Turnbull “evasive” on Coalition NBN policy, says Conroy

244

news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has accused his Opposition shadow Malcolm Turnbull of being “evasive” with respect to the Coalition’s telecommunications policy, stating the Liberal MP had “no excuses” for failing to come clean on the policy after five straight months of questions on it.

In a radio interview on 2UE last week, Turnbull made several controversial high-level statements about the Coalition’s telecommunications policy, stating that he would give the Australian people a “solemn undertaking” that a Coalition Government would “complete the job of NBN Co” and its “objective”, instead of ripping up the network or abandoning Labor’s NBN policy altogether.

Over the past year, Turnbull has outlined the Coalition’s alternative NBN policy in increasing detail, noting that it would focus on re-using existing infrastructure such as the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus, deploying satellite and wireless coverage to support rural areas, separating Telstra’s wholesale and retail operations, and using rival technology such as fibre to the node-style rollouts instead of the NBN’s fibre to the home style. However, Turnbull has been heavily criticised by a number of commentators over time for not providing further detail to flesh out these policy planks, and has not responded to repeated requests by Conroy to detail how the Coalition would actually go about implementing its policy.

“This is nothing from Turnbull except eloquent political spin again,” wrote Delimiter reader seven_tech following Turnbull’s comments. “He’s very good at it, but usually it contains some substance. In this case, it’s just the same story, in a pretty shell with flowers by saying “we will keep the mandate of the NBN”. The NBN is about almost total ubiquity of fast (both down and up), cheap broadband for Australians now and in the future. The Coalition FTTN rollout covers NONE of those. They plan on neutering the NBN as much as possible as a political policy in the hope it’ll go away, they’ll get into power and they can deal with it then.”

Another commentator, Martin Eddy, wrote: “Turnbull is doing what politicians do best. He’s saying the same thing a different way to change the message. I can’t see that their policy has changed.”
In a statement this week, Conroy said Turnbull had made 684 tweets, issued 23 press releases and delivered 7 public speeches in 2012. “He has still not, however, released a broadband policy,” the Labor senator said.

“In August 2010 Mr Turnbull said that he could do everything he needed to do with a 3.5 Mbps connection on a wireless card,” Conroy added. “In August 2011 Mr Turnbull planned to provide Australians with a 12 Mbps broadband service. In May, Mr Turnbull in a speech in Kuala Lumpur repeated his assertion that residential premises have no need for anything more than 25 Mbps.”

“This is a seven-fold increase over two years in download speeds that Mr Turnbull thinks is acceptable. He refuses to specify any upload capacity that customers should expect. He even acknowledges that Australia’s existing copper network will not fully support his proposed. Mr Turnbull has no excuses for being evasive about the Coalition’s broadband policy.”

Conroy has added to an extensive list of questions he has repeatedly posted Turnbull over the past five months, with issues ranging from what speeds the Coalition’s telecommunications policy would deliver to Australians, to technical network issues such as how many fibre to the node ‘nodes’ he plans to build, to issues such as whether Shadow Cabinet would support the structural separation of Telstra, and questions about what rate of return and costs the policy would deliver to the Government.

opinion/analysis
Conroy is, of course, completely right with his argument that Turnbull has not fleshed out the Coalition’s telecommunications policy to the necessary degree yet, and he is also right to question to what extent Turnbull’s off the cuff comments actually represent Coalition telecommunications policy and have been approved by Shadow Cabinet or even considered in brief by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (I personally doubt most of them have been).

Turnbull understands the Communications portfolio very well, and I am sure that he is aware of the fact that the Coalition’s NBN policy is not in tip top shape yet.

However, as many people have previously written on Delimiter and other publications, on paper it doesn’t really make much sense for Turnbull to outline the Coalition’s telecommunications policy in detail just yet. Doing so would allow Conroy, who is already strongly delivering on his very popular and successful NBN policy, to tear the Coalition’s policy to shreds repeatedly over the year or so that remains before the next Federal election is called. Conroy is champing at the bit to do this right now; Turnbull isn’t giving him much ammunition. Plus, of course the Coalition wants to make a big policy splash during that next election; and telco policy will have to be a part of that.

Personally, I do think there is also a strong argument that the Coalition should release its telecommunications policy far in advance of the next election.

If the Coalition releases a half-baked policy as it did before the last election, then of course releasing it early would allow Labor to have a field day with it. However, if the Coalition releases a solid and well-researched policy, without much in the way of holes (and there is a great deal of evidence that the thoughtful and well-educated Turnbull would indeed release such a good policy, given his previous track record in policy development), this would have a very interesting effect on the debate.

Firstly, it would have the effect of leaving Conroy — a sitting Minister of two terms’ standing — in a difficult position of criticising a strong policy. This would come off as childish and deliver Malcolm Turnbull the high ground. It would also, as many commentators have suggested, neutralise the NBN as a political issue in the next election and switch the focus of the industry debate away from the NBN and towards engaging with the Coalition over its plans. This would be only natural, given that the Coalition is expected to strongly win the next Federal Election on current polling.

Of course, good policy isn’t easy to come by, and we’re sure it will take more effort from Team Turnbull to come up with one than simply pulling a ten point plan from the Earl of Wentworth’s well-heeled chest pocket. But from what we’re hearing, the Liberal MP has been consulting widely with industry recently and doing a great deal of deep thinking, and we wouldn’t be surprised to hear the Coalition’s NBN policy is very far advanced indeed. Turnbull has some smart cookies working for him, and it will be truly interesting to see what the Liberal brains trust can deliver. Underestimating Turnbull is never a good idea.

Image credit: Kim Davies, Creative Commons

244 COMMENTS

  1. Jeez Renai, you’re such a Liberal stooge, I can’t believe you’re such a Turnbull-lover. Delimiter has turned into such a biased publication, I’m going to stop reading it, you call this “journalism”???

    Thought I’d get in first :)

    • Yeah Renai. Bias is your middle name.You may as well just change the name of the site to Turnbullimiter and be done with it ;)

    • One has to wonder what the internet has come to when the author an article starts trolling himself.

      I’ll pose this question to you. If you were the shadow communications minister, would you put your money where your mouth is given the present situation?

      I will say that even if Malcolm did want to flesh out some details, Tony would never let him. He’d sooner have him bent over the knee like a naughty child.

      Clearly the only policies the Liberals have right now is ‘no to everything’ and ‘no transparency’!

      • >One has to wonder what the internet has come to when the author an article starts trolling himself.

        Full circle, I would have thought! :)

        >I’ll pose this question to you. If you were the shadow communications minister, would you put your money where your mouth is given the present situation?

        Ah, there’s the rub. Renai ISN’T shadow minister, nor did he sign up to be. Mr Turnbull did. If Turnbull isn’t going to put up a real policy, then it’s his political problem to explain why.

        Anything else smacks of letting shadow ministers and oppositions off the hook, because “it’s too hard”. It is hard. So it should be. It’s not our job to make it easier for them (and I write that as someone who’s worked for several ministers, and has a pretty good idea how tough things can get).

    • Be careful Renai, thats close to a personal attack which is against the terms of this site. Add’s nothing to the debate either. If you keep this up you may need to sinbin yourself for a week… :p

    • “Jeez Renai, you’re such a Liberal stooge, I can’t believe you’re such a Turnbull-lover. Delimiter has turned into such a biased publication, I’m going to stop reading it, you call this “journalism”???
      Thought I’d get in first :)”

      QFT

    • I’ll second that.

      Renai, your entire article is grounded on something that isn’t real, cannot exist and in short, is simply nonsense. You say:

      “But from what we’re hearing, the Liberal MP has been consulting widely with industry recently and doing a great deal of deep thinking, and we wouldn’t be surprised to hear the Coalition’s NBN policy is very far advanced indeed.”

      You see, the premise here is Renai, that there is actually a workable, sensible alternative policy to be had.

      Take that away and what Turnbull is thinking deeply about is how to apply more spin.

      Renai, how about you write us an article that goes into some detail about what you think could be done as an alternative to FTTH and NBNco. And we’ll gladly show you how you’re barking up a tree.

      Turnbull has no alternative ground to stand on. Its like the government has adopted a policy to have paid professional teachers, and he’s (just to be anti) decided to hand out school books and cash and let the kids figure it out. He’s got nowhere to go. Nothing to come up with. Zip. Zilch.

      Is there an alternative to FTTH? No. And Turnbull knows this in his own heart.

      About the only thing you can believe about him is that he believes in free enterprise. So the most logical outcome here is he will essentially privatise NBNco, and hand it to Telstra. We’ll continue to get a fibre roll out in most places, but it will be more expensive. End of story.

      Renai, as much as you’ve written about how the Liberals are bullshitting, and as much as you complain that Turnbull needs a policy, the reality is your political views shine through when writing this sort of rubbish. Its sad. Its like so many in the other media writing about how Abbott and his team need to stop being negative and start forming policies and how of course they will. All that reveals is the blindness of the commentators. Now you.

      • “Renai, as much as you’ve written about how the Liberals are bullshitting, and as much as you complain that Turnbull needs a policy, the reality is your political views shine through when writing this sort of rubbish. Its sad. Its like so many in the other media writing about how Abbott and his team need to stop being negative and start forming policies and how of course they will. All that reveals is the blindness of the commentators. Now you.”

        ungulate I think this is unnecessarily harsh. Renai is reporting here, primarily, that Conroy has fired back at Turnbull, the original story of which we were critical because it appeared to favour Turnbull, but was in fact, as this piece is, just reporting what is being said.

        Renai’s analysis has much basis in merit. While I personally choose to believe the Coalition have essentially given up trying to produce a policy based on any form of policy making, and simply want the argument downplayed, Renai’s analysis is correct. We don’t KNOW the Coalition don’t have one or aren’t working on one. We can THINK they aren’t, but until closer to the election we won’t know.

        As I said, I personally believe they want to downplay it as much as possible so they can win power on the down-low and slide into government. But that doesn’t make Renai’s analysis any less viable. He has his opinion, he marks it as such. At least he’s willing to admit there are other possibilities, rather than most mainstream which is either predominantly anti-NBN for no apparent reason or pro-NBN without actually explaining why.

        There is an argument here. Just because you and I think it’s incorrect, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

        • Well excuse my colourfull language, but Renai has fallen flat on his face.

          The suggestion that there is an alternative policy to be had, and therefore someone clever like Turnbull will find it, is frankly, ridiculous.

          And yes I do mean it because I see the same mindset elsewhere. So called journo’s and commentators acting as a cheer squad for the Liberals. No doubt Renai has said some very correct and pertinent things in his articles, but basically, he craves for the Liberals to come up with something, and it shows.

