    it’s totally unnecessary for the government to intervene in urban markets if the necessary incentives are present for private telcos to invest in new or better infrastructure. the key here is regulatory and pricing certainty. no-one in their sane mind would pour billions of dollars into new infrastructure if the ability to recoup on the investment is subject to the arbitrary, ever-changing methodological whims of technocrats. there’s no reason why sensible regulation and pricing certainty won’t result in “good” economic outcomes in these markets (i.e. affordable infrastructure upgrades).

    now, regulatory issues aside, some forms of infrastructure will never be “economic” or “affordable” in rural areas. if, as a policymaker, you wish to promote certain minimum “social outcomes” for these “underserved” areas, the best way to achieve this is to narrowly-focus taxpayer-funded subsidies on these specific areas and distort economic incentives in favour of building the desired infrastructure.

    there’s no need to intervene aggressively, renationalise the entire fixed-line sector and introduce all kinds of additional economic and pricing distortions on a universal basis. “one-size-fits-all” solutions are never efficient from an economic perspective.

    *Funny too, how you couple of incessant FUDsters have grasped onto CVC charges*

    if residential connections were standardised to 100mbps across the board:

    (i) there’d be no need for contention (CVC) pricing

    (ii) there’d be no artificial “aggregation economies” from “CVC overhead” which create an uneven playing field for different-sized RSPs seeking direct access to the NBN wholesale platform

    NBN Co has stated that CVC is not a backhaul charge. the only reason NBN Co’s introducing CVC charges is because:

    (i) the “revenue potential” of different fibre connections are not the same, e.g. a connection to a Toorak/Bellevue Hill mansion may earn $200/mth while another connection to a house in Lilydale/Blacktown may earn $20/mth.

    (ii) in other words, not everybody needs or can afford (the real cost of) a fibre connection. so if you have a single, flat uniform AVC charge (i.e. transparent reflection of the average cost of 93% fibre), you’ll find that half of your market will be priced out of even “basic access”. there’d be a political revolt.

    (iii) so, if you’re going to push fibre indiscriminately to every residence, you’ll have to force one group of subscribers to subsidise another group. hence, the “invention” of a separate category of CVC charges (which, at $20/Mbps, does not reflect underlying scarcity), to disguise the real costs of servicing NBN Co’s huge balance sheet.

    understanding CVC charges is fundamental to understanding NBN Co’s business/financial model.

    *ignore the copper degradation/inability to fulfil future technologies/needs. Ignore people in areas who don’t have modern/decent comms.. Some of our fellow Aussies even in capital cities, let alone rural areas, are getting marginally better than dial up. It is NOT good enough – private enterprise HAVE NOT, delivered*

    the problem here is that there’s been insufficient investment in our fixed network. you do realise that when Telstra suggested that one consequence of pushing ULL prices too low is underinvestment in local fixed networks, the ACCC actually argued, on the basis of some flimsy cross-country benchmark, that there was NO underinvestment in our fixed-line sector (hence, ULL prices were appropriate, etc). ’nuff said.

    *Again I refer to the NBN ROI you all demanded*

    nobody “demanded” an “NBN ROI”. it was the Labor Government that decided to market “long-horizon social infrastructure investment” as an off-budget, “commercially-viable investment vehicle” (NBN Co.) which would attract “cornerstone private telco investment”, “mum & dad investors”, etc. guess what? – none of that materialised. what’s more, there’s a risk that NBN Co won’t get the private debt funding (at the right price) without explicit Commonwealth guarantees – in which case, taxpayers are essentially bearing the entire risk of the $XXbln project.

    *but in relation to CVC. Before you whinged that the return was not commensurate with the outlay, but now you whinge that the government will actually be overcharging…!*

    the “marginal benefit” to the average consumer is not commensurate with the cost of providing “universal fibre”. if this wasn’t the case, NBN Co would implement transparent pricing, i.e. a flat, uniform AVC charge to access the fibre network without creating an “affordability dilemma” for large swathes of the market.

    this “marginal benefit” is separate from “price paid”. “overcharging” is a poor description. the point is that a less ambitious (and less costly) upgrade to the fixed network would result in “similar” improvements* in broadband access AND lower wholesale charges.

    *The NBN IS NOT perfect, but it is the BEST option we have…imo!*

    the NBN (93% FTTP) is the best way to destroy the cost-competitiveness of our fixed-line infrastructure, saddle broadband subscribers with unnecessarily-high access charges, reduce broadband affordability across the board, create economic and pricing distortions across the entire communications sector, etc.

    the sad truth is the Labor Government has hijacked an important policy issue and transformed the NBN into a political exercise (to stay in power).

