news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has again engaged in a highly public clash of wills with technology innovator and futurist Mark Pesce, over whether Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network policy is the right way forward for Australia’s telecommunications industry.
The pair first clashed publicly in April this year on the ABC’s The Drum opinion-based discussion show, on which occasion Turnbull notably told Pesce, an advocate for the NBN, that he needed to “lay off the kool-aid” with respect to the fibre-optic technology on which most of the network will be built. The pair’s at-times vitriolic exchange was captured for posterity on YouTube.
Round two was fought late last week on Twitter. Although the conversation was initially cordial, it quickly descended to the same level as the previous verbal stand-off between the pair. “If we had an NBN, we could videoconference out meetings, rather than flying to them on Qantas,” Pesce wrote in the wake of the Qantas industrial relations debacle and linking the tweet to Turnbull’s account.
The Liberal MP quickly fired back: “But you don’t need [fibre to the home] to achieve the bandwidth to enable that,” he said. “NBN is a needlessly expensive and anticompetitive way to achieve universal fast broadband. From there the discussion quickly disintegrated into rounds of insults. Pesce said facts indicated that Turnbull “radically underestimated” the broadband speeds which Australians wanted to upgrade to and accused the MP of moving “from engagement to ad hominem attacks”, which he said was a sign that Turnbull had lost the argument “again”. “Yeah, Twitter, I’m done schooling @turnbullmalcolm,” he wrote, “Your turn.”
“Now you have moved from technology to theology,” Turnbull told Pesce at one point. And then, when Pesce referred to the so-called Gilder’s Law of the growing bandwidth of communications systems: “This type of exponential growth assumption needs to be checked against reality.”
“In the Lotus123 era we called mindless extrapolation the \copy school of modelling,” Turnbull wrote.
Both Turnbull and Pesce have a fair degree of experience in the technology sector. Pesce is perhaps best known for his stint as a judge on the ABC’s The New Inventor’s program, but he has also worked for a number of technology firms including Apple, and spearheaded the invention of the Virtual Reality Modelling Language in the 1990’s. Pesce is currently based in Sydney and is a lecturer, commentator, author and developer.
Turnbull’s closest engagement with the technology sector came in the late 1990’s courtesy of his chairmanship and investment in now-defunct ISP OzEmail, which has been sold several times since. However, his investment company has also taken holdings in a number of other Internet companies. He was appointed as Shadow Communications Minister in late 2010.
opinion/analysis
What we have here is an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
I’ve met and observed both Turnbull and Pesce a number of times over the past few years, and there is no doubt that they are each other’s equal when it comes to sheer willpower. When you consider their differing political ideologies (for example, Pesce recently re-tweeted a tweet calling for Qantas to be nationalised, while Turnbull is a staunch traditional liberal), it is no wonder that they continue to clash.
There is perhaps one difference I have observed between them, however. Over the past year, Turnbull’s views on broadband have continually evolved and developed as he has greatly enhanced his understanding of the field. Turnbull is willing to give ground in an argument if he can see that he’s wrong, and in his discussion with Pesce, he did attempt to get the futurist to question his own views on broadband through questions. In addition, Turnbull’s argument was based on real-world uses of technology — rather than its theoretical strengths.
Pesce, on the other hand, took an approach which I have found to be more common amongst technologists: Asserting the primacy of technology and the speed of technological development against all arguments, with less consideration for societal uses of that technology and its financial cost.
Watching the discussion happen between the pair was fascinating. Contained in their little war of words might be the entirety of the national broadband debate. Idealist technologists on the one hand, waving their blazing branches of progress, with realists like Turnbull calling for moderation and rational prognostication on the other. Very interesting ;)
Image credit: Screen cap of Turnbull and Pesce on ABC’s The Drum, believed to be fair use
Can’t say I found it that entertaining. More like embarrassing. Turnbull is such a joke. This is the man we want to plan our broadband?!
It’s Pesce’s job as a futurist to analyse the way we live and work with technology, and to then look at where it has the potential to take us in the future. Even when being moderately conservative he’s proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the the NBN, while far from perfect, is not only a marvel of modern engineering, but that its leading the world with technological innovation, and on top of that it will add so much to Australia from an economic perspective, given the amount of new jobs it will create (as well as reducing commuting and improving existing careers for so many people). Two-way HD applications, and the multiple real-world benfits that provides people, will quickly follow fibre installations, making Turnbull sound even more of a luddite than he does now, with his mis-representitive comments concerning ADSL. He talks as though we all get a constant 25mbps on ADSL2! What about real world download speeds and/or upload speed Mr Turnbull? Why dont you ever discuss that I wonder?
Pesce has one thing on his side which Turnbull and all anti-NBN folk refuse to embrace: VISION. The abilitiy to take his education, scientific knowledge, broadband studies and cultural research, and look at how it will impact us in the coming years. Pesce knows full well that Turbull likes the “win a few votes” blackspot bandaid approach, while Labor are approaching broadband from a completely next generation perspective.
If you talk about broadband without conceding the fact that the need for speed and bandwidth is evolving at phenomenal rate (and you simply ignore this while talking about the need to patch holes and build a second rate FTTN network) then it’s clear you have NFI about how to plan for a serious future of high bandwidth connected communites.
Turnbull: Your butt has once again been kicked by someone who understands the technology sector 1000x times better than you. One day you’ll understand that.
“Can’t say I found it that entertaining. More like embarrassing. Turnbull is such a joke. This is the man we want to plan our broadband?! ”
+1 Simon. You are totally right and the rest of your post is spot on too. Turnbulls & chums problem isn’t just a lack of vision it’s the hypocritical nature of their opposition to the NBN too.
@Simon Reidy
“It’s Pesce’s job as a futurist to analyse the way we live and work with technology, and to then look at where it has the potential to take us in the future.”
You could also find parallels with rolling dice and gambling in there somewhere, especially gambling is fun as long as its someone else’s money.
” Even when being moderately conservative he’s proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the the NBN, while far from perfect, is not only a marvel of modern engineering, but that its leading the world with technological innovation,”
Really? so what does the make the Telstra Velocity rollouts that came well before the NBN – technological innovation tripled? and how does wireless innovation such as LTE stand beside FTTH?, the same, better or worse, superfluous fluff like that is meaningless.