          • Edit:

            Its a challenge for Renai to actually write this:

            “It appears that Turnbull has come to his senses and has back flipped and will continue the NBN, and here is why”…

          • ungulate you fail to understand the point behind Renai’s leanings.

            Renai, like many of us, is politically agnostic on the policy of the NBN. We don’t care who builds it, as long as it gets done, right, as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible.

            Is it possible the Coalition could actually have an opposing policy that could rival the NBN?Yes. However unlikely you THINK that would be, it is possible. And when it is possible, it means there is chance for debate. And DEBATE is what makes good policy. Not policy in isolation, as is current Coalition standard.

            I am NOT trying to defend the Coalition at having given us no info on their policy, but if they WERE sensible about it, they COULD come up with a plan that would keep the VAST majority of the NBN, but deliver better in some targeted areas and perhaps lower the cost. THAT would be good policy and I have no problem in believing that would be much better than a single plan that has only Quigley, who is fortunately all ABOUT seeing it done best, to oversee it.

            The overzealous argument that the NBN in it’s current form is THE BEST IT COULD POSSIBLY BE NO EXCEPTIONS doesn’t ACTUALLY help us in the defence of a good policy. The policy could be better- CVC pricing, POI’s, wireless coverage, competitive products. But it IS a breakthrough policy. Simply stating however that it is the best there could ever be, simply paints you AND it as a Labor lackey.

    • Most people interested in an accountable, cost effective NBN have long stopped dignifying this garbage of any headspace, so it’s not surprising Renai has to get the ball rolling with trolling his own article.

  2. One of the phrases I constantly hear Malcolm hide behind is “technology agnostic”. This not only infers that the LNP are somehow more flexible and less rigid when it comes to deciding the best technology for any given area (never mind that that’s the exact same model NBN are working from).

    Saying you’re “technology agnostic” and suggecting you can achieve the same results for less, conveniently gets Malcolm out of making any solid technology commitments for any given areas. It’s much easier to throw the agnostic line around as it suggests that there is no need to outline comprehensive details of what technology goes where. Personally I thnk it translates to “we’ll do the bare minimum possible to make sure a few select areas get FTTN/FTTH, and the rest of the country can suffer on a mish-mash of ADSL, HFC, wireless and satellite”. About the furthest thing away from the NBN’s ubiquity as you can get.

    • Yes, any policy which relies significantly on ADSL as a future broadband technology isn’t really a policy at all. It’s an excuse for doing nothing. Which has been Liberal policy for a long time…

    • “Technology Agnostic” to quote a phrase “I don’t think that means what you think it means”

      The NBN is “technology agnostic” it is a mishmash of Fiber, Fixed wireless and Satellite services, It is technology agnostic in that service providers know they if their client has an internet connection it is going meet a minimum standard and I don’t need to know if my client is connecting on a congested HFC link or that it is raining so their ADSL is slow and prone to drop out.

      Technology agnostic doesn’t mean you buy what ever you want off the shelf, it means writing a standard or specification and then determining the best technology use. Tell you right now if employee of mine wrote a specification and bought 5 of one system 15 of a second and 23 or a 3rd only not because they where the best solution but because they meet the spec he would be sacked not praised for being technology agnostic.

      By saying you are going to be using a mishmash of HFC and FTTN service is not being technology agnostic. Saying you are going to provide a service that meet a specification by giving subsidies to private enterprise or buying up Telstra infrastructure and upgrading it or building new infrastructure is closer to the mark.

      We want a power system for communications, a toaster manufacture doesn’t care if you have solar or coal fired they care that if you have electricity in Australia it will meet a standard. Imagine if Electricity was still Turnbulls version of “technology agnostic” we would still be stuck in the early parts of the industrial revolution and not have advanced from there.

      I don’t want a policy mr Turnbull I want to know to know what the goal of your policy how you expect to deliver that goal. I want you to be technology agnostic and tell Australia what speeds you plan to deliver? How you are going to ensure those speeds are available to all Australians? Do have a plan to improve those speeds in the future(don’t know about the rest of you but I have a couple of decades in me yet)? Are you delivering those speeds by building infrastructure that has a good chance of seeing a return or enshrining more subsides to big business?

      You claim to want to hold the government to account but all I’ve heard come out of the opposition we could do that cheaper/faster with no substance on how to do that. In our personally life there are words for people who that all of them rude, in business we call it “bankrupt in 3 years” yet in politics you call that holding the government to account.

      • “Imagine if Electricity was still Turnbulls version of “technology agnostic” we would still be stuck in the early parts of the industrial revolution and not have advanced from there.”

        this is actually a worthwhile point. its already bad enough with 110/240v, although full range items are becoming more common…. but i recall that there was a bit of a stoush about whether to use AC or DC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents). that kind of standards confusion holds everyone up, delays economies of scale benefits and is simply a pain in the posterior for consumers.

        i know Malcolm loves to hammer on about wasteful or inefficient spending but by spreading itself the way it has NBNco has actually looked to that exact target and asides from the geographic mapping problems they have, are nutting out the crossover points for fibre-fixed wifi and fixed-satellite so the network is not fielding an inappropriate tech at a given address. ive noticed Quigleys responses when he has fronted parliament and he has been fairly explicit on this – Malcolm really is barking up the wrong tree here. personally, i think there are much more productive ways he could be spending his time.

        as a bonus the primary network of Fibre has improved its economies of scale to 93% for the same monies as was originally slated for 90, for that reason. NBNco has started with ‘this is the standard we are building to; now, what will satisfy that standard at a given address?’ whereas Malcolm seems to be saying ‘we’ve picked a tech winner for the areas we will do work on (presumably cherrypicked metro and some blackspots, forget rural), and everyone else has to lump it with whats already there’. the consumers get no standard, and the outcome is the same as the status quo: you get whatever you are lucky enough to get. (either in terms of actually having HFC running by you, your line length for DSL or whatever spectrum shadows and weather etc affect you for wireless).

        suffice to say i much prefer the near ubiquitous standard from NBNco over the alternative.

    • The phrase ‘technology agnostic’ to me, as someone with a few years of work on core network technology, Cisco switching, even a year working in Telstra on the Copper CAN and delivery of ADSL broadband over it, it screams “we have no plan”. NOTHING in the communications industry is “technology agnostic” except the upper layer protocols that run on it. The Internet is technology agnostic, TCP/IP is technology agnostic (insert IP over Avian carrier joke here). Once you go lower. Into BRAS & Frame Relay, MLPS core switching & national scale networks… yeah technology agnostic is the label you give the big pretty ribbon you put around the shipping container full of documentation on how hundreds of highly equipment specific technologies from household jack, to pit monitoring, to exchanges and hundreds of systems in them, to POI for external network access, and everything else, all play together to deliver your network.

      Every time i here Technology Agnostic National Broadband Network, all I hear is a fool with an idea and barely a plan let alone any kind of understanding of just how complex it is. I wont be voting Liberal unless I know what they plan to do. And I hearing things like Technology Agnostic doesn’t fill me with confidence that they do.

      The Labor Gov may not be the best gov. NBNCo may not be the best way to do the national fiber roll out either. But there is no way in the frosty depths of hell frozen over should anyone be voting Liberal based on these kinds of thinner than lunar air, promises. Labor has voted and NBNCo have contracts & are doing the job of delivering on the goal.
      Like hell I want to trust someone else not to screw it up. Old saying applies here, rule one of a regime change is to make the old guys look like they sucked worse than they ever did, rule two is to replace everything to make sure they did suck that bad. Libs cant deliver on that second point. FTTH is as good as a network gets.

    • “Technology agnostic” is just another way of saying we dont want to admit the best technology for the job has already been chosen because then we cant throw big wads of cash to our mates at big telcos and expect nice board seats in return when our political careers are over!

  3. Renai,
    To be honest Turnbull does have some serious issues to consider.
    The HFC issue and the cost of actually upgrading and extending that.
    The FTTN option and the actual real world state of the last mile, the NBN has had to actually verify addresses, will Malcolm now require them to physically test each and every pair in the last mile considering Telstra’s automated higher voltage testing can actually temporarily heal many poor joints, even vaporise some moisture faults, both of which will reappear, and who will foot that bill ?
    Whether they wish to have a Ubiquitous Standardised business capable National network that will pay for itself and future upgrades and return a mandated dividend.
    Or whether they wish to have a taxpayer subsidised mix of standards and technologies that would technically be a partial upgrade of what we have?
    What provision for upgrades over the future and who will determine the standards and pay for them.
    Is it going to be a short term fix and the less profitable areas will once again drop behind over time or do we have constant taxpayer subsidy effectively for the benefit of the private sector.
    The bean counters have their view, but real world realities can render that completely erroneous

    Very importantly how do they handle the business model and the costs incurred and contracted for if the NBN’s ability to return an ROI is destroyed.

    But MOST Importantly is what is their goal and purpose for their alternative communications platform for Australia’s economic future

    • i would only add to the HFC issue bit “also issues about reselling over HFC” – the big two claim it either isnt cost effective or cant be done. dont remember which it was, just that there were significant reservations about the idea. but if it does turn out it cant be done thats another problem for Malcolms alternative….

      the copper line test issues are definitely something im concerned with too; as the line characteristics are going to be more important the faster the service you want to lay over it (presumed to be VDSL). if there was a better standard (theres that word again!) for testing Telstra lines that included a low line test before cooking it with a high line test id be much more comfortable that people are actually going to get what Malcolm has on offer. simply on the basis of the copper he wants to use for the FTTN portion i have skepticism its a worthwhile policy, when the alternative obviates so many maintenance and testing issues (which also tie into cost of the network).

  4. About time Conroy decided to get tough with Turnbull, there are still alot of unanswered questions about the coaltions patchwork plan, they seem to think they dont have to answer them and totally treating voters with contempt in the process. But this is nothing new, remember their actual original plan was “demolish the NBN”. That seems to have changed but we still dont know exactly what it will entail. Turnbull cowardly relies on vague statements such as “technology agnostic” and “most cost effective solution” both of which are actually more applicable to the proper NBN build not their gimped version of it whatever that is…

    For me personally I like to know what ingredients are in my food before I buy it. It saves alot of trouble and ensures that I dont end up eating something that is potential health hazard. Turnbull and the Turnbull apologists dont believe he has to put the ingredients on the product and this is NOT acceptable. I’d like to know exactly what I’ll be getting under the coalitions “broadband” plan and when.

    • +1

      Personally, I subscribe to the notion that a lack of information is still information. You can get a lot of mileage out of what people dont want to tell you, so why cant Conroy use this to his advantage.

      Renai’s right, he doesnt want to be shooting down what might be a good idea as it would probably backfire, but he should be able to go on the political offence simply because they WONT release details.

      This is a good first step, it should be natural for them to repeatedly ask the same question, very publicly, week after week after week until there is something in place.