    * don’t forget – NBN Co’s “pricing examples” largely revolve around 12/1 10GB/20GB/30GB plans.

    • Thank you for the response…toshP300

      However (although my previous facetiously playful comments have since been deleted…) you really haven’t addressed much of what I mentioned/asked with “an actual alternative”. Just more political waffle and nothing concrete, imo!

      The cost of the NBN is of course important… but again the NBN is an “infrastructure build not a monetary investment”! Try to distinguish the difference and it will assist in understanding the entire situation clearer…! Think A-Z again, not just D for dollar$.

      You think we *deserve better than the NBN*

      Technically there is no better than fibre and you know that, so again you are talking $ and/or politics and nothing else.

      The cost of this build is approximately the equivalent of 1% p.a. over 10 years of our budgetary revenue (the NBN will arguably cost $30B, but Australia’s revenue over that period will be $3T)…The cost is inconsequential, especially in comparison to the projected benefits…and when taking into consideration the situation with the degrading copper not being capable of handling our future needs (which you seemed to have ignored answering how we should avoid, unless I missed it in amongst all the electioneering)?

      So we deserve better than the best, ” as such… we are all ears”…let’s hear it…! Since you have a secret network that is “better than fibre” and will “cost less than fibre”, my friend [sic] you are elected Opposition Leader…now…and you’d have primarily, everyone’s support! Vote 1 Mark Liberal, for PM!

      *Totally unnecessary for governments to intervene in urban areas*…

      Well YOU personally, may not have been bogged down arguing about NBN ROI, but some of your anti-NBN compatriots certainly were/are. As such, it is ludicrous to suggest handing the cream to private enterprise and have the taxpayer foot the loss-making bill in rural areas only… whilst simultaneously complaining about the current NBN ROI!

      Also I don’t know about you, but I check the ZD speed tests regularly and rarely do I see over 10mbps. In fact I have seen some woeful results even in capital cities (one 49kbps – even if slowed it’s supposed to be 64, surely), so “yes” governments apparently do need to intervene…as private enterprise have failed miserably, even in the cities, in some instances! But as long as you are ok..eh?

      *in which case, taxpayers are essentially bearing the entire risk of the $XXbln project*

      Umm not according to the Tenderers/Contractors who claim they have only priced the build more expensively than anticipated (ahem) because “they” have to assume the bulk of the “risk”…! Hmmm?

      *one-size-fits-all” solutions are never efficient from an economic perspective*…

      Again look outside the (dollar) square – this is an infrastructure build… for all Australians/future generations…period! The first N in NBN = ? Go on say something infinitely clever [sic]!

      *understanding CVC charges is fundamental to understanding NBN Co’s business/financial model*

      Again A-Z. This is but one facet of the NBN and understanding is of course part of the overall picture. But understanding and spreading FUD about costs, when there are distinctly different takes coming from each side, are two different things.

      *the NBN (93% FTTP) is the best way to destroy the cost-competitiveness of our fixed-line infrastructure*

      Do you really believe (apart from some dribs and drabs) that throwing a few DSLAMs into Telstra’s exchanges and using Telstra’s network is actual competition? True competition would have multiple companies running multiple fibre (oops copper) to each home…! What we have is make believe/pseudo competition, forced upon us because Telstra was privatised vertically. Had the network been a stand alone wholesaler, with Telstra being but one reseller, the inequities of the past would not have occurred.

      A separate entity like, err, NBNCo…!

      Anyhoo, it is obvious that I am pro-NBN and you are pro-Lib and as such we will never agree, unless the Libs get a new (actual positive/strong) leader, a social conscience and improve their hodge-podge broadband policy. If they do, then I will consider the Coalition again, as a viable alternative for my vote (again). My vote isn’t a given, it is earned, as votes should be to keep all of the ****ards honest…

      If/when this occurs, we will then be on the same side. Otherwise, it is clear that we will never be on the same side otherwise as, “your politics” simply won’t allow it…!

      • FYI – the first test following my post @ 12:20 – 24/4

        A user from Sydney measured 2230kbps @ (ZDNet) Broadband Speedtest.

        Is that good enough in 2011?