Remember also ‘technological innovation’ in Australia includes the shut down of working high speed BB like HFC, that’s a new approach to innovation the world has not seen before, and is laughable.
“and on top of that it will add so much to Australia from an economic perspective, given the amount of new jobs it will create (as well as reducing commuting and improving existing careers for so many people).”
Yet to be proven , unless you have reliable data from overseas or here that indicates that users in Telstra Velocity estates stay at home and run business and commute less than other suburbs stuck with bog standard ADSL or HFC?
No didn’t think you did.
Unsubstantiated pro NBN propaganda waffle I put in the same grab bag of rubbish as the interactive dancing mat demo at NBN launches.
” Two-way HD applications, and the multiple real-world benfits that provides people, will quickly follow fibre installations,”
Once again FTTH is not new to the NBN, there is plenty of of history of FTTH rollouts, what data is out there supporting this claim?
“Pesce has one thing on his side which Turnbull and all anti-NBN folk refuse to embrace: VISION.”
-cough- cough- yeah right if you say so, see Tosh’s post on all of that ‘VISION’.
“If you talk about broadband without conceding the fact that the need for speed and bandwidth is evolving at phenomenal rate (and you simply ignore this while talking about the need to patch holes and build a second rate FTTN network)”
You also ignore because it gets in the way of the ””’VISION””’ that consumers today do not use the fastest speeds available to them, who would have thought when HFC was rolled out all those years in 1994 most residences it passes even in 2011 don’t want it, I guess you don’t want to go there as a analogy with the NBN.
I also like the argument that HFC is ‘redundant’, it’s redundant because Conroy and the NBN Co want the customer base to help justify the NBN FTTH’s reason for being.
“Turnbull: Your butt has once again been kicked by someone who understands the technology sector 1000x times better than you. One day you’ll understand that.”
Far from it, you can dream about the grand FTTH Utopia all you like with those special rose tinted glasses that the pro-NBN lobby always wear, that reality is it is a multi billion dollar political white elephant that taxpayers will be carrying the burden of for decades.
I can’t really agree that we are leading the world with the NBN, I just feel like we are doing what several other countries are doing. It’s only really the Liberal’s who think what we are doing is extravagant.
We are also doing what no other country is doing in that working BB high speed infrastructure is being shut down so the customers are forced onto the NBN.
That’s very ‘innovative’ don’t you think?
Where is this “working BB high speed infrastructure”?
Must be something all the eastern states people have access to, because i can’t seem to find it over here in the regional/rural section of Western Australia.
I wonder how many people here could actually survive with a regional/rural western australian internet connection, my guess is, not very long. You are all too used to apparently having a “working BB high speed infrastructure”.
Thank you Ray. I’m in the same boat as you (although I live in the metro area).
I did find out the other day that cable does run past my house but the cost comparison Vs my existing ADSL plan made it a joke. Still the thought of a 25-30mbit service was very tantalising.
Seeing what *might* become available to me if the NBN is ever rolled out in my suburb where the existing copper broadband is very poor (4 mbit) is my idea of broadband utopia. Working from home would be a breeze instead of the chore it is now.
So much to look forward to except for the fact we have an opposition who can’t see the forest for the trees.
So, when the copper was rolled out many moons ago, we weren’t forced onto the cooper?
What working infrastructure was shut down before the copper and users were then forced onto it?
They were forced onto it. Thanks for confirming that.
Thanks for ignoring the question entirely and answering the one you made up because the other one was too hard.
It wasn’t too hard it was too stupid. But really the fact that even you confirmed people have been forced onto copper is all I need to know. Time to force people onto fibre now.
Yes and you ignored again the point about residences being forced onto copper because a previously working infrastructure was shut down.
Your semantic dances and avoidance’s are boring.
“Your semantic dances and avoidance’s are boring.”
You on the other hand are just plain boring. I didn’t ignore the point about residences being forced onto copper, you said users were forced onto it confirming the fact they were forced onto copper which is the point we have been making all along that you are still unable to comprehend.
“high speed infrastructure is being shut down”
False. Slow speed infrastructure is being shut down, high speed infrastructure is being rolled out as we speak. It is called the NBN. Please pay attention.
What can FTTH do that HFC cannot that is so important that the HFC needs to be shut down and those users need to be forced onto NBN FTTH?
“What can FTTH do that HFC cannot”
100/40mbps for 93% of premises.
“that is so important that the HFC needs to be shut down”
What can HFC do that is so important that warrants keeping such costly to run networks operational when it is made redundant by fibre?
“and those users need to be forced onto NBN FTTH?”
Ask Telstra and Optus. They are the ones “forcing” users onto NBN fibre.
“100/40mbps for 93% of premises.”
What applications require that speed to the point it is so urgent that 93% of premises require that speed, and also what percentage of that 93% will sign up for that speed?
“What applications require that speed to the point it is so urgent that 93% of premises require that speed”
You seem to be very confused again, 93% of premises have the choice of that speed if they wish and if they wish to get a slower speed that is their choice too, on HFC there is no 100/40mbps option and no ability to upgrade to faster speeds in the future… btw since HFC is capable of 100mbps down could you please tell us what applications require that speed that is so urgent it requires two networks running at the same time providing that speed? Is the market for 100mbps (down only) currently so big or will it be big in the future?
“and also what percentage of that 93% will sign up for that speed?”
Sorry I don’t have a crystal ball for crystal ball gazing like you, perhaps you could tell us how many wont sign up for a 100/40mbps NBN plan instead?
“What can FTTH do that HFC cannot that is so important that the HFC needs to be shut down and those users need to be forced onto NBN FTTH?” – alain. Posted 02/11/2011 at 8:21 pm
I can think of a good thing and it ain’t speeds. Conductivity! With no copper,we are insulated from the dangers of leathal voltages from power accidents and natural phenomina like lightning. Fires can start in houses from such things. But safety wise, the telephone will be so much safer for everyone! How many of us could not resist the temptation to answer that phone call during the thunderstorm! Thunder booms, flash of light, and you wake up in hospital after your ear is ruptured from a spark that cause catatrophic failure of the phone. If your lucky that is. Of course, no one warns people for those reasons do they? Oh, they do? Well there is a bloody good reason to move to glass. So the other question in this may actually be,why don’t certain Politicians want us to have safer equipment in our homes?