      It might be in the Liberals best interest to wait until the election campaign, and I expect they will have a pretty solid package by then (whether you like it or not remains to be seen) but there’s no reason Labor cant build the pressure and expectations before then.

      • The biggest problem I have with this is that its blatant political maneuvering by Turnbull & the Libs to avoid the issue while still bolstering support as though they had. This is strait from the corrupt american politician playbook (they wrote the book before we had a federal parliament!). It scares me that anyone might believe him, calling the liberal (and its just the libs, they tied and gagged the nationals who are probably wishing they could cross the floor and vote Labor just to keep the NBN given its huge improvements to rural services) broadband policy feces would be an insult to feces as feces actually exists Liberal NBN policy doesnt. They have a goal, “to overthrow the other guys” (see the comment above about american style politics) if they were doing their job of running the country they would see that the goal of a Fiber based national communication network is key for any country that wants to be prepared for the next 100 years, they would quit complaining about its cost just to try and win votes and find some thing that DOES need to be changed and get peoples votes through that, rather than making issues where there are none, Australia needs an all fiber network due to its size (good fiber has lower in ground fault rates and a better lifespan) The fiber has been creeping out to the houses from the core slowly anyway for decades, insterstate links, inter exchange links, mobile tower links & a spiderweb of fiber backhaul crossing the nation, this is just the final stage, getting it to everyone.

  5. Promising to spend less on the NBN will improve the LNP’s election result. Actually detailing how they will cut back the NBN will not.

    It’s very simple – never show the stick, only the carrot. The skeptic in me thinks “why bother when you don’t have to”.

    I ask the regional people – is Turnbull’s heavy interest in satellites a curious thing? [bah. it’s true. I’m an arsehat that lives in a city, I really don’t give a hoot what they think]

    • The problem the public haven’t understood yet is “Promising to spend less’ . At the moment the taxpayer is investing for areturn, so it is not spending and as such does not detract from other budget areas. Whereas their “Spending Less” will still be approx $15-20Billion Dollars upfront plus ongoing Subsidies all funded from the budget subtracting from funds available for other purposes and for a far inferior end product . So TAXPAYER COST is at least $20Billion MORE for a shoddy Mickey Mouse product still in private sector hands with poor service and high consumer costs

      • Yep this is one of the most frustrating aspects of the whole farce. The opposition are in no position to claim they will do it cheaper…

        If it costs you something ( $ X )it can be cheaper if its free ( $ X = 0 ) … if its free it can only be cheaper if they pay you to have it ( $ -X because a negative value cost is a payment )

        If the Labor NBN plans to produce a return on investment of approx 7%… then the Opposition can only, by irrefutable mathematical truth, be cheaper if they plan to make their version have a higher ROI.
        This nonsense about how to account for everything is a disgrace and makes me wish that there was a way to get rid of politicians from even serving in opposition. I know they cant be politicians if they declare bankruptcy… but that’s rather hard to organize legally through a grass roots campaign to stop political idiocy.

        • Yes, I would love to see Conroy keep bringing this point up.

          The NBN is an investment. Whilst there is some risk as to its precise rate of return, in concept at least it costs us nothing – its paid for by its users.

          Whereas if you want to take Turnbull’s musings as a policy and not as a smokescreen what you come up with is billions in real spending, without a return. Contract payouts, the value of NBNco wasted, bribes (er subsidies) and of course the tax payer wearing the satellite system. Not to mention the cost to the entire country in setting it back more years.

          Conroy, please hammer this point. The NBN “costs” nothing. It doesn’t compete with road funding. Whatever the Liberals do, will.

          • And yes, its a sad farce. The entire construct of “we can do it cheaper” rests on the lie that the NBN is pure spending and won’t have a return.

            Its sick, sad and quite frankly reprehensible to use that sort of tactic.

            And Renai, you should be pointing this out too. Do we really want an alternative government that stoops to such lows of deception and manipulation?

          • “And Renai, you should be pointing this out too. Do we really want an alternative government that stoops to such lows of deception and manipulation?”

            He has ungulate. Search through the Delimiter articles. Renai has reported on any number of Coalition myths about the NBN. “Wireless will make it obsolete”, “It’s wireless or nothing in areas without fibre”,”NBN will cost $50 Billion and should be on budget.”

            Any number of people have pointed this out. Problem is, the mainstream media isn’t interested either:

            1- Because they’re Murdoch/News Ltd. and they just want to NBN bash OR

            2- Because it’s soft news. Doesn’t sell papers. Prostitutes hired by MP’s by illegal funds from Unions make the headlines (even when it isn’t true). How can the NBN compete with that?

            The only way to get more people to understand is direct information and engaged debate. Because the media certainly aren’t going to help. This is what Renai aims to do.

          • Yes, but he still continues in the belief that somehow there is an alternative policy to be had.

            Nor has Renai gone as far as – and I don’t expect him to – pointing out that the indecency of the Opposition in this regard – basing their attack on the NBN on a lie – is exemplary to their duplicitous, deceitful, and dishonest behavior in other areas.

            I can say that. I’m Renai can’t :)

          • “I can say that. I’m Renai can’t :)”

            Of course you can say that. You’re entitled to your opinion. As is Renai to his.

            But Renai’s reports are to report WHAT IS SAID. His analysis/opinion is his own. Simply stating it is wrong achieves nothing. I can state your opinion is wrong and it means squat.

            THIS is what the NBN needs. Statements about what is said, followed by careful analysis. Not the random biased claptrap that is pedalled by BOTH anti and pro NBN media. It only adds to the confusion and when a voter is confused on which is the best policy, they’ll simply fallback to their political leanings, which, for many, is the Coalition. And we don’t WANT people to vote Coalition if they support the idea of the NBN, unless the Coalition change their policy considerably. But that’s what some will do if the debate seems confusing and one-sided.

            The debate needs to be open, unbiased and careful. Do we need to point out lies? Yes, definitely. And Renai has done that on several occasions. But do we need “You’re-all-a-bunch-of-bloody-liars-in-everything-you-do-I’ll-never-trust-you-don’t-vote-for-them-under-any-circumstances!!!”? No. THAT is political rubbish and it means nothing in real policy debate.

            But it IS what alot of Australians like to do….

          • All of which is nice, but, what Renai needs to do is to do like the computer on War Games..

            Try every possible outcome and realise the meaning of futility.

            In this case think deeply about what alternatives there are that Malcom might seize upon and realise that these alternatives simply don’t stack up.

            So I’ll repeat what is probably my most important line.

            I’d love to see Renai actually write an article about what realistic alternatives there are that supposedly Malcom could seize upon.

            On deep reflection, Renai may come to the conclusion that there are no sensible alternatives that don’t involve FTTH or NBNco (or something so similar it makes no difference).

            Again, Renai needs to perhaps write the bleeding obvious. That is, Turnbull needs to do a back flip pretty darn soon and embrace the NBN if he is to have any credibility.

            Of course that isn’t going to happen, but I’d like to see Renai, or any other writer finally understand and beg Turnbull to give up the bullshit and embrace the NBN.

          • “On deep reflection, Renai may come to the conclusion that there are no sensible alternatives that don’t involve FTTH or NBNco”

            I think even Turnbull has admitted that now. Certainly about NBNCo. staying. Not so much FTTH…yet.

            “In this case think deeply about what alternatives there are that Malcom might seize upon and realise that these alternatives simply don’t stack up.”

            There are alternatives to parts of the NBN. For example, snapping up the areas with HFC and using them, migrating off copper and expanding the HFC capabilities. It may or may not come out cheaper than providing fibre to all 3.5 Million of those premises , once you take into account the node splitting required (I’d imagine it would, otherwise Telstra/Optus would’ve just laid fibre originally) but it IS an alternative that gives SIMILAR results. Not better, but similar. FTTH would HAVE to still be the main goal outside of this. But perhaps for some of the VERY fringe areas getting fibre a “Fi-Wi” system could be put in place, which might decrease the capex substantially as it’s these fringe areas on fibre that are the most expensive because of the vast quantities of fibre required. It might only BE 2 or 3% but it could make a significant difference.

            The point though, before you say it, is the TIMING of these alternatives. Had Turnbull and the Coalition been serious about opposing this, they would’ve come up with these alternatives BEFORE the NBN rollout. As it is now, by the time they can get in to change it, it would be pointless AND a waste of money swapping to this plan. But that won’t necessarily stop them doing it.

    • “Promising to spend less on the NBN will improve the LNP’s election result. Actually detailing how they will cut back the NBN will not.”

      Absolutely correct, all the proof in this is the howls from ppl not included in the 3year FTTH roll-out, those same ppl will hit the roof if told sorry youre getting redundant FTTN and voila, Labour automatically wins a ton of voters!!!

      • Why ask for proof when you “know” the LNP will do better?

        Because just by looking at the media we all know how much of a mess the government is! *rolls eyes*

  6. Probably the one that Mr. Turnbull should be able to answer (and I haven’t heard anyone ask him yet), is what does he think NBN Co’s “objective” is exactly?

    • If we were to get technical, the original “objective” of NBN Mark II was to deliver improved broadband services to all Australian premises, with a minimum of 90% FTTH, with the remainder to be served by a combination of wireless and satellite.

      It was to be a 90%-7%-3% split, later becoming 93%-4%-3% as the modelling was worked through.

      Malcolm needs to be careful if he wants to say he will “complete the objective”.

      • Yes but I’d like to know exactly, what in his mind does he think the “objective” is. What is his perception of the objective.

        • That’s NBN Co’s objective, and he’s said he’ll complete the objective.

          What he personally thinks the objective is just another thing he’s being evasive about.

          • According to Malcolm the NBN’s objective is to be a White Elephant and waste lots of the tax payers money. I am sure he can meet those targets ;)

  7. “However, as many people have previously written on Delimiter and other publications, on paper it doesn’t really make much sense for Turnbull to outline the Coalition’s telecommunications policy in detail just yet. Doing so would allow Conroy, who is already strongly delivering on his very popular and successful NBN policy, to tear the Coalition’s policy to shreds repeatedly over the year or so that remains before the next Federal election is called. ”

    Renai, the problem I see with this is that Abbott and the Coalition have been calling for an election every day. In their minds the writs should be drawn up tomorrow and we should be heading to the polls on 6 weeks. In that case, surely they should have all of their policies completely finalised.

    If you believe they should release their policy far in advance of the next election, as I and many others do, and given that the Coalition wants an immediate election, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand the Coalition release their alternative telecommunications policy asap.

    You can’t have a bob each way, demand an election and yet not finalise and release policy to back up your seriousness about that demand.

    • “You can’t have a bob each way, demand an election and yet not finalise and release policy to back up your seriousness about that demand.”