      • *the NBN is an “infrastructure build not a monetary investment”! Try to distinguish the difference and it will assist in understanding the entire situation clearer…! Think A-Z again, not just D for dollar$.*

        well, you, personally, may view the NBN as a “social infrastructure project” free from any financial hurdles or constraints. however, i submit to you – that is not how the government views it. according to the government, NBN Co is an “off-budget”, investment vehicle that will eventually be privatised.

        even if the NBN is funded “on-budget” with regular appropriations from general tax revenue, there is no guarantee it’ll survive the usual scrutiny that government infrastructure projects are subjected to – yes, the dreaded “cost benefit analysis”. in fact, any meaningful assessment of investment alternatives will necessarily involve “monetary expressions” or “monetary quantities”.

        there’s no parallel universe where fibre networks can be built for “free”, resource scarcity “repealed” or real opportunity costs somehow “avoided”.

        *You think we *deserve better than the NBN… Technically there is no better than fibre and you know that*

        it’s meaningless to have a 1Gbps-capable pipe terminating at your doorstep, if the network is priced so that you can only afford a 12/1 30GB plan. there’s no point building a massively-underutilised network – it’s a tremendous waste of economic resources.

        *The cost of this build is approximately the equivalent of 1% p.a. over 10 years of our budgetary revenue (the NBN will arguably cost $30B, but Australia’s revenue over that period will be $3T)…*

        given that the NBN is being built by a stand-alone investment vehicle (NBN Co.), the cost of the build has to be seen in the context of the revenue-generation capability of the fibre network itself. there’s nothing in the NBN legislation that suggests that NBN Co will receive any ongoing taxpayer subsidies (other than roll-out bridge financing) during the life of its operation. the entire burden of servicing NBN Co’s huge capital base falls squarely on the shoulders of broadband subscribers.

        from the consumer’s point of view, the NBN will cost well over $50bln.

        if we were to invest $10bln in FTTN, the incremental capital burden in terms of determining access charges is $10bln. when NBN Co. spends $36bln to construct the new fibre network and pays Telstra $13bln to shutdown the old copper network, consumers are effectively paying for TWO networks – both sums will have to be recouped from access charges.

        from the consumer’s point of view, paying Telstra $13bln to write-off its copper assets is simply money down the drain – a similar sum invested in FTTN would provide 98% national coverage.

        *Vote 1 Mark Liberal, for PM!*

        i’m really curious – what’s Mark’s surname? please do tell.

        *As such, it is ludicrous to suggest handing the cream to private enterprise and have the taxpayer foot the loss-making bill in rural areas only*

        the best way to facilitate infrastructure in “under-serviced” areas is to subsidise it directly. the monolithic approach (NBN Co.) of re-nationalising the entire fixed-line sector is both, unnecessary and undesirable, because the resultant cross-subsidies embedded in “(artificial) uniform pricing” across all market segments, geographies and technological platforms produces myriad economic distortions across the entire communications arena and into the broader economy.

        if you have to intervene to achieve certain “social outcomes”, it’s best to limit the scope of your intervention as much as possible to the area of concern to minimise the losses from pricing distortions.

        *Umm not according to the Tenderers/Contractors who claim they have only priced the build more expensively than anticipated (ahem) because “they” have to assume the bulk of the “risk”…! *

        the final variation on the construction tender determines the final size of NBN Co.’s balance sheet (assuming they capitalise 100% of the actual construction costs).

        the servicing and repayment of NBN Co.’s capital structure is an entirely different risk.

        *Do you really believe (apart from some dribs and drabs) that throwing a few DSLAMs into Telstra’s exchanges and using Telstra’s network is actual competition? What we have is make believe/pseudo competition, forced upon us because Telstra was privatised vertically.*

        in many ways, the emerging “NBN Co. regime” will be 10 times worse than the existing “Telstra regime”.

        you have to realise that NBN Co. (93% FTTP) is purely a political construct and is devoid of any economic rationale in its scope, reach or design. infrastructure businesses that are conceived and designed in a bottom-up process taking into account market demand, relevant cost parameters, efficiency considerations, etc, are driven and shaped by the market.

        NBN Co, on the other hand, which is ordained from the top and is shaped entirely by misguided ideology and political convenience will be seeking to mold and distort the market in potentially nefarious ways to ensure its continued existence and survival. (the CVC pricing fiasco is merely the first of many shoes to drop.)

        • Thanks again for the detailed policy speech/electioneering…

          I’m not going to prolong your agony too much longer… but suffice to say if you still cannot distinguish that the NBN is NOT COMPLETELY about $’s, well that really covers you.