Hmmmm, Could it be possible that our Pollies are sold out to vested interests and will ply those Corporations voice instead of the Constituent’s needs? Which Bank? Which powerful Institution that promotes hard capitalist theology, that is mortified that a subjugated country like Australia would dare turn their back on the hard fought for right of the rich and powerful to own the telecommunications thus denyng them absolute total control of the flow of information? Wrong? Look what happened to Wikileaks when they defied the USA Government that they support./own? Did not the powerful US finance companies, then fail to process the legal donations of their customers to a legally operating entity. Certainly many laws were bent/broken for that one, but no one was charged? I think I’ll stop there and move back more to the centre of the article and not the outer manipulations of greed that create issues such as this to confuse/placate the Sheeple.
Sorry mate. There is always a lot more to any argument than what the media, vested interests, or Pollies put up. What is the motive is usually the first question asked in investigations to find the truth. Follow the money is also a good one, if you are allowed too. Good luck with that one.
Now, you have a reason where HFC is definately not as good as FTTH. *chuckle*
**Vitriol Shield is ON!** **Care factor is temporarily set to ZERO for peace of mind**
i’ve taken the time to read some of Pesce’s ideas… in particular, his extensive ramblings on “the next billion seconds” (or years or whatever) on his website… the main impression i got is that, while he may be a first rate computer scientist/programmer (or whatever you will), he has a very superficial understanding of economics, business and how things work in the real world…. almost a childless obsession of forcing the conceptual prism of “computer programmming” (or internet, tech in general) on every other aspect of human activity regardless of relevance or suitability and then drawing extreme conclusions or extrapolations.
*for example, Pesce recently re-tweeted a tweet calling for Qantas to be nationalised*
i seriously wonder how much Pesce knows about the airline industry… including stuff such as the gradual erosion of the traditional restrictions imposed by the hierarchy of rights in “freedoms of flying”, trend towards open skies agreements, airline mergers, rationalisation of capacity, etc…
*Pesce, on the other hand, took an approach which I have found to be more common amongst technologists: Asserting the primacy of technology and the speed of technological development against all arguments, with less consideration for societal uses of that technology and its financial cost.*
OMG Renai….. with your recent slew of pro-NBN articles, i was almost under the mistaken impression you had totally lost the plot or objectivity….. but you nicely captured the debate in that paragraph… even if a fibre network lasts 1,000,0000 years, it would still be a poor economic investment if the average consumer can’t derive any (significant) incrementally higher value from it (than an enhanced copper network) that they are willing to PAY for….
Labor’s NBN is COMMUNISM. it’s no exaggeration at all. under Soviet communism, parameters such as consumer preferences, value, production cost were completely disregarded in economic planning. when you abolish a market economy, you abolish market prices. without prices, you can’t gauge consumer demand, opportunity cost, etc. instead, “economic planning” was entirely run by engineers and the entire focus was on production techniques, superior technology, etc.
this exactly mirrors Labor and NBNco’s justification of 90% FTTH. “the NBN is good because it is the technically superior technology.” issues such as consumer willingness to pay or incremental consumer value from accessing fibre and the opportunity cost of pouring $50bln into the NBN and alternative uses of taxpayers’ capital are completely ignored.
the NBN IS communism and Mike Quigley is the “engineer” appointed by Labor central planners.
“Labor’s NBN is COMMUNISM. it’s no exaggeration at all.”
I think it’s really considerate when commenters give a nice clear indication of whether their content should be ignored. Thanks, toshP300, for saving us all some time.
you’re most welcome :)
*curtsey*
*walks off proudly brandishing Miss Considerate trophy*
Tosh didnt notice the “I’m an ASS, kick me” note stuck on his back.
is that the *best* you can do….. ?
Two fascinating comments here from commentators who I respect, Tosh and Simon Reidy. In many ways I agree with many aspects of both comments. The NBN is massive overkill and infrastructure competition-destroying. And yet, technologically, it is also visionary.
I am humbled and grateful that we have both sides of the debate represented so well.
you’re trying to win next year’s Nobel Peace Prize? ;)
LOL. Thanks Renai! I was just thinking how nice it would be if just once I could leave a pro-NBN comment on Delimiter, without having it dissected and trashed by Tosh or alain! Howabout we respectfully agree to disagree and leave our war of the words for another day Tosh? :)
you know, as far as i can recall, we’ve never really had a war of words (as in intense, lengthy debate on the NBN specifically between us). not that i want to start one, but just to set the record straight.
*how nice it would be if just once I could leave a pro-NBN comment on Delimiter, without having it dissected and trashed by Tosh or alain!*
i have indeed done so to many others, but i don’t recall trashing your comments either and i’m too lazy to start now (but never say never ;))…. however, you just waved a red flag in front of alain ;)
I thought we’d had a few discussions here and there, buty you’re probably right. Perhaps I’m a.) thinking of alain or b.) thinking of all the arguments I’ve had with you in my head when reading your posts or c.) a bit of both :)
“infrastructure competition-destroying”
Would you suggest that the road infrastructure in Australia would be better off if Holden, Ford, Toyota etc. all had to build their own road networks? Or does it make more sense for the government to maintain the roads – this hasn’t reduced competition in the car manufacturing industry – and any street-legal car can use the road, regardless of manufacturer.
“I think it’s really considerate when commenters give a nice clear indication of whether their content should be ignored.”
Jeez I was thinking the exact same thing about your ‘roads’ post above this one.
I hear alot of folk singing praises of the results of infrastructure competition, but I’d ask you; what benefit, if any has infrastructure competition given us?
Why is it that a 500GB Optus HFC service costs _EXACTLY_ the same as a 500GB Optus ADSL2+ service?
Infrastructure competition in your quoted case is across suppliers, not within just one.
You compare against Big Pond cable prices and against alternative ADSL2+ from the likes of TPG,iiNet etc as well as Naked DSL plans to look for the benefits of infrastructure competition.
*Why is it that a 500GB Optus HFC service costs _EXACTLY_ the same as a 500GB Optus ADSL2+ service?*
why is Optus able to offer the same pricing on a 100% pop. serviced (copper) network as on a 30% cherry-picked pop. serviced (HFC) network?
that, right there, tells you how underpriced access to the CAN is.
if access to the CAN was fairly-priced, Optus HFC plans should be cheaper than copper/ADSL because of the lower average cost footprint of HFC.