      Ah yes Steve, but see that’s the beauty of their strategy. As you say, their strategy so far haas been to hound and dog in an effort to force an early election as quickly as possible. As such, they’re assuming that with their popularity at a much higher level currently than a Labor Government, they could then simply walk in the door with no actual policies. And I can’t say it wouldn’t happen.

      This would be the biggest hoodwink pulled off by an Opposition and in fact politicians in general, that I’ve seen, for quite some time. It would be disgustingly immoral and unethical for a party to be elected on simple popularity that owes as much to media and political spin as with bad choices by the Government. They have no policies of their own (no fleshed out ones anyway) and don’t believe, apparently, policies are essential to winning government. ( I’m getting this weird 1984 flashback….And Yes Minister. That’s a line somewhere isn’t it “But Sir, we don’t HAVE a policy! Oh please, policies aren’t necessary for Government”)

      It’s quite disturbing if this is the attitude held by Tony and his advisors/close cabinet (I’d like to believe Turnbull isn’t part of it). It shows utter contempt for the Australian people. It shows an attitude of Jobsian proportions “You don’t know what you want. We tell you what you want.” This is bad enough for a consumer company. From a supposedly democratic political party, it’s monstrous.

      It could well be that simply are having trouble fleshing it out because of the scope of the network. It wouldn’t surprise me that their having trouble fleshing it out because all the advisories they’re talking to are saying “Actually the NBN is quite good and you can’t really achieve anything substantial in this country with a FTTN”. The point is, they SHOULD be releasing SOME details about it:

      – What % of Australians will it ACTUALLY affect? We KNOW the NBN WILL affect 93% of premises. We THINK it will affect another 4%, as they should have access to better speeds (although some may not- this is the blessing/curse of wireless). We have a good assumption that the remaining 3%, who presumably are already on Satellite, can get a BETTER satellite service. So, it would follow, we can expect more than 95% of Australian premises to be affected.

      – What will the TOTAL cost be and how will it be paid in a surplus budget? (in other words, what savings will you make to pay for it) I simply cannot see how they can answer this. But accountants have produced magical answers before.

      – How long will it take? They keep saying “faster than the current NBN”. That means nothing until we have a timeframe.

      These aren’t complex answers. How many people will be affected? How much will it cost? How long will it take? These are answers everyday Australians need to judge a policy. It’s what the NBN PR policy is based on. It’s how many people, who aren’t technogeeks like the rest of us, have accepted the NBN is good and necessary for Australia. And yet the Coalition cannot even produce answers to these questions. Why? Because…..

      The QUESTIONS are complex. Because to get these answers, you have to have complex modelling and advisories. Have they done, or are they doing, these? We don’t know. Malcolm is very good at political spin, but he’s given us no answers. And as Renai has said, I seriously doubt Tony has approved most of Turnbull’s comments, because I don’t think Tony has ANY idea how to make a policy on this.

      I’m getting very tired of hearing nothing from this Opposition. And I agree with Natasha Stott Despoja’s comments the other day that parliament has never been this tense and explosively childish and rude as now. Quite a coincidence that it happens to coincide with the Opposition’s mantra of “No, nothing”….

    • Exactly Steve, + lots…

      I have said to the faithful Coalition supporters (masquerading as NBN critics) many times, when they mention the Coalition don’t need policies yet… what if things change and all of a sudden the Coalition are in government? Don’t you think we deserve to know? Don’t you want to know? Because it can happen at any time!

      Thing is, if that was to happen, that’s when the Coalition’s vagueness will bite them.

      Unless of course, as I have suggested when I have slipped into conspiracy theory mode previously… the movers and shakers within the Coalition don’t really want Abbott as PM (let’s face it, he was made leader out-of-the-blue, at a time when Rudd had 70+% approval rating) perhaps as an interim, just to protect the actual preferred leaders, Turnbull or Hockey, from a Rudd annihilation.

      Of course in the mean time, Rudd lost his sheen, Gillard mutinied and Tony sitting back doing little, policy-less and being the scapegoat that never was (although not popular himself) is now, unless things change completely, the PM in waiting.

      So I agree, let’s hear what you have got Tony… because if you get your way, you could be PM at any minute.

  8. >> “If the Coalition releases a half-baked policy as it did before the last election, then of course releasing it early would allow Labor to have a field day with it.”

    And this is why they haven’t released it ………. Because it *is* a half-baked policy

    • In all fairness, it took Labor about three years of being in Goverment to finalise their own NBN policy … the document which Conroy took to the 2007 election was very little more than a figure ($4.7 billion) and a technology (FTTN). Turnbull is starting with a hell of a lot more than that.

      • True Renai. To an extent.

        But, they had the NBN effect their stats in the 2010 election (I’d say helped them lose, but I don’t want alain to misquote me) and THAT policy has been around now for at LEAST 3 years. (a year before and nearly 2 years after the election)

        And they’ve not been able to come up with a counter policy since.

      • Renai, lets not ignore the many years of apathy from JWH’s reign shall we? Those morons Coonan, Alston et al are largely responsible for the complete lack of seriousness with which telecommunications is taken within the Liberal Party – just look at the last election for proof (that MT takes it seriously is irrelevant)!

        • Don’t forget djos, Howard’s way of dealing with telecommunications was….*drum roll*….

          Privatising Telecom Australia!

          There’s your market forces at work RIGHT there….

      • Good point Renai.

        However, the 2007 Labor policy was in response to the Coalition’s mediocre OPEL plan, which hadn’t even kicked off. So realistically, anything would have been better (why didn’t the Coalition do FTTN back then…?).

        But that’s now water under the proverbial bridge…

        Imo, the challenge for Abbott/Turnbull “right now”, is to prove their claims that their broadband alternative is superior to the current governments comprehensive NBN plan.

        And frankly, if they could, surely they would?

        • “And frankly, if they could, surely they would?”

          Again, as people have already stated, and Renai as well, why would they? It would only be politically damaging any way you look at it.

          • @7 tech, basically we are saying the same thing but I’m coming at it from the opposite direction.

            I’m saying, no it wouldn’t be politically damaging at all to table their plan ***IF*** it was, as they claim, better.
            But as they insist on hiding it…well???

            Agree Renai, previously Labor FTTN (ala Sol)/Libs OPEL. Labor upgrades to FTTP, Libs upgrade to FTTN.

            Perhaps if Labor now upgrade to AJ’s “lasers”, the Libs will upgrade to FTTP ;-)

        • “However, the 2007 Labor policy was in response to the Coalition’s mediocre OPEL plan, which hadn’t even kicked off. So realistically, anything would have been better (why didn’t the Coalition do FTTN back then…?).”

          Actually, Labor broadly ignored what the Coalition was doing, and based much of its NBN plan off a similar proposal mooted by then-Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo. That’s where this whole debate started — Trujillo proposed the Govt pay Telstra to upgrade its copper network to FTTN.

          Ironic, eh? Now the Government is basically paying Telstra to get out of the way while it upgrades the copper itself to FTTH. That escalated quickly :)

          • I never thought the original 2007 policy was that great, but it was worth trying.

            At least we can have closure on FTTN and know for sure that no one would be willing to invest in FTTN (even with a $4.7B handout) – except of course Telstra, but then only on their own terms.

            And the experts said that FTTN could never deliver value for money. And they also advised that the government should have the guts to just do it, and deliver FTTH. And they did.

            Its 5 years later and FTTN if it ever was an interim solution, is now history. Time to accept that Turnbull cannot possibly come up with a policy that involves copper that just isn’t plain stupid.

            Weird thing is you now get the antis complaining that Labor should have tried FTTN, when in fact they did. Short memories indeed.

        • “(why didn’t the Coalition do FTTN back then…?).”

          That’s what I’ve been wondering, it all points to the same thing though and that is they are only willing to do as much as they believe they have to not what everyone actually needs. Broadband is not something they have or ever will take seriously and the fact that they are now endorsing labors leftover FttN plan is proof of that.

          http://delimiter.com.au/forum/national-broadband-network/86215-why-fttn-makes-even-less-sense.html

          • The reason the Coaltion never did anything (until they started to realise it was a political issue and started coming up with band-aids) is that fundamentally their ideology blinds them. Its a market thing. Let the market do it. Don’t worry, it’ll all work out eventually. The market is good. The market is all knowing..

            (puke)

  9. Can we also get an FOI request up to find out the cost of the parliamentary resources consumed by the coalition debate opposing the enabling legislation? With late nights, extra sitting days, extra Committees, rebooked flights and extra hotel nights, and full secretarial support for the sitting members, I don’t think it would be far shy of a billion dollars to no actual purpose.

    Could be very interesting to learn exactly how much Malcolm Turnbull’s bullying ways in parliament have cost the Australian taxpayer, before even considering the cost of the eight month delay to the mainstream construction of the network.

  10. “Could be very interesting to learn exactly how much Malcolm Turnbull’s bullying ways in parliament have cost the Australian taxpayer, before even considering the cost of the eight month delay to the mainstream construction of the network.”

    Good idea, but I don’t think we should focus on Turnbull. I’d focus on Tony Abbott. Or Joe Hockey. THEY are the ones who ultimately control what Turnbull says about broadband policy and costings.

    FOI requests have a habit of not revealing what you want to see however….whether that’s because what you want isn’t actually there or because it’s under subterfuge…..

    Sounds conspiratorial, but I’d wanna see the FOI requests before I confirmed it wasn’t with this Opposition.

  11. Natasha, heard her a couple of times , knew precisely what she was talking about, excellent grasp of the subject and razor sharp mind. One of Australia’s better pollies. She needs a worthwhile party to be part of, however as an independent senator she would have my vote, run rings around most of those also ran elected representatives. Worthy of a senior portfolio

    • From what I’ve seen and read of her, I’d agree. She seems alot more….genuine than 90% of our pollies these days.

      Mind you, there doesn’t really seem to be ROOM for genuine pollies in this parliament…..

  12. Tony Abbott has depicted the government as incapable of any worthwhile decision, in order to win government as soon as possible. Predictions of failure and disaster have been recanted daily. Unfortunately, the longer Labor is in power, given the law of average, some of these predictions will not be realised. The NBN is a big obstacle for the Liberals. If its popularity increases with each new area being connected, it will be viewed a success by many before the next election.

    Given the liberals track record, they are not well equipped to respond. They never have had a coherent broadband policy.

    The longer Labor last (presumably until the end of their term), the more the pressure will be on them to move away from the slogans. However, considering that most political spiel (from both sides) is usually directed at the least politically (and technologically) minded, they will continue to push the “better and cheaper” line.
    Remember last election Julia Gillard’s “moving forward” and Tony Abbott’s “stop the boats/pay off the debt”

    Remember las t

    • Exactly. The entire tactic is one borrowed from the Republicans. Never, ever admit the other side has done anything right, no matter how stupid you look, how much you have to repudiate experts or just froth at the mouth. Never ever admit the other side got it right. Its a narrative that has to be kept pure.