          Public infrastructure is not built “just to” make money. Public roads, hospitals, schools (which you nay-sayers like to distance the NBN from because they don’t make money whereas the NBN will) are built for the people/taxpayers to utilise – Ummm, why do you think we pay taxes… just for your annual refund…?

          They are all builds not (strictly) monetary investments. The NBN, due to it’s nature, simply costs more and ergo needs to obtain separate funding. Like other infrastructure the NBN’s “primary function” is NOT to make money. Governments don’t say, let’s build a hospital because we can make a few $. They say, let’s build a hospital to help sick Australian’s! So too the NBN is to deliver comms to all Australian’s -surely this is common sense (well common sense to those sans a political agenda)? However the great part about the NBN is, unlike these other loss making builds, it “will actually make money”, making it’s build a no brainer to all but those who are subservient slaves to the opposition or whose employment/wallet are in opposition to the NBN, who therefore refuse to acknowledge this.

          As for letting private enterprise take the urban cream and then “we taxpayers also pay them subsidies to build and then own OUR network” in rural areas..”insanity”…to everyone but those companies who will benefit or again puppets for the opposition! Particularly odd when coming from the naysayers again, who argue about the NBN “taxpayer cost” (which AGAIN will be returned via revenue and can be sold at a profit) v.s subsidies which will never be repaid due to no asset ownership for resale… seriously! NBN = taxpayer win/win (in time). Subsidies = taxpayer lose/lose.

          This is typical, hypocritical, conservative ideology at it’s silliest.

          Mark’s name is Addinall (and BTW I’m not Tailgater either)! In fact I know of you all through Whirlpool as I have been a Whirlpool member for many years but I have never commented… not even once (really don’t have time to prod/stir/play with you guys here (as I am now…) ZD, occasionally CW and spend hours at WP too)!

          However, as it currently seems – YOUR party (could be our party with a “real leader”) will gain government at the next Federal election..so cest la vie, NBN “may” never be completed? But that’s when the fun starts as the new government/current opposition will then have to do more than sit back policy-less, taking blind, negative, pot-shots at a government who are attempting (unsuccessfully it would seem according to the polls) to actually give something back to the people for a change!

          Interestingly just last month, throughout the UK there were mass demonstrations of people complaining about cuts to government spending by their conservative government! Yet here we are (well you lot are) complaining about the complete opposite – our government spending “on us”…sigh!

          Having voted for JWH and then KR, given the choice of a government who will spend tax dollars on the people rather than take from the people (whilst our infrastructure crumbles around us) I know which type of government I’d rather. Yes, the Labor government have been naive in handling some of their programs (hence the fact that bringing in comms experts and creating NBNCo was of paramount importance) but as it appears with the NBN tenders, being blindly gouged by Contractor’s as happened with previous programs, won’t occur again…!

          So keep that flag flying tiger… even though you appear to be quite intelligent/knowledgable, particularly in relation to comms, the fact that you let your political biases cloud your artistic judgement/common sense… is very, very sad indeed!

          • *The NBN, due to it’s nature, simply costs more and ergo needs to obtain separate funding.*

            the NBN “simpy costs more” and “needs to obtain separate funding”? i thought you were arguing all along “$36bln is insignificant in the context of the federal budget”?

            *the NBN “taxpayer cost” (which AGAIN will be returned via revenue and can be sold at a profit)*

            after the spit from the political and marketing spin is long dry, NBN Co. will eventually end up tits-up in need of serial taxpayer bail-outs.

            there’re good reasons why NBN Co.’s not very forthcoming with hard details on the NBN:

            (i) further revelations on the “nature of the beast” is politically-damaging to the marketing spin

            (ii) they have very little confidence in their internal business / financial models

            *Mark’s name is Addinall (and BTW I’m not Tailgater either)!*

            (i) i just googled this Mark guy… i see he posts on itwire.

            (ii) you post under the moniker of Tailgator on WP – your vocab, diction, punctuation style, habits of expression, etc are completely unique and unmistakable. dead giveaways.

            (iii) stop colouring a purely rational assessment of the economic merits of the proposed NBN with political insinuations. stupid policy is stupid policy – it doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum is sponsoring it.

        • i should also point out that the current “Telstra regime” is essentially a “direct subsidy model”:

          (i) Telstra implements “retail pricing parity” as opposed to NBN Co’s “uniform wholesale pricing”

          (ii) Telstra’s retail pricing policy is driven by the need to respond to ULL competition in Band 2 ESA to maintain market share

          (iii) ACCC adopts geographically-deaveraged ULL pricing

          (iv) hence, there’s an industry levy to compensate Telstra for the fact that average returns (as reflected in uniform retail prices) do not reflect average costs across the copper network.