Just as likely that Optus are “overcharging” for access to their HFC network because they can squeeze more profit from it because they have effectively no competition as their only competitor, until recently, maintained pricing parity with their ADSL offerings.
izzit…?
Rooly…..?
you mean Optus can make more (or the same) money (or margin) reselling Telstra infrastructure than selling their own infrastructure?
gee, i wonder which access network’s cost base has been artificially depressed lower….
thanks for playing.
That is not what I said. Read it again.
Actually he said the exact opposite.
Game over, you lose.
Round two was fought late last week on Twitter late last week.
So I take it that it happened ‘late last week’. ;-)
Fixed :)
MT does have some good points …. but I think the point where it all falls down is where he tries to paint a nationalised infrastructure as being inefficient, costly, etc.
Whether privately owned or publicly owned ….. whether run by the government… or run privately under heavy regulation ….. we have varying levels of monopoly providers for roads, transport, water, energy, etc ….. and those industries get by just fine. Because they are successfully regulated to prevent negative outcomes.
It is not a case of monopoly providers being a bad idea. They prevent duplication of infrastructure, and they allow the regulators (you and me) to control the outcomes. Monopolies are only a bad idea when the government doesn’t effectively regulate them.
The NBN isn’t a good idea because it’s fibre… or because it’s fast…. or because it’s going to magically unlock new ways of doing things …… It will (perhaps) get us ahead of the curve to benefit from these things, but that technology is likely to evolve right along-side the applications of it.
The NBN is good idea because it gives certainty. It allows the government to regulate and control the outcomes for the people. The main ones being universal access for both consumers and providers.
So rather than being “anti-competitive” by preventing a few large network builders do their thing, and charge enough to make a big profit on their network building ….. The NBN actually enables competition by allowing retailers to enter the market.
The ultimate question is …. Is the government up to effectively regulating the outcomes of the NBN ….. or will 2020-2030 be a repeat of 1995-2005?
I’m honestly worried.
Anyone who seriously thinks that the Libs wireless solution will do the same job as broadband should try using skype in Tasmania outside the capital cities. It just does not work.
The Lib’s don’t have a wireless solution that does ‘the same job as broadband’, it’s a myth perpetuated by the pro-NBN lobby because it helps their argument (they need anything they can grab hold of), in reality there is nothing to argue, but it doesn’t stop the mindless repetition.
Have you had a look at the communications policy outlined on the Lberal’s website? It seriously, seriously emphasises the focus on wireless – they were going to push north of $3bn into it.
Furthermore they also talk negatively about FTTN in it, funny, might want to let Malcolm know about the party policy when it comes to FTTN as he seems to have other ideas.
Well it’s 2 billion actually and you do realize that part of the Labor NBN allocation is for wireless as well?
I have read the policy, where do they state there are problems with FTTN?
here:
The Labor Government sought to implement a policy of building a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network to 98 percent of the population. It failed because Labor’s FTTN plan was flawed from the start. A National Audit Office inquiry found that the proposal was never likely to succeed. The tender wasted $30 million, including $17 million of taxpayers’ funds.
In April 2009 the Labor Government dumped its failed FTTN plan. To cover up its failure
—–
Yes, Labor’s plan has alot of room for wireless also – but it’s not primary, it appears the Liberal’s plan suggests wireless will be the main focus.
If their plan is something different they should get their act together and remove the ‘old’ plan from their website.
1. You said in your post that the Liberals said on their website negative things about the FTTN, you answered what Labor said about it – you have lost track what you are talking about.
2. Where is the emphasis on wireless to the detriment of other alternatives on the Liberal Party website?
How do you know the Colation are going to spend more on wireless than the NBN Co?
“1. You said in your post that the Liberals said on their website negative things about the FTTN, you answered what Labor said about it – you have lost track what you are talking about.”
No. He wrote what the Libs said about it …. The Liberals said that Labor planned to do it, but they scrapped it.
“2. Where is the emphasis on wireless to the detriment of other alternatives on the Liberal Party website?”
They talk about fixed and satellite wireless …. and then not much else concrete, aside from building some backhaul.
WRT wireless …. they talk about 82mbps speeds being shortly available. Completely misrepresenting the performance of the network … making it sound to the layperson, that it’s a similarly performing alternative to fixed line network. Sure it might be enough for some right now, fine….. but representing it as an alternative to a lower latency, fixed 100mbps service is very misleading. Their wireless strategy seems to include no plans for wholesale access, so again this appears to be public funding to incumbent telcos, who will then be free to monopolise their own networks to a greater or lesser extent, depending on their associate regulation (or lack of). ACCC anyone? Yeah right.
WRT everything else they talk about ….. They have no plans to make money from the backhaul or blackspot funding they propose. So will they just gift these to current network owners? ….. How will this actually work? ….. They propose that HFC will be a player, so is this going to be a forced wholesale model? Will Optus and Telstra allow that? …. or will the public fund the HFC owners to increase their network …. and then let them to continue to have monopoly player powers?
I’ve worked in the Internet industry a while. I’m not a fanboy of either approach necessity.
It’s the regulation that will make or break either approach, as well all know business will push the rules to make as much profit as possible, with often little thought to negative outcomes (and fair enough too).
The coalition plan is not so much immature, in so much as it leaves the outcomes in the hands of the market. It will be great for big business.
Regulation will be key, so we don’t get screwed by powerful players.
The Labor plan proposes investment to achieve control. It’s not about speed, or availability … as much as it is about certainty, and about outcomes that can be directly manipulated by the government. The majority of Australians have spoken that they don’t want another era of high-price. high-profit, monopoly infrastructure provider(s). If the government takes the network building risk, it can seek lower profits, and easier to control outcomes for consumers and retail providers …. It then lets the internet industry compete largely on retail service provision ….. rather than competing on who owns the most cables in the ground.
Regulation will be key … so we don’t pay lots of public money to get screwed by powerful players.
As you can see, I think that regulation is the crux of both sides. It doesn’t matter public or private … as much as whether negative outcomes are prevented through regulation.
As far as the plans go …. I think Labor’s has more chance of preventing negative outcomes … it also (promised to be) long term cost neutral … and provides a more advanced network.