      Once people see that Labor is actually delivering good governance – and the NBN is their single biggest success – the Liberal narrative will have a gaping hole in it. It won’t make sense. Labor is incompetent? Um.. but what about the NBN? Oh.. who told me it was incompetent? Umm.. what else am I being lied to about?

      This is why the Liberal fan boys are so desperate to knock the NBN. Watch them get more unhinged!

      • ‘Once people see that Labor is actually delivering good governance – and the NBN is their single biggest success’

        Really? – the NBN is rolled past a extremely small number of residences of the intended whole of Australia percentage, and within that an even smaller number of residences that have signed up for active NBN plan.

        So on that flimsy basis it is now deemed as Labor’s ‘single biggest success’ , now that’s really grasping desperately for good news stories about Labor.

        Tell us all about Labors ‘single biggest success’ in 2022/2023, or what ever revised finish date/s we will get before then, the finish date has already been revised upward twice now.

        • You choose the worst statistics to better your argument once again alain.

          The small number of residences it has rolled past and the subsequent delays is as much the fault of Telstra for Greenfields numbers and USO and the address statistics, WHICH WERE WRONG which NBNCo. is now having to manually confirm, even though this is not their job. WE as the consumer will BENEFIT from the address confirmation…but you haven’t added that bit have you?

          As much FUD as possible as usual, while ignoring the actual fact of the matter.

          • Your response has nothing to do with the point I was making, which can be summarised as ‘see you in 2022/2023/2024/2025’ when we can look back to determine if the Labor NBN was a success or not.

          • “Your response has nothing to do with the point I was making, which can be summarised as ‘see you in 2022/2023/2024/2025’ when we can look back to determine if the Labor NBN was a success or not.”

            Please read your previous post before stating something like this. You were discussing how few residences it has passed. I gave you the REASON it has passed so few residences. The fact that you want to wait until 2022 to see what happens is fine with me. It indicates you expect the NBN to continue.

  13. Renai writes …. “Firstly, it would have the effect of leaving Conroy — a sitting Minister of two terms’ standing — in a difficult position of criticising a strong policy. This would come off as childish and deliver Malcolm Turnbull the high ground.”

    Beg yours? Childish? Since when is it deemed childish to attack a policy, be it weak or strong? A very odd perception if I may so. It is incumbent on Conroy to attack the policy regardless. And in attacking it there would be no concession of ‘high ground’ what-so-ever. Not only would it allow a proper debate, it would also highlight the failings of what will surely be an inferior option.

  14. > Doing so would allow Conroy, who is already strongly delivering on his very popular and successful NBN policy

    I’m undecided if Conroy is strongly delivering, because we don’t have the hard facts to judge. The little we know is that the build is behind schedule and take-up is under half what the NBNCo Corporate Plan forecast.

    Currently he is sitting on the updated NBNCo Corporate Plan, hiding the estimates for the next 3 years.

    • You don’t seem that undecided to me. In fact, you already have already decided that he is hiding the estimates for the next 3 years.

      • Don’t mind him observer, he’s still feeling a bit deflated and humiliated after the real world numbers from the NBNco product roadmap totally decimated his arguments against the NBN.

        • By real world numbers, I assume you are referring to Quigley’s statements at the Senate Estimates Hearing from which I quote:
          “I can tell you that as of the end of March the average revenue per user was $29.55.”

          “For fibre the take-up of 12 Mb per second download speeds is 18 per cent, for 25 Mb per second it is 35 per cent, for 50 Mb per second it is 10 per cent and for 100 Mb per second it is 30 per cent. That is the averages. As I mentioned also in April, those numbers at the high speeds are climbing up.”

          The problem with these figures is that they are for early adopters, and the take-up rate of ~18% is under half what is predicted on page 77 of NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010), let alone the final figure of 70% (page 116). It very much appears that certain demographics who have the most to gain from the NBN are connecting, but that many more are ambivalent and adopting a wait and see attitude. I would be surprised if many of these adopt the faster speeds.

          What Quigley’s numbers to demonstrate is the potential for polarisation between people with a fast (100/40Mbps) connection and those who have slower speeds.

          It will be interesting to see what happens when the copper starts being disconnected in the next 12 months.

          • A wonderful (if you want the NBN to fail) but incomplete and speculative analysis. A small but important omission is those people on long term contract not yet in a position to sign up with the NBN.

            Unfortunately, the answer is not in the NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010)

            However, given your propensity for foretelling. You should be able to tell us how many people this represents. I trust you then will be able to tell us how this compares to the figures on page 77.

          • > A small but important omission is those people on long term contract not yet in a position to sign up with the NBN.

            Can you name an RSP that doesn’t allow customers to transfer from their existing fixed contract to the NBN with the only “penalty” being a increase in contract length?

          • Having a stab Mathew, of the ones who have NBN plans available, probably none.

            But not all RSP have contracts with NBNCo as yet and I’m also guessing it’s more lucrative for the biggies who do, to keep people on existing (gouging) non-NBN contracts for as long as possible? Because once they start to really push the NBN plans, people will start to look around/compare and may find their current company is not that competitive in the NBN world. So shhh for as long as possible.

            Then you have the areas which may have only ever had one company available to them pre-NBN. But now they may have choice and may want to move to another company, but not pay penalties to do so.

            Then of course we have the average Joe, who reads the Australian and listens to 2GB who has been told and told and therefore believes the NBN is a white elephant and wants nothing to do it and will stay right where is is thank you.

            And also those who vehemently oppose the NBN (like a few here) who surely wouldn’t sign up to it as they oppose it so, that would be gross hypocrisy – but not Coalition party politicians who of course are hypocrites, as they oppose the NBN, but want it NOW for themselves and their constituents…!

            The reasons could be many and varied Mathew, but of course that’s just common sense (woops I mean speculation). So instead of even considering such situations as possibilities, the NBN critics can just dismiss and carry on felling all warm and fuzzy, pushing their own little agendas.

            *sigh*

          • “The problem with these figures is that they are for early adopters”

            Makes no difference. It proves you are wrong regardless and it’s well and truly time to admit you are wrong. I told you not to address me until you are willing to admit you were wrong. I don’t consider you are serious participant in this debate. You are notorious for getting it wrong every single time and I am yet to see you acknowledge it so your “opinions” and/or “evaluations” on this matter are no longer valid…

            “What Quigley’s numbers to demonstrate is the potential for polarisation between people with a fast (100/40Mbps) connection and those who have slower speeds.”

            People on the 12/1mbps plan are in a minority and always will be, any one with a choice will choose 25/5mbps or higher on fibre (dont try and move the goalpost to 100/40, everyone can see what you are doing here), the numbers in the NBNco product roadmap prove this. 87% (page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap) are choosing 25/5mbps and higher plans. The most popular plan is actually the 100/40mbps plan at 37% (page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap) is is above and beyond what NBNco were predicting. You are wrong.

            “It will be interesting to see what happens when the copper starts being disconnected in the next 12 months.”

            That won’t be interesting at all. What will actually happen is quite predictable: More people on fibre, great. More people choosing 25/5mbps and higher plans making your comments look even more silly, great.

          • > Makes no difference. It proves you are wrong regardless and it’s well and truly time to admit you are wrong. I told you not to address me until you are willing to admit you were wrong.

            Considering that all I’ve done is quote the predictions in the Corporate Plan, then that makes the Corporate Plan wrong, not me.

            > The most popular plan is actually the 100/40mbps plan at 37% (page 7 of the NBNco product roadmap) is is above and beyond what NBNco were predicting. You are wrong.

            Still early adopter statistics.

            > What will actually happen is quite predictable: More people on fibre, great. More people choosing 25/5mbps and higher plans making your comments look even more silly, great.

            If it was so predictable, then I would have expected Quigley to hint at revised estimates, but all he has said is the current percentages will change. What we still don’t have an explanation of is why current take-up rates are half the lowest point of take-up in the Corporate Plan.

            I also see you’ve failed to address the inconsistency between lower ARPU yet higher speeds and what is predicted in the NBNCo Corporate Plan.

          • “I also see you’ve failed to address the inconsistency between lower ARPU yet higher speeds and what is predicted in the NBNCo Corporate Plan.”

            See my above replies Matthew. There is a perfectly decent, reasonable and sound explanation.

          • “Considering that all I’ve done is quote the predictions in the Corporate Plan, then that makes the Corporate Plan wrong, not me.”

            Great. You and the corporate plan are wrong.

            “Still early adopter statistics.”

            Makes no difference whatsoever, if you wanted this little detail to matter you should have said so BEFORE the fact not AFTER.

            “If it was so predictable, then I would have expected Quigley to hint at revised estimates”

            We’ve been over this already any corporate plan has to be conservative and wont necessarily reflect real world numbers. Can you figure out why or should we assume the worst about you instead?

            “What we still don’t have an explanation of is why current take-up rates are half the lowest point of take-up in the Corporate Plan.”

            We do have an explanation but the real issue here is the percentages which are above and beyond what was predicted so that simply makes you wrong.

            btw the numbers you are quoting from Quigley only add up to 93% so you and him are missing 7% however it makes little difference as you also conveniently missed the exchange between Hassel & Ludlam:

            Mr Hassel: In the 2010 corporate plan our assumptions were that the 12:1 service would be something like about 53 or 54 per cent.
            Senator LUDLAM: And that ended up being 18 per cent?
            Mr Hassel: Yes. And our assumption was that the 100:40—the top one—would be about 8 per cent.
            Senator LUDLAM: And that ended up being about 34 or 35 per cent?
            Mr Hassel: About 38 per cent.
            Senator LUDLAM: So it is upside down?
            Mr Hassel: Yes.

            38%

            38% is the current percentage for the 100/40mbps plan. FACT.
            7% for the 100/40mbps plan is what was predicted in the 2010 corporate plan for the same period. FACT.

            You and the 2010 corporate plan predictions are wrong. FACT.

          • “Still early adopter statistics.”

            This is starting to go down the same road as a previous correspondence I had with another, when I non-politically and harmlessly quoted both political sides NBN/filtering positions as we now know them, as being current actuals.

            And another said, wrong because they may change… que?

            Early adopters figures are the ONLY figures we currently have (obviously) so they are the current actuals – period. Yes they may (and probably will change) but these are the figures as they stand NOW.

          • Well Alex I’m still curious to know exactly how much they think these “early adopter statistics” will change. I have no doubt that the percentage for the 100/40mbps will slide a bit however the 25/5mbps and 50/20mbps plans are more likely to rise as a result of this not the 12/1mbps plan… it’s always been about the 12/1mbps plan after all lol.