          NBN, viz. uniform wholesale pricing and universal fibre access, is a whole different ball game – of course, by proposing artificially low and flat AVC charges, the real costs are effectively disguised or shunted into the data charges (CVC) component.

          given that business and government enterprises are the primary users of high bandwidth connections, a large part of the cross-subsidy burden will most likely fall on them.

          hence, the proposed NBN makes it MORE expensive for businesses to access fibre.

          • Tosh P300… Imo, arguing the accessing of fibre vs. accessing of copper, re: pricing = apples/oranges.

            The naysayers talk about letting private enterprise take care of our comms networks (which they clearly haven’t done… not even wholly in urban areas…)… But if say Telstra, did roll out fibre, do you think (sans regulation) they would charge the same for accessing their old, superseded networks/technologies, than they would for their brand new, upgraded, technologically superior networks… NO of course they’d want more for the new stuff. In fact they probably want a premium ROI for a premium network and substantially more for the new network, which is part of the reason we are here due to them wanting exactly that during their FTTN negotiations with the ACCC in 2005/2006. Of course they would also decommission their old network anyway, leaving no choice either…so! Simply they’d want more (as businesses do) just as Telstra and Optus did for years with their HFC networks, before the NBN scared the be-joisus out of them and the prices started coming down!

            This is why the government needs to do a pricing balancing act, to ensure everyone, but most importantly us the consumers, are not disadvantaged…! Again we can’t have that massive ROI some of the naysayers want to (so called) justify the NBN build and allow minimal access pricing… You guys talk business, so…use your business nous here!

            As I asked you before, but received nothing topical (imo, all I received was political rhetoric) in reply – ” Do you truly believe that throwing a few DSLAMs into Telstra’s exchanges and using Telstra’s network is actual/true competition”? Yes or no…? Surely there is and we deserve better!

            Also, do you really believe we need hundreds and hundreds of ISP’s/RSP’s? Seriously (and I think those who know me, know that I am certainly no Telstra fanboi) however, if it wasn’t for favourable access laws, there would not be hundreds of ISP’s now! It’s a false economy, due to regulatory outcomes required, because of the way Telstra was sold. Yes sold vertically to receive maximum return – see concentrating on $’s, isn’t always the best decision!

            Now, I’m not advocating the loss of ISP’s and Aussie jobs, but…seriously, let’s get real! It’s pseudo competition, imo. The NBN (whilst not perfect – and nothing is) is the best option and being a natural monopoly, will make our comms system fairer “over all”… with competition stemming at retail level. With the network sorted out/fairer (not having to compete with the owner) – ISPs/RSP’s will be able to concentrate on their core businesses “selling Comms products and services”…instead of worrying about DSLAM installation, fighting with Telstra etc.

            Look in all honesty I agree with some of what you say ToshP300 (because the NBN is not perfect – as you clearly demonstrate daily). However all you guys seem to do is bag without offering a “viable alternative”. You seem to bag without saying, hmmm, but if the Coalition were in and did FTTN, what about the copper, what about the Telstra factor. Or if wireless was utilised further, being shared, it will suffer or we will need more towers/further cost etc.

            Again if CVC pricing is the only actual gripe you guys have, then I think it proves the NBN is a winner and the best choice we have. In saying that, it will of course (as our biggest build ever and with little to use as a template) need ongoing tinkering…!

        • *given that business and government enterprises are the primary users of high bandwidth connections, a large part of the cross-subsidy burden will most likely fall on them.*

          *hence, the proposed NBN makes it MORE expensive for businesses to access fibre.*

          following on from those observations:

          some people are arguing (or simply assuming) that NBN will facilitate cheap fibre access for businesses and encourage greater decentralisation of workplaces.

          the very opposite is true.

          (i) by shutting down the copper network and forcing 10 million households onto the fibre platform, the Government is making fibre access LESS viable for businesses on the margin.

          this is because millions of households will not be paying the full costs of their individual residential fibre installations. instead, their “bill” will have to be picked up by other subscribers to the network, i.e. NBN customers who cough up the most in CVC (data) charges. these will most likely be enterprise and government subscribers.

          so, by building the “NBN”, the government will be transforming the small, viable and transparently-priced “fibre access market” into a bloated and unviable platform (riddled with myriad cross-subsidies and chock-full of free-riding households). these deadbeat “basic access” residential subscribers will “crowd out” fibre affordability for businesses.