…. As far as the governments themselves go. I am worries that labor can not successfully regulate the outcomes of NBN. The only thing worse than a private company preventing desired outcomes for society ….. is investing public money, and not avoiding the same problems.
“in reality there is nothing to argue”
For once you got something right, that’s exactly what the coalitions patchwork plan amounts to if you think about it.
The Labor Party plan is a patchwork plan.
“The Labor Party plan is a patchwork plan.”
False. It is an efficient and future proof design using mostly FTTH. You must be confused again, it’s actually the coalition proposing a substandard patchwork plan due to their insistence on using an unknown “mix” of technologies for the sake of using a mix of technologies and cannot guarantee higher speeds for everyone… they aren’t being every “technology agnostic” despite their claims btw.
The Labor plan is a mix of technologies, fixed FTTH and ADSL, wireless and satellite and they are even keeping HFC for Foxtel.
Patchwork indeed.
“Patchwork indeed.”
The coalitions plan? Yes indeed I’ll agree with you here, the coalitions patchwork plan certainly lives up to its name with an unknown mix of FTTH, FTTN, HFC, ADSL2+, Wireless and satellite, they are unable to guarantee higher speeds for 93% like the NBN can and the speeds they are talking about on the substandard FTTN part are not guaranteed either due to their insistence on keeping the copper for political, nostalgic and emotional reasons.
Note to Pepe and Merlin:
You have been permanently banned due to constantly rude and abusive posts. If I were you, I wouldn’t bother spamming Delimiter’s comments system with crap as you have been over the past few days … the system has been set for a while to auto-filter you out ;) Doesn’t take any effort on my part!
Cheers,
Renai
I love al these people that ramble on about how the HFC network will be decommissioned with the NBN – Newsflash people the HFC netowrk cannot be used as a wholesale platform – period. They were never setup that way and would cost significant $ to upgrade them if it is possible.
So what do you want? A HFC network that locks out all competition in each city where it is deployed? I’m sure Tesltra would love that…
Well the HFC network doesn’t require upgrade to make it available for wholesale, it requires legislation by a Coalition Government to force them to be wholesaled.
Whether Telstra and Optus are interested in keeping it going so others can flog it is another issue.
The problem with the HFC network, is that it really only exists in a few spots over east, for most of us West Aussies (probably all of us), there is no such thing as HFC, and for those of us west aussies in the regional and rural areas outside of Perth, you are lucky if you get ADSL2 and are even luckier still if you manage to get the full speed of ADSL.
I am one of the lucky ones, i have ADSL, however, if i was to move to ADSL2 i would be lucky if i got 12Mbps, and in a family of 5 (3 adults 2 teenage girls), we can get through a decent amount of quota quite easilly, thanks to Steam and youtube.
I for one say bring on the NBN, can’t wait till it makes its way to me, i have checked the NBN map and the town i live in will be getting fibre, as soon as it is here, i will be subscribing to it. Hopefully my ISP (Amnet) will have plans for it by then.
Also, just as some extra stuff, whenever people talk about broadband, etc… they always seem to focus 100% on the Eastern States, you know, there are some other states in Australia, especially us here in the West, when speed tests are done by magazines, etc… they always seem to do those tests in the Eastern States, which gives a very bad set of results i feel.
A computer scientist versus a merchant banker!! End of story.
Oh come on Bruce no need to put down computer scientists like that.
LOL
(impeccable……)
Communism? Isn’t that what they did in the Good ‘ol US of A?
You know, billions spent in tax money to build roads, so the car makers could sell their product.
Oh dear Tosh, you live up to your name well.
you realise a lot of the major roads projects in Australia are BOT (build, operate & transfer)?
i/ traffic consultants are commissioned to predict traffic volumes (consumer demand)
ii/ project financiers conduct ROI analysis before structuring & raising funding (opportunity cost of capital)
Tosh, the total sum of our PPP roads is miniscule. When a private company builds an entire new city – roads, sewers and all, come back and rave about it :)
also 100% publicly-funded roads are also evaluated internally by govt agencies for end user need and opprtunity cost, i.e. examination of traffic patterns, pop growth, demographics, etc to determine what kind of roads how many built where, and not based on rubbish such as “unimagined space vehicles from Mars will land on Australia and use these overprovisioned road infrastructure”, “build and UFOs shall arrive”; also Govt is highly conscious that overallocation of funding to roads will deprive money from other projects such as hospitals, schools, etc, so opportunity cost is taken into account. this is totally unlike Communism where everything is run by engineers, always implementing the “superior technology” and “maximise output” (or internet speeds) w/o taking into account the opportunity cost of diverting scarce capital and labour inputs into overly-expensive assets and underlying consumer demand for output produced, hence all the overproduction of various unneeded goods and economic inefficiencies leading to eventual collapse of Soviet Union which Labor politicians most of which are “communists in ‘we are economic conservative’ sheep clothing” ex-union officials still admire as a model of economic governance
You have a thing about communism. That’s very old school. Get with it terrorism is the new boggey man. You should be associating things to spread FUD.
Careful you don’t mention Hitler though, that’s a thread ender. Oh damn, that’s done it.
Great. Another tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. “oooooh noes the communism booger man is coming to get us because the government is building stuff with tax money I pay so they can BUILD STUFF… bu bub bu bu Australia is doo000OOOOO000ooomed!”
Renai,
You’re suffering two diseases which seem to have spread through the “journalist” community.
One is the gee whiz isn’t conflict entertaining. Bugger the analysis, lets have a sideshow and spectacle.
The other is you’re guilty of the same kind of “any point of view is as good as another”. The problem for you Renai, is that in some debates there really is a “right” and a “wrong” side. Would you write about how wonderful it was to witness a debate between an astronomer and a flat earther? And all you’d write about was how entertaining the conflict was and conclude by saying “both have their points”. Or how about something more modern.. how about a review of the debate between Bishop Pell and real climate scientists? Would you do your research and conclude Pell is utterly and dangerously wrong. Or would you just go hey isn’t this nice.. and pontificate on style?
Both diseases are really forms of laziness – failing to do your homework on the matter.
The problem with the HFC network isn’t even the coverage, or apparent difficulties in wholesaling it – it is the contention, 150-300Mbit is shared over hundreds of houses – it does not take a genious to work out what would happen if the networks were flooded with customers of TPG, iiNet, Dodo etc.