          • I hear ‘early adopter’ statistics on 100Mbps BigPond HFC Ultimate Plans are very good also, so does this mean we should keep it?

          • “I hear ‘early adopter’ statistics on 100Mbps BigPond HFC Ultimate Plans are very good also, so does this mean we should keep it?”

            HFC shouldn’t be kept at all. It should be allowed to die a natural death however. It can’t keep up with fibre at all (100/2mbps lol lol lol lol lol lol). Hope that helps.

          • “I hear ‘early adopter’ statistics on 100Mbps BigPond HFC Ultimate Plans are very good also, so does this mean we should keep it?”

            Not a relevant comparison. Telstra Bigpond “Ultimate” Cable is an UPGRADE of existing infrastructure. Telstra ALSO cannot put thousands of extra people on without SEVERELY limiting their bandwidth, due to contention.

            If Telstra pushed the Bigpond “Ultimate” plans as hard as it could they would have SO many people on the HFC, they’d be lucky to get better than ADSL1. It is all about balance.

            On the NBN however, the only “balance” required is how much money should be paid for CVC to ensure a high enough throughput for the AVC’s. It is NOT a hardware limitation.

          • btw you were the one who put so much faith into the worst case numbers from the corporate plan rather than come up with logical prediction on your own so the error is yours.

            Furthermore I’ll ask you exactly what I asked you on Zdnet (more questions you refuse to answer):

            So when Quigley presents a plan to the shareholders (us) and says “this is our worst case scenario” and we STILL expect to make money so the NBN can go ahead and still be successful what do you say?

            Then what do you say when the numbers come in which are not a “worst case scenario”? Do you object and say “Well I don’t care what Quigley says now, I still think the worst case scenario will turn out to be true just because” or do you say “Well I was wrong, looks like the NBN will be even more successful than I thought, that’s great!”?

            And:

            So come on guys, give us a prediction of your own. No really, I insist. How many will be on the various speed plans one year from now? That should be enough time to “weed out” the “early adopters”.

          • > Then what do you say when the numbers come in which are not a “worst case scenario”?

            If the NBNCo Corporate Plan was truly a worst case scenario then they wouldn’t be under half the predicted take-up rate (p77).

          • “If the NBNCo Corporate Plan was truly a worst case scenario then they wouldn’t be under half the predicted take-up rate (p77).”

            Actually it is a worse case scenario did you miss the exchange between Hassel & Ludlam again? Also you still haven’t answered the question. How many are YOU predicting will be on the various speed plans one year from now?

          • With or without NBN Co CVC full rebate? – which allows a ISP like Exetel for example to sell 100Mbps for only $10/mth more than 12 Mbps?

          • Still no answer? What a surprise.

            Amazing, here is your one and only opportunity to finally prove me wrong and you’re not going to take it? All you have to do is give us a few numbers. I mean surely what ever prediction you come up with would be more accurate than what I have predicted and certainly more accurate than what NBNco predicted… they weren’t even close! (That’s a good thing btw)

          • “With or without NBN Co CVC full rebate? – which allows a ISP like Exetel for example to sell 100Mbps for only $10/mth more than 12 Mbps?”

            The rebate is there for while the NBN is small and also to ensure low populace POI’s don’t overly favour larger ISP’s. Once the NBN is bigger and smaller ISP’s have many more users throughout Australia, the first 150Mbps will be small compared to what’s required, at most POI’s, to service, reliably, users across that POI.

            The CVC pricing at later stages will make little differences to low-medium sized suppliers like Exetel, as I’ll show:

            Exetel can continue to offer 100Mbps for much lower price, if it serves their business model, seeing as they are a budget provider and will unlikely be competing on reliable top speed. They will probably use a higher risk factor when calculating the likelihood at any time of a user being at highest speed. For example, the risk that a consumer on 100Mbps with 75Gb quota (Exetel) will be running at full speed is 0.0023% (http://thebernoullitrial.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/the-nbn-cvc-and-burst-capacity/)

            IF Exetel had 10 000 customers on 100Mbps on that POI (which is reasonable estimating seeing as they push the 100Mbps and 10 000 customers on 121 POI’s would equal 1.2 Million customers total, or about 5% share, a little above now, but likely in a NBN world), the number of people likely at any point to be downloading at that speed would be 23 (10000×0.0023). So 23 people out of 10 000 could be receiving top speed before throttling due to too low a CVC throughput. Using the model proposed in the above website, which is fundamental economic binomial distribution, it RECOMMENDS that Exetel in fact have room for 35% higher number of people than that, or say 8 people, so a total of 31 people at 100Mbps = 3100Mbps. CVC pricing is $20/Mbps x 2950 = $59 000. This INCLUDES the 150Mbps discount. Exetel charges $50 for this 100Mbps service x 10 000 people = $500 000. Minus $38 / service for AVC (pg 101) = $120 000 minus CVC = $61 000 minus NNI for 3100Mbps which is $1600, = $59 400 (Pg 103) to Exetel.

            Add IN the 150Mbps EXTRA CVC to this, you get 3100mbps x $20= $62 000. $120 000 – $62 000 – $1600 = $56 600….a difference of less than $3000 or ~5%

            If Exetel were to decide, no, we are budget and won’t compete on reliability of top speed (which is usually their business model) they might decide to go AGAINST the model and ONLY get 2300Mbps or 2150 with discount making the CVC pricing only 2150 x $20= $43 000. Removing the discount then makes the total $46 000 making total revenue (discluding NNI) of $74 000 as compared to $77 000 WITH the discount, making CVC discount contribute less than 4% of revenue.

            Obviously this is not profit. There’s backhaul, servers etc. to take into account. And obviously SOME customers would have higher quotas. But conversely some customers WOULD’NT have 100Mbps (there is NO way Exetel would have 100% of its’ customers on 100Mbps). So these are likely to balance against one another, as Exetel would do in its’ cost modelling. But the NUMBERS on Exetel show, that even WITHOUT CVC discounting, they make much the same amount of money per POI ie. it is about a $3000 difference, which is about 5% of total Exetel revenue for RELIABLE service or 3.8% for non-reliable service. (more likely given Exetel’s strategy)

            Smaller ISP’s have a worse time, seeing as the CVC price becomes a larger part when you’ve only got say, 1000 or 2000 people on a POI. But THIS is what WE the PRO-NBNers have been arguing AGAINST. We don’t WANT this many POI’s, making small ISP’s work harder for slimmer margins. Currently though, this is what the model works off. But to any ISP larger than 5000 – 10000 people on a POI (and that would be many 10’s of ISP’s once the NBN is fully up and running) the CVC discount removal later will make little impact on their profit and therefore, little impact on retail pricing.

            Better that.

            P.S.- Sorry for there heavy maths, but seriously, this is what it takes to actually convince people.

          • How can you make any predictions of what speeds are going to be the most popular when the NBN Co wholesale pricing is artificially low and will remain that way until the minimum numbers ceiling is reached as per the the CVC rebate scheme?

            Many of the current residences that are actively using a NBN plan came off the FREE pilot scheme where you had a ‘choice of speeds’ so it was a case of ‘hey I’ll take 100Mps, it’s the same price as 12 Mbps – ie. free.

            I am sure many of the pilot residences who had a 100Mbps connection are reluctant to go to a lower speed, especially if 100Mbps pricing is held attractively low courtesy of the NBN Co CVC rebate.

          • “How can you make any predictions of what speeds are going to be the most popular when the NBN Co wholesale pricing is artificially low and will remain that way until the minimum numbers ceiling is reached as per the the CVC rebate scheme?”

            alain, YOU ARE CHOOSING TO IGNORE FACTS. I have taken the WORST case scenario here where 100% of ALL Exetel’s customers are on 100Mbps. Would you like to explain how likely that would be??? Stop ignoring what doesn’t fit in because it doesn’t serve your argument.

            The FREE plans are NO LONGER AVAILABLE. Meaning signup FROM NOW ON will be based PURELY on customer demand. And I STILL predict it will STILL be higher than the Corporate Plan predicts. That is a prediction, NOT fact.

          • How do you know how much a ISP is going to charge for a 100Mbps plan post rebate shutdown and how that will determine the shake up of what speed a punter will buy.

            I would like to know how many of those residences on a 100Mbps plan were on the 100Mbps plan in the pilot phase.

          • “How can you make any predictions of what speeds are going to be the most popular when the NBN Co wholesale pricing is artificially low and will remain that way until the minimum numbers ceiling is reached as per the the CVC rebate scheme?”

            OK, so consider this when making your prediction. You already claim that “pricing is artificially low” and are so sure prices will go up so making a prediction should be super easy for you. Go.

          • “How do you know how much a ISP is going to charge for a 100Mbps plan post rebate shutdown and how that will determine the shake up of what speed a punter will buy.”

            alain, you don’t get it do you? I JUST explained ECONOMICALLY what Exetel can expect to receive from its’ consumers for 100Mbps plans. It has EVERY right to charge more later if it wants but NBNCo.’s CVC pricing WILL NOT BE THE REASON FOR IT. CVC pricing will go down, not up, meaning any pricing that Exetel adds will be profit for Exetel, not for NBNCo. making the argument for the CVC pricing discount’s affect even better.

            “I would like to know how many of those residences on a 100Mbps plan were on the 100Mbps plan in the pilot phase.”

            I would ALSO like to know how many were on the pilot for 100Mbps out of interest……EXCEPT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. It changes the small numbers we have now. It will NOT change the numbers coming in from now on. I’ve already explained that and you’ve ignored it once again.

          • “With or without NBN Co CVC full rebate?”

            You posed this question so give us two predictions. One with and one without.

          • “You posed this question so give us two predictions. One with and one without.”

            I’ve given it above HC, he’s just ignoring it because it shows how little difference it’ll make to a company like Exetel. It’s even worst case scenario.

          • “I don’t run a ISP but from someone who does.”

            Ummmm, alain? That whole article is based around the fact that Hackett believes the CVC discount will make NO difference to the long term costing of the ISP…..

            “Hackett welcomed the move in a statement by NBN Co yesterday. However, in a separate email, the Internode MD noted that the rebate wouldn’t reduce the long-term cost to ISPs participating in the NBN. “It just gets us there from here,” he noted. Hackett has consistently called for the overall CVC charge to come down.”

            He is saying it gets small ISP’s INTO the market, but makes little to no impact (AS I’VE SHOWN ABOVE) on long-term pricing. He’s calling for a lower CVC. I wouldn’t disagree with that. However, the CVC HAS to be artificially high to prove NBN’s business case which only HAS to be proved, because people such as yourself refuse to see the good in the NBN without it making money!

            You’ve taken that sentence out of context of the entire article to try and prove your point. That is not fact, that is out of context bias.

          • Of course you left out this bit.