          (ii) another case in illustration of how the NBN will distort the market is the unintended impact on business clustering.

          from my limited understanding, the “cherry-picking rules” in the Access Bill exempts point-to-point fibre networks which serve large corporates and government users. also, existing fibre networks of all types are grandfathered to an extent.

          now, P2P fibre networks are mostly confined to special areas with high enterprise concentration, i.e. CBDs and business parks.

          since the cost of fibre access on the NBN platform will be punitively-high for users who require high data throughput, these subscribers will, where possible, tend to migrate towards or cluster around P2P and other existing private fibre trunks (which are grandfathered).

          so, instead of encouraging a greater “decentralisation of workplaces”, the NBN will instead intensify clustering around existing “cheap fibre”.

  11. Keep guessing tossP300…LOL

    Just can’t let it go can you Mark (you even Googled yourself…LOL)?

    You and your political agenda have been found out just own up to being a mere puppet. But the big question – can you talk while Abbott drinks a glass of water…?

    • the only difference between Tailgator on WP and RS on dellimiter is:

      (i) when you lose an argument on WP, you scream “troll”, herring your opponent to death and whim your mod friends to come to the rescue

      (ii) when you lose an argument on delimiter, you resort to smears, negative insinuations and outright personal insults

      your WP quip is most apt – you’re “not so faceless”. indeed you have many faces: “Tailgator”, “RS”, “Kevin Davies”, “RobG”… god knows what other monikers you’ve been hiding behind.

  12. I found this site looking for info on the nbn outside the msm and whirlpool etc. The nbn is about the only far sighted venture happening in Oz at the moment,I can see why there are doubts about it being finished satisfactorily but now and again you need to party and forget your wallet.Having said that from what I’ve read here and elsewhere if it’s managed okay the wallet should survive.Big picture people!

  13. I think I speak for everyone here when I say, RS, toshP300, get a room. The tension between you two is getting unbearable and needs to be released ;-)

    • Renai

      could you pls delete the above comment. i know it’s humourous in intent and i don’t take personal offence – but MAJOR GROSS-OUT.

      just plain eewwwwwwwww…..

      thank you

  14. Attention Tosh and RS,

    I have deleted a bunch of posts from you guys from this thread as they were very little more than offensive personal insults. Tosh, I am cognizant that you are a little better at veiling your insults than RS is, but you are both winding each other up unnecessarily.

    Know that I am loathe to actively moderate Delimiter, as I prefer having an open forum rather than a heavily moderated one. However, if I don’t see a more polite tone from the two of you over the next few weeks I will moderate much more heavily.

    RS, I am growing tired of you in particular. Tone it down or I will block you from posting for a while — no matter what you post. You’ve had several warnings now.

    Cheers,

    Renai
    Delimiter Supreme Commander

  15. Think some of you guys can’t see the forest for the trees. Maybe it’s because you enjoy the fight or the detail(spitting hairs) or the sound of your own voices……I could have posted this in heaps of places.

  16. If the NBN does indeed gets broken up, then it will simply show that party politics has failed you again. A government that actually made a commitment that did not have a single vote in it for the following election, that was (and I am quoting Bob Katter who is pro NBN) a brave thing to do. And rare.

    But don’t forget this, the existing copper will not last – and it comes right up to your house – it has to be replaced by what the NBN will do – fibre all the way in. It’s only a matter of time – so do it properly I say.
    There is something else, this is that we do not yet know what the bandwith limitation of fibre is. The reason is that it is the brake in the system is the electronics either ends of the fibre, the transceivers.
    Indeed fibre may well be hundred or more times better than be know now.

    I am Scandinavian and I can tell you that experiments being done in Sweden right now indicate that spectacular results are potentially for the asking.

    There will be no more TV, no more Radio (it will be picked by nodes and not long distance), cable TV (Murdoch must surely know this is a threat), Telephones, innumerable services. My Italian Father-in-Law will watch TV Programs from his native Messina… And the advances in hospital services – a Doctor availability and diagnostic tools – will save thousands, nay, tens and hundreds of thousands live in time.
    I am sorry, but I am sure Malcolm Turnbull know all this, he has the background to know, and I find it sad that he puts politics ahead of good policy – the NBN should not have been turned into a political football – you shall ALL be loosers in that scheme of things.

    Disclosure: I am not a voter, I do not have an Australian Passport, my field is a technical one – and it is indeed in electronics – I am but a “temporary resident” among you.

Comments are closed.