Why would the networks be flooded by customers from those ISP’s?
Because Malcolm wants to use those HFC networks as part of his national “Network Co”…so everyone would be on them in those areas.
Yes but show me where it states the policy is that where HFC is rolled out there will be no FTTH or FTTN infrastructure?
I assume by 2013 there will be a lot of NBN and HFC in the same areas, assuming Telstra and Optus have not already switched off the BB capabilities in those areas, which means Turnbull will have a hard time getting them to switch it back on.
So in one sentence you say there will be both, and in the next you’re saying it’ll be “switched off”?
Don’t rip the ass out of your pants sitting atop that fence there?
No that’s not what I said at all, I said by 2013 Telstra and Optus may have switched off a BB HFC area because 90% of residences in a HFC region have NBN FTTH passing them.
That 90% figure is a requirement of the Telstra NBN agreement, recently approved by shareholders.
But you’re asking me to show you where it’s stated there can’t be both, then answer your own question – where there’s less than 90%.
I could ask you to show me where there won’ t be both, so I can show you where TPG, iiNet, and Dodo might be on the HFC cable alongside Telstra and Optus – (and even TransACT).
You’re trying to apply a rigid answer to a very fluid question.
…that should say “more than 90%”…
Oh and also the Telstra HFC is to be left up for Foxtel, so in Telstra’s case re activating the BB bit would not be a big deal.
Unless they rip all their routers out.
As to the substance of the issue, the NBN is being funded out of borrowing (government bonds). And its intent is to generate revenue in order to repay said borrowing. In other words, its an investment. It pays for itself.
Now, its a legitimate question as to how risky that is, but in brief if you’re the government and you can borrow at bond rates and you can set the rules so that the NBN is a monopoly, then you’re onto a pretty low risk investment. Anything that threatens the NBN repaying its investment is something that’s going to be so severe that the NBN will be the least of your worries.
Now, what I don’t get is that there seems to be a misconception that the NBN is being paid for out of general revenue. In other words tax money. What you spend on the NBN can’t be spent on something else, right? Wrong. See above. To the extent that the NBN succeeds in generating revenue (and its not like the country as a whole is going to stop using the internet is it) then the government’s borrowing is repaid.
Or in short, the NBN is being paid for by its end users.
Now that we have that understanding, what’s the “problem” Turnbull is trying to solve? Everywhere in his rhetoric and the rhetoric of his fanboys (some of whom I must admit simply haven’t thought it through) is the presumption that the NBN must be made “cheaper” because its money that won’t get spent on roads and schools. See above. Wrong.
What the NBN does do is limit the government’s ability to borrow, for a time, for other investment purposes.
But what it does not do is compete with roads and schools.
So, Turnbull’s purpose is? Its not to save the taxpayers or free money for roads.
Indeed even if he were to keep the NBNco structure, reducing the network to FTTN would incur extra costs and quite probably ruin its business case. In clear language, it might get a bit cheaper but if its revenues suffer then the tax payer gets it in the end.
Not that I think that that is “in the Liberal DNA” – to keep NBNco. What they’re on about is ultimately an ideological hang up. Even though they accept “communist” ideas like roads and universities (well, ok some don’t like the latter) they seem to have a hang up about the basic physical communication infrastructure. For some reason, the Liberals and their follows, for purely ideological reasons, believe that the network should be “commercial”. No particular good reason. Forget the disaster that was Telstra. Its just pure mental block.
Think for a moment how you would if you were to “design” a country from a clean sheet of paper. How would you build the communications network?
Well for one thing, its a natural physical monopoly. It makes no sense either common sense or commercial sense to have multiple networks. I think most agree upon that. Yes you can have “facilities competition” like Turnbull rabbits on about. But he’s deliberately conflating competition in terms of electronic boxes (DSLAMs) which are relatively cheap and amortize quickly, and the physical network itself, which is a lot more expensive and has a lifespan of 50 years+.
Ok so a singular monopoly physical network. Tick. How about wholesale only so its only ruling out competition at the physical layer and layer 2. Tick. How about open access and the same price to all comers for the same product (never saw that one under Telstra). Yep, most agree on that.
Alright, so who is going to build this network? Well you can create an expert authority such as NBNco to design it and then achieve efficiencies in its construction by tendering out the actual construction. Yep, doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
Or? Well which private entity could build it instead. In the real world that means Telstra. And we already know that they won’t do it without being guaranteed a monopoly. Of course the apologists for the “must be in the private domain” leap onto the idea of regulation. Well, its a lot lot easier to regulate a purpose built government owned entity such as NBNco that has wholesale in its DNA, than it is to take an existing vertically integrated near monopoly private entity such as Telstra and go, ok, you can build a network, you can have a monopoly.. buuuut.. this is how much you’re allowed to charge.
Sooner or later your regulation develops holes. Its simply what private companies do to test the limits of regulation. On the other hand NBNco is not only a “utility” by virtue of strong regulation its also a utility by ownership and by culture.
All we know about Liberal policy is that they want to woo us into thinking its safe to vote Liberal by having a “productivity commission inquiry”. No doubt their terms of reference will be about what is best for the nation and what is future proof (yes, pigs might fly too). All this is a strategy to try and convince people they have a real policy, by fooling people (and this includes Renai) into thinking they have some good ideas worth trying.
We could argue about FTTN here, but life is too short. The reality is that whilst one would hope for the Liberals to quietly let it slide and let the momentum of the NBN to take over, the fact is their ideology (as is shown by some of their supporters here) demonstrates how dangerous they are.
All this destruction.. and for what end? It isn’t to free up tax money. Its simply to drive us backwards. Away from a ubiquitous, future proof physical network, to quite likely some patchwork quilt and here’s the real rub..
What the Liberals may end up doing will inevitably require “glue” to stitch up their “solution” around the edges. Everything from having to fund the satellite/wireless part of the NBN (with no functioning NBNco to cross subsidise this endeavor) to funding RIM replacements that “aren’t commercially viable”.. to endless sweeteners and bribes to get another agreement with Telstra. Even the possibility of more tax money being tossed at copper.