            “Those punitive access overheads were not accommodated in the pricing we’ve already announced. In other words, we had determined that announced pricing on the basis that this rebate or an equivalent was in the pipeline already.”

            umm indeed.

          • alain, there’s no “ummm” about it in my case. Internode budgeted for a CVC rebate, seeing as it was a SENSIBLE thing to put in place. I’m sure many smaller ISP’s did too. It STILL doesn’t change the fact that he’s said IT WILL MAKE NO LONG TERM DIFFERENCE.

            I REPEAT the quote:

            “However, in a separate email, the Internode MD noted that the rebate wouldn’t reduce the long-term cost to ISPs participating in the NBN. “It just gets us there from here,” he noted.”

            In other words, the rebate makes little/no difference in costing of the CVC once the NBN is fully operational, hence, he’s arguing for lower CVC pricing overall, a fact I AGREE with.

          • @ alain,

            So would you like NBNC to revisit the CVC issue again and go back to had they had it, where SH suggested it would drive the smaller players out of the market?

            You can’t have your usual each way bet again… bag NBNCo for driving out smaller competitors and when NBNCo do something to avoid this, whinge about then helping smaller players.

            I say you can’t, but of course, as usual, you can and do Like suggesting HFC is a dismal flop and then whinging the wonderfully competitive HFC will be shut down :/

          • ‘You can’t have your usual each way bet again…”

            What each way bet are you on about???

            ; bag NBNCo for driving out smaller competitors’

            I didn’t bag the NBN for driving out smaller competitors.

            ‘ and when NBNCo do something to avoid this, whinge about then helping smaller players.’

            I didn’t whinge about them helping smaller players.

            Do you like making up fictional argument often?

            ‘I say you can’t, but of course, as usual, you can and do Like suggesting HFC is a dismal flop and then whinging the wonderfully competitive HFC will be shut down :/’

            It’s not being shut down because it’s a ‘dismal flop’ it’s being shut down because the NBN Co owners the Labor Government are paying Telstra and Optus to shut it down, it is a ‘loss’ but Telstra and Optus have written it all down as a depreciated asset in their books anyway.

            You are not pretending Telstra and Optus would have pulled it down anyway even if the Labor Government had not paid them out, if you are Conroy has wasted a hell of a lot of taxpayer money.

            I

          • “It’s not being shut down because it’s a ‘dismal flop’ it’s being shut down because the NBN Co owners the Labor Government are paying Telstra and Optus to shut it down, it is a ‘loss’ but Telstra and Optus have written it all down as a depreciated asset in their books anyway.
            You are not pretending Telstra and Optus would have pulled it down anyway even if the Labor Government had not paid them out, if you are Conroy has wasted a hell of a lot of taxpayer money.”

            The Government is paying to migrate the customers because ultimately, for a national network, against which the HFC networks will have NO chance, because of NBN’s inherent ability to outperform in both total bandwidth and reliable bandwidth, there is no point in prolonging the procedure. They are paying to migrate the customers NOW so that the Uniform National Pricing system works, which requires the majority of Australians on the NBN ASAP.

            It has nothing to do with whether HFC is a “loss” or not, although it clearly is, as neither Telstra OR Optus have made significant investment in it since 2001; they’re happy milking it for all it’s worth. (no DOCSIS 3 ISN’T a significant upgrade. It’s a matter of changing home base and some node hardware and installing new software) The HFC networks would’ve been converted, if left for another 5-10 years, into full fibre systems, that STILL would’ve only covered the same number of premises and STILL had artificially high prices because of the Duopoly. The NBN is doing away with them because UNLESS they were converted into fibre NOW they simply prolong the inevitable, which is BAD for the consumer- HENCE THE ACCC AGREEMENT.

          • @seven tech

            ‘The Government is paying to migrate the customers because ultimately, for a national network, against which the HFC networks will have NO chance, because of NBN’s inherent ability to outperform in both total bandwidth and reliable bandwidth, there is no point in prolonging the procedure.’

            So why pay them at all then, if the HFC networks have ‘no chance’ against the NBN then all HFC customers will migrate voluntarily to FTTH when given the opportunity to do so won’t they?

            The answer to that is a big maybe, but it is too much of a risk for Conroy in lucrative inner city areas with ISP’s trying to poach HFC customers onto the NBN with customers completely happy with their Telstra and Optus Pay TV, voice call, mobile and HFC BB packages.

            The ridiculous scenario we have with the Telstra and NBN Co agreement is that the Telstra HFC cable is going to be left up for Foxtel, so we have Foxtel customers with two lines coming into the residence because they cannot have BB off the HFC because they have been forced to use NBN Co BB.

            ‘They are paying to migrate the customers NOW so that the Uniform National Pricing system works, which requires the majority of Australians on the NBN ASAP.’

            I have never heard of the ‘Uniform National Pricing’ system, is that something you made up?

            ‘It has nothing to do with whether HFC is a “loss” or not, although it clearly is, as neither Telstra OR Optus have made significant investment in it since 2001; they’re happy milking it for all it’s worth. (no DOCSIS 3 ISN’T a significant upgrade.’

            Well those using DOCSIS 3 consider it a significant upgrade.

            ‘The HFC networks would’ve been converted, if left for another 5-10 years, into full fibre systems,’

            Where did you get that internal confidential Telstra and Optus info from? – nothing I have read from Telstra or Optus states any timeline on voluntary HFC shutdown, what I am seeing is both companies are still signing up thousands of NEW HFC customers on 24 month contracts in 2012 ,and will still be doing it in 2013 and beyond, and pushing those packages with heavy marketing campaigns.

            ‘HENCE THE ACCC AGREEMENT.’

            The shutting down of the Telstra and Optus HFC for BB has nothing whatever to do with the ACCC and is agreement between Telstra Optus and the Government (NBN Co).

          • They are paying them for migration, pits, ducts and as compensation for previous investments in infrastructure.

            That’s what happens in society.

            I could imagine the completely opposite and typical outcry of socialist heavy handedness, if the government rolled over the top of existing telcos, without compensation or worse seized their networks.

            Seems as usual those opposed to the NBN for political reasons only, have a complaint for all occasions and any direction those occasions may head.

          • “So why pay them at all then, if the HFC networks have ‘no chance’ against the NBN then all HFC customers will migrate voluntarily to FTTH when given the opportunity to do so won’t they?”

            Yes, they will. As I have explained before, there is no POINT in allowing this to happen over time. It does NOTHING to help the consumer, which is what the NBN is about. If NBNCo. allowed the HFC to stay in place, Telstra and Optus would find ways of locking them into HFC, as Telstra and Optus get MORE revenue off their own networks than on the NBN. This is NOT good for the consumer, hence why the ACCC approved the deals with Telstra and Optus- Because they are good for the CONSUMER.

            The second reason, which I have ALSO already stated, is because NBNCo., in the current political climate, MUST show as good a business case as is reasonable. This means requiring as many people as possible on the NBN ASAP, hence the payments. If this were a perfect world, we would have the government ignoring those on the HFC and rolling the FTTH out to all those who DON’T have HFC. But that would not be a business case and would be pure infrastructure building, resulting in a payment by the taxpayer, which in normal circumstances for infrastructure is not a problem. But apparently in a situation where the Coalition can change minds simply by stating the opposite and letting the Media know to do the same, because of the hung parliament, it is not acceptable.

            “The answer to that is a big maybe, but it is too much of a risk for Conroy in lucrative inner city areas with ISP’s trying to poach HFC customers onto the NBN with customers completely happy with their Telstra and Optus Pay TV, voice call, mobile and HFC BB packages.”

            It is a maybe. Whether it is big or not depends on your stance against technology. HFC, in it’s current physical layout in the capital cities is ALREADY beyond its’ limitations. Why else would people be refused connections in busy areas? And why else would 3.5 Million people be passed….but only a total of 800 000 across the 2 ISP’s are connected? The FACT is, that to increase supply of bandwidth, they MUST node split. This is not something either Telstra OR Optus have indicated they’re interested in doing. Fibre, however, could be rolled out from the current HFC fibre hubs, to the home, for likely much the same price and provide bandwidth above and beyond what is needed now, which makes it a good investment. Whether you choose to believe it or not EVERY major telco in the world states their ultimate goal IS FTTH. Some get there faster than others, depending on lucrative markets. But it WILL happen eventually.

            “The ridiculous scenario we have with the Telstra and NBN Co agreement is that the Telstra HFC cable is going to be left up for Foxtel, so we have Foxtel customers with two lines coming into the residence because they cannot have BB off the HFC because they have been forced to use NBN Co BB.”

            I have no issue with that. Why would you? Does it make ANY difference to the consumer? Do THEY have to install the lines or the cable box or the NTU? No. They simply get 2 services from 2 providers. This happened with copper while internet services were not available on HFC early on. It wasn’t an issue. I imagine, in an NBN world, in the future, with multicast technology, Foxtel/Austar will be offered by Telstra over the NBN…..

          • “I have never heard of the ‘Uniform National Pricing’ system, is that something you made up?”

            alain, you are being facetious. This is the whole POINT behind the NBN. Read ANY of Quigley’s statements about pricing, OR Conroy’s statements. The speak of uniform national wholesale pricing……oh I see, you think I meant Uniform National RETAIL pricing.

            Stop being so pedantic.

          • “Well those using DOCSIS 3 consider it a significant upgrade.”

            It is a significant SPEED upgrade, not network upgrade. It is a metter of a few hardware changes at the base station end. That’s all. NO significant network changes, other than reworking the network entirely with node-splitting, can be done to produce any MORE significant speed upgrades. DOCSIS3.0 is it, without node-splitting.

            “Where did you get that internal confidential Telstra and Optus info from? – nothing I have read from Telstra or Optus states any timeline on voluntary HFC shutdown, what I am seeing is both companies are still signing up thousands of NEW HFC customers on 24 month contracts in 2012 ,and will still be doing it in 2013 and beyond, and pushing those packages with heavy marketing campaigns.”

            Still signing up thousands of customers? Thankyou for proving our point about Telstra’s lock-in for 24 month contracts we were arguing about several articles ago, if you’ll remember. They ARE signing people up for these contracts BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE MONEY. If Telstra signs up these people NOW, they make the money from the contract and THEN they GET PAID to switch them to the NBN and can lock them in AGAIN if they want. This has nothing to do with wanting more people on the HFC. Otherwise, they would be WELL past 400 000 people on it, considering this sort of sales drive would’ve resulted in many new connections over the more than 10 YEARS the HFC has been fully operational.

            Of course I have no “confidential” info. I don’t need it. Telstra and Optus have made no significant NETWORK upgrades of their HFC networks in almost 10 years. They have 2 choices, as I’ve ALREADY gone through numerous times:

            – Split the nodes. Expensive new cabinets, fights with councils, for a small increase from 100Mbps (Max) to 300Mbps (Max).