Now, the Liberals have said in previous costings that their policies will be various amounts (not that we trust their figures after their attempt to hide a $10B black hole last election) in the billions. That’s not borrowing or investment as with NBNco. That’s tax money. Stuff that comes out of schools and roads.
What a sad, sick joke. Its not a policy. Its a cross between just pure blindness – an unwillingness to admit that yes the NBN really does have to be another utility – and an obsession with the political tactic of “look over there.. ooo Labor bad” in order to divert attention from their infantile or non existent policies in all areas. They’re not ready to govern and they know it, and all MT is doing is making noises.. plausible noises to the ill-informed, so that hopefully people don’t desert his party in droves over the NBN.
I disagree.
:)
could you rephrase that?
:)
He has even beaten your mega sized posts. Plus it is talking about the subject and not communists.
The ungulate post has more holes in it than a swiss cheese, I just couldn’t be bothered copy and pasting and dissecting all that crap.
FTTN will not work in Australia because Telstra has let the copper network run into disrepair.
So ADSL2+ and Naked DSL doesn’t work very well in Australia?
Better let TPG and iiNet know, they are still rolling out their own ADSL2+ DSLAM gear!
Oh and tell Telstra their ‘top hat’ upgrades are a waste of money.
LOL
Wow. You’ve really managed to show that you have no idea about what you’re talking about.
They’re not installing new hardware to make money off it – they’re already making similar money on the existing connections.
This is a pre-NBN customer grab. Get a customer now and you have a good chance to have a long term customer once the NBN goes past their door.
The point as you are aware is about Telstra letting the copper run into disrepair, and ISP’s including Telstra continuing to roll out gear to take advantage of that copper, your response went off on a different tangent.
They are rolling out dslam gear because they want to make $$ in areas they currently cannot provide too.
The copper in my area is poor. I’ve said this before on here, but the 2nd line to my house is not viable for ADSL I have tried and Telstra tech knocked it back. I’m sure there are other houses in my area that both lines are not viable or very poor. I only get the speeds I get on my connection because I’ve tweak the settings to get my line to be ‘just’ stable if I get any more noise on my line I’ll have issues and will need to tweak again and lose some speed.
I cannot game on my connection and my wife watch iView. It just lags out my game. Or we both can’t watch iView without buffering issues. etc etc.
We rent, we are thinking about moving later in the year. But the biggest thing that is putting me off moving is not knowing if the place we’ll move to is viable for ADSL or ADSL2 or even if I’ll get decent speeds that are usable.
Isn’t all ADSL/ASDL2 equal? *tongue planted in cheek*
It’s all equal for about 100 meters from the exchange…
“FTTN will not work in Australia because Telstra has let the copper network run into disrepair.”
So true Jason. I am on ADSL2+ and twice in the last year Telstra have had to come out to “fix” my line. I’m not getting the speeds I originally got when I first got ADSL2+. With redundant technology like FTTN these problems dont disappear, the rotted out copper remains and thus we will still experience the same problems.
But then again you could have made all of that up, history of your post content shows that is a very high probability.
Why would I make it up? I’m not the only one having problems the copper network is not in very good condition like you seem to think it is. You should talk to more people instead of living in your fantasy world, you might learn something.
Have you noticed that Turnbull never discusses what the future of a FTTN Australia looks like?
That he has, to the best of my understanding, categorically stated that by rejecting FTTH, he is locking Australia into a (permanent) underfunded FTTN project that has no future?
That he has, to the best of my knowledge, never provided an estimated costing of what it would take to move from FTTN to FTTH?
That there is, literally, no vision, no concept, no plan for the future — period?
That is why Pesce and Turnbull lock horns. Pesce sees the world as it might be (and in many cases will be) tomorrow. Turnbull is firmly locked in yesterday.
The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. We need to replace the CAN. We just do. It’s done well, but cannot hope to provide for the future. FTTH gigabit for all is expensive to deploy. It just is. But cannot hope to provide a service cheap enough for all.
So, we have a network that will cost quite a lot, that offers a lot of choice (various speeds, various quantities, various retailers) that removes structural competition (that is an abject failure due to muddled ACCC intervention, it just is) and replaces it with a single, level wholesale provider.
It is not perfect. It’s not even great. What it does, however, is represent the single best option available. That can scale. That can grow. And that will do what the CAN has done. Outlive naysayer predictions by decades.
And that’s what Mark Pesce sees. What we’ll need not just today, but tomorrow. He’s not stranger to this. Malcom would have us believe Mark has no clue of what he speaks. I’d beg to differ. Strongly.
Malcolm Turnbull can see that too. When all arguments and debates fail, when FTTN is exposed for the half-arsed solution it is.. we go back to price. That is the only clear message Turnbull has never wavered on.
And it’s an argument that ignores his own policies built in obsolescence, and the costs to turn FTTN to something other than a very expensive, under-performing solution, myred in regulatory hell.
Turnbull’s option isn’t cheaper. It obfuscates the final costs, which will be far greater, because it not only must account for a future upgrade. It also has to account for the lost productivity and financial growth the NBN will bring.
It is short sighted bean counting of the highest order.
The vision is “Spend as little as possible directly. Instead to pump it into companies to pad our share portfolios”
So no share portfolios are being padded by the NBN rollout?
“Turnbull is firmly locked in yesterday.”
The whole party is unfortunately. Anything new is scary to them that’s why Abbott doesn’t have a clue about technology, no doubt he and the rest are still pining for the good old days when the internet did not exist. They have this shameless contempt for anyone that dares to suggest we make progress and that is why all they had their little hissy fit after the last election (and it’s still going).
That’s why the last election was a hung Parliament with Labor and the Coalition getting exactly the same number of seats.
That’s exactly why they had their hissy fit, they were unable to fool the independents with they substandard patchwork plan due to them being more educated on the subject than Abbott and his zoo crew chums thus they chose to form a government with the Labour party and not the coalition… this is one of those news at 11 moments isn’t it? I sorta get the feeling that you just like to type irrelevant comments for the sake of it. I’m right again aren’t I?
No.
Wow, you walked right into that one.
Answering no is ‘really walking into that one’?
umm ok if you say so.
I should, perhaps, add that the various speed offerings allow for a greater choice for consumers.
By that, I mean that budget conscious households still have the cheap end of the spectrum available via the NBN. We don’ really know what the cost would be to a household via Turnbull’s 1990’s FTTN, because we have no costings, or pricing to go by; closest we have is the ridiculous split pricing care of Telstra’s wholesale and retail rates for ADSL.
My last post reads as though NBN is impossibly unaffordable; that wasn’t my intention (rather expressing the super-scope nature of FTTH options, versus the “best effort” FTTN).
There is zero expectation that would change without Telstra being compeled to provide level access. This is never going to happen, without full structural legislation. And without the ACCC actually doing their job.
“I should, perhaps, add that the various speed offerings allow for a greater choice for consumers.”
You mean like we have today with ADSL, ADSL2+, Naked DSL and HFC?
“By that, I mean that budget conscious households still have the cheap end of the spectrum available via the NBN.”
You mean like we have today with ADSL, ADSL2+, Naked DSL and HFC?
” We don’ really know what the cost would be to a household via Turnbull’s 1990′s FTTN, ”
What does ‘1990’s FTTN’ mean? is it the same as 1990’s FTTH or are you under the illusion the NBN FTTH was invented in 2007 by Conroy and Rudd in the Parliamentary Communications Laboratories?
“because we have no costings, or pricing to go by; ”
You mean like we didn’t have any costings or pricing on the NBN until after the 2010 election? – so on that basis the Coalition don’t have to offer any pricing or costing until AFTER the 2013 election, I guess you are ok with that?
“There is zero expectation that would change without Telstra being compeled to provide level access. This is never going to happen, without full structural legislation.”
The Coalition plan is for full structural separation of Telstra, Telstra have applied for full structural separation with the ACCC and it doesn’t even have to happen until 2018 anyway, well after the 2013 election and the next election after that in 2016, so the structural separation legislation could be changed TWICE!
Move over Dinosaurs, it is time for the ‘New Age’ to begin and lets hope you are not part of it. My Dad didn’t teach me much in life, but one valuable lesson he did is this “If you do something, do it properly or don’t do it at all”. Liberals version of the NBN is lacking any kind of vision or good application instead it serves as a disservice to the entire Australian community.
“Turnbull is willing to give ground in an argument if he can see that he’s wrong”.
No, Renai, Malcolm Turnbull on the NBN is more like a door-to-door religion salesman. As soon as you point out an error of fact or logic, even within his own stated parameters, he moves on without conceding the point.
For him, it is simply about kicking the broadband can noisily down the street until the next election, and to hell with the one third of Australians who still won’t get decent broadband if he leaves them at the mercy of the market as he says he will.
“. As soon as you point out an error of fact or logic, even within his own stated parameters, he moves on without conceding the point.”
Well go on then don’t leave it hanging with armchair musings, YOU point out the errors of fact and logic!
I’m looking forward to the day when the shut down parliament house and the politicians conduct the debates on line from their electorates.
That would cut down on production of greenhouse gases
@alain
did you watch Internode’s Commsday presentation available on their website?
Internode are now claiming that NBNco can build a brand new access network, pay back the Govt its equity injection and service the project debt…. all for only $33 (!!!!!) “national average bundled wholesale cost” per subscriber.
(i nearly fell out of my chair.)
as you probably know, this “$33” was picked out of the tiny footnotes in NBNco’s redacted business plan. of course, there’s no suggestion whatsoever in the corporate plan that this single data point (“$33”) represents a “steady-state breakeven ARPU”. instead, the graphs and charts in the corporate plan clearly show sharply rising ARPU over time (i.e. NBNco’s capital recovery is “back-ended” to the end of the forecast horizon).
i wonder who attends these Commsday events… mostly journalists? i presume many of them swallowed it….
aside from any potential declaration of WDSL, i think these greedy ISPs will, in the future, be (mis)using the various NBNco “politico-marketing documents” to try to justify “capping” the returns that Telstra can earn from any FTTN or other network upgrade at unrealistically low levels.
Well the NBN project always has been a ‘sucker taxpayer’ rollout, they pay for it, wear the substantial risk and then ISP’s sell it back to them at a nice little margin, if the NBN Co doesn’t EVER make a $$ you think ISP’s care?
To cap it all off all competitive infrastructure is bought out by the same taxpayers to ensure the NBN has customers.
Then if ISP’s decide their margin is not enough they can complain to the ACCC to lower the NBN wholesale pricing, which obvious drastically affects the ROI as predicted in the NBN business plan, exactly like they do today perpetually complaining to the ACCC about Telstra Wholesale pricing.
Strange alain, that you love Telstra and will support them come what may and equally hate the NBN with the same passion.
But in their most basic form, the comparisons between Telstra and the NBN are uncanny.
Such as initial government bank roll, natural monopoly government owned, Oz wide roll out, clientele repaying costs, other ISP’s/RSP’s accessing to resell, was/can be sold off at a massive profit… the likenesses are twin like…!
Really the only difference and one which is a clear advantage for consumers, is that the NBN is not both wholesaler and retailer as Telstra was/is… which makes the NBN much more consumer friendly!
So it’s most odd, that you don’t also claim that Telstra was a “sucker taxpayer rollout”? I guess it’s all about timing, the politics and one’s stake/agenda?
I don’t respond to multiple banned posters that use loopholes and a juvenile name alias (wow that’s witty) to avoid yet another Delimiter ban.
But yet you did, basically sums you up…LOL!
I apologise Renai.
I told you a few days ago, that although I thought you were unfairly one-sided in your posting policy adjudication here at Delimiter… by you clamping down on those like me and overlooking two incessantly posting, anti-NBNers, who fragrantly break your policies, unfettered… that I would regardless (as I did initially) accept the judges/your verdict and not post further.
However since then, these usual suspects have again stirred the pot and made unfounded and INCORRECT accusations aimed at me (surprise, surprise they are wrong AGAIN…LOL), suggesting I am someone I am not.
As such, I will not be leaving quietly, until these people (obviously wounded by my factual expose`s of their political/financial stupidity/BS/contradictions)… STFU or you make them STFU…
The ball is in your court…!
Now now Alain. Don’t bicker with your friends please possum. And I’ve warned you about telling fibs online. You really must stop with your nonsense anti-NBN posts. You’re asking for a smack on your big fat bottom if you do it again!
Now that I’ve got that off my chest, come up from the basement please. Your dinner is getting cold.
Comments are closed.