            – Lay fibre from the CURRENT nodes, to the home. Expensive to lay, but provides future bandwidth AND they can provide ALL the people in the footprint with 100Mbps instead of having to selectively allow people to connect as they do now.

            I’m certainly not a telco CEO. But If I was….I’m sorry, that would just be a no-brainer. Why HAVEN’T they dont it before now? The NBN. It has been around since 2005, in one form or another, so while it’s STILL around, they don’t want to risk it. NOW, they don’t have to. The risk is taken away from them AND they get paid for it to boot.

          • “from which I quote:
            “I can tell you that as of the end of March the average revenue per user was $29.55.”

            Matthew, once again, you’re rejecting reality and substituting your own. OF COURSE the ARPU is low. There are less than 4000 people on fibre, with the higher ARPU’s evident that you choose to put down to early adopters with no evidence, and there are 7000 on satellite which has the LOWEST ARPU of $24. The law of average states then, that the higher number of lower ARPU’s will drag down the ARPU average overall.

            Once we have 10 or 20 times the number on fibre, the satellite and wireless low ARPU will pale in comparison to the higher uptake in higher tiers. THIS is what the NBNCo. Corporate Plan you keep quoting works on.

            Please, don’t start spouting page numbers again, I’m fairly certain nobody is reading.

          • “What Quigley’s numbers to demonstrate is the potential for polarisation between people with a fast (100/40Mbps) connection and those who have slower speeds.”

            Evidence? You have no evidence and as far as I can see, would GET no evidence to support this. The 100/40 plan has the highest ARPU. It therefore, by DEFAULT subsidises the LOWER ARPU of the people on lower tiers. This isn’t polarisation, it’s equality….

          • > Evidence? You have no evidence and as far as I can see, would GET no evidence to support this. The 100/40 plan has the highest ARPU. It therefore, by DEFAULT subsidises the LOWER ARPU of the people on lower tiers. This isn’t polarisation, it’s equality….

            Equality is when the rich are on 1000/400Mbps and the poor are on 12/1Mbps?

          • “Equality is when the rich are on 1000/400Mbps and the poor are on 12/1Mbps?”

            Absolute rubbish. Show me some statistics that say the average Australian CANNOT afford the 25Mbps plan, let alone the 50Mbps plan, when they are CHEAPER than 50% of the ADSL plans out there??

            You’re making up scenarios to suit your argument. The higher tiers SUBSIDISE the lower tiers, making the price come down, thereby incentivising people to move up the tiers for a similar price. They can CHOOSE not to, to save money, but that goes AGAINST how the market ALWAYS says the majority of consumers will react. Look at mobile plans. It’s how Telco’s have made so much money since the introduction of cap plans.

          • Sounds a bit like Tony Abbott telling us that poor people have more babies because they get welfare.

            Seriously, polarisation usually refers to dividing opinions, not difference in purchasing power.

            As for the poor not being able to afford the higher speed and taking Excetel NBN prices as an example, the difference between 12/1 plan and the 25/5 plan is only $5 a month or $1.16 a week. For the 100/40 plan, it is a massive $10 a month or $2.31 a week. I think you will find that most people who can afford a computer, can also afford the extra cost. People, in the real world, are more likely to choose a plan based on their actual needs rather than try to save $1 or $2 a week.

          • Yes agreed observer.

            Sadly if people are unable to afford the more affordable NBN plans… they will currently not have a plan at all and certainly, will NEVER be able to afford the Coalition’s leave it to private enterprise plans.

            So invalid argument from those who oppose the NBN for oppositions sake.

          • yep, that’s the good thing about the NBN there is way more choice for consumers, you can choose the speed and quota based on your personal wants/needs/budget. With FttN it’s just like ADSL2+ you are stuck with the speed you get. If you want something faster too bad. The only decision you’ll get to make is how many gigabytes you get.

          • “What if you don’t want ‘something faster’?”

            THEN DON’T GET IT!!!!!!!

            alain, your arguments are making less and less sense and are becoming more simple trolling. If people don’t WANT faster, they can get the 12/1, save money and be happy to dawdle along!!!

            WHAT part of this DON’T you understand??

          • “What if you don’t want ‘something faster’?”

            Get a 12/1mbps plan and stop your whining.

          • Look I even spelled it out in crystal clear detail here and he STILL had to question it.

            “you can choose the speed and quota based on your personal wants/needs/budget.”

            Oh and don’t forget just a few comments ago he was saying prices for the 100/40mbps plan are “artificially low” and is implying that in actual fact more people would be choosing the 12/1mbps plan instead. What??? You are missing your chance to be part of that elite 12/1mbps group? Are you saying you’ll still be on a 100/40mbps plan even after the prices magically skyrocket??? Amazing. NBNco success confirmed!

          • Yes but what both of you desperately avoid for obvious reasons is that the choice I am referring to is not all about just NBN product, it is for example I am on HFC or ADSL2+ and I’m happy with those speeds and the plan pricing.

            The NBN is NOT about choice at all because uptake is totally dependent on the removal of choice, and money backed arrangements with Telstra and Optus to shut down their networks

          • “The NBN is NOT about choice at all because uptake is totally dependent on the removal of choice, and money backed arrangements with Telstra and Optus to shut down their networks”

            alain, you’re talking about choice of INFRASTRUCTURE. The INFRASTRUCTURE makes no difference to the consumer as long as it DELIVERS. 99% of your consumers wouldn’t give 2 dogs balls what cable carries their data, as long as it does so cheaply and effectively WHICH THE NBN WILL DO!!

            You are being pedantic for the sake of it. You’re gonna save money on the NBN, but because you don’t LIKE the NBN, you choose to say “it’s taking away my choice of infrastructure” instead of actually being sensible and saying how it will save you money and give you a better service on ANY ISP, that YOU can CHOOSE.

            There would be an argument for infrastructure competition IF it existed healthily in the Australian market. It doesn’t and I’d challenge you to prove me wrong.

          • “it is for example I am on HFC or ADSL2+ and I’m happy with those speeds and the plan pricing.”

            I’m not. So can I get a fibre option to go with my ADSL2+ and/or HFC options? I’d really like to swap between them on a whim, see I get about 12/1mbps on ADSL2+ so I was thinking about getting the 12/1mbps plan (lol) on the NBN and swap every month because it’s fun! Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

            “The NBN is NOT about choice at all because uptake is totally dependent on the removal of choice”

            Good. Remove it. I don’t give a crap. I’d rather be forced to use fibre than be forced to use copper. The best part is everyone will be paying less and if that mean we have to drag childish morons like you kicking and screaming into the future in the process then so be it. It’s for the greater good. Stop your whining.

          • yeah resorting to personal attacks and mindless no fact spin repeated over and over underpins much pro NBN argument.

          • “yeah resorting to personal attacks and mindless no fact spin repeated over and over underpins much pro NBN argument.”

            Where have we read this one before? Sounds like more “spin repeated over and over” to me. Tell me something do you ever get bored of typing the same crap you type over and over again? Seems you like to recycle it into ever single article you possibly can or is it that you have the memory capacity of a proverbial goldfish and you keep forgetting that we’ve already read everything you have to say about the NBN? That’s not a “personal attack” either, I’m seriously asking because I actually want to know.

            Still waiting for your prediction btw.

          • ‘childish moron’ is a personal attack no matter how much diverting confetti you want to surround it with, if I had said it of you many would complain to Renai in a instant, and it’s not the first time, the pro NBN lobby HATE being challenged as the NBN is as a ‘natural right’ any criticism must be hounded out relentlessly, even if it means resorting to personal attacks.

          • “if I had said it of you many would complain to Renai in a instant”

            I wouldn’t complain at all. For a start it’s not my style, secondly it’s not actually a personal attack. I am describing your demeanor (It seems quite accurate to me) A personal attack would be “You are a moron” Notice the difference? Thirdly stop dodging the question. I have asked you for a prediction on the plan numbers here, it’s a simple question, why do you keep avoiding it?

            “criticism must be hounded out relentlessly, even if it means resorting to personal attacks.”

            Funny how you feel this way just now, everyone here has given you a chance (including Renai) and has been VERY patient with you. YOU feel the need to add your opinions needlessly over and over again to everyone’s comments, you can never let anything go, you ALWAYS have to comment on everyone comments and even when it’s not even relevant to the article or their comment. So now you start moaning when someone calls your behavior for what it is (childish)??? Seriously get out, you want to criticise the NBN go for it, but you should be prepared to answer some questions yourself, that is what a debate is all about.

          • No we welcome “rational” NBN debate and will answer ALL questions according (which is hardly ever if ever reciprocated)…

            Are we right? Well we think so weighing all of the evidence and keeping political bias aside!!!!

            But in return all we get is baseless, politically motivated bullshit and childish pedantics…

            Such as –

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/08/turnbull-evasive-on-coalition-nbn-policy-says-conroy/#comment-456571

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/08/turnbull-evasive-on-coalition-nbn-policy-says-conroy/#comment-456821

            I’m genuinely sorry if you feel this is a personal attack, it’s not meant to be, it is simply describing what it is you do (and it’s all you do) and I’m sure I’m not alone in having such an opinion.

          • @Hubert: From an old law based quote i read from a novel – “There are two essential parts for defence – evidence and witness. As prosecution it is your job to hammer the evidence, If the evidence is too tight. hammer the witness if the witness is too solid just hammer Away”

            After exhausting the other two its obvious which part most people have resorted to these days..

          • “Equality is when the rich are on 1000/400Mbps and the poor are on 12/1Mbps?”

            Look at that he moved the goal post again, this time to a plan that isn’t even available to “the rich” and one that according to him wont go on sale until 2026, please, lets keep it real.

            I think the main problem here is he likes to think the majority of Australians are filthy poors, we are not, we are a rich country and can afford higher than 12/1mbps plans. The real world numbers reflect this as most people are choosing 25/5mbps plans and higher. 12/1mbps will always be the least popular plan and it’s not hard to figure out why.

          • Yes but Hubert, as we have seen here regularly, there are a few people here who are immovably, against the NBN and have as such, argued themselves into a corner.

            Now that the facts are showing them to be wrong, rather than them just saying, seems, like NBNCo (who did so intentionally conservatively) I have also simply under-estimated the popularity of the higher plans.

            They don’t even have to admit erring and don’t even have to admit the NBN will be a success after all, just that they under-estimated… done, no big deal, let’s move on to the next inevitable, disagreement they can find or if not find, invent.

            But no… for whatever the reason, it’s apparently easier for some to keep arguing the same lost cause (old dog/new tricks, leopard/spots)!

          • “there are a few people here who are immovably, against the NBN and have as such, argued themselves into a corner.”

            Indeed. As hilarious as it is to watch I do wonder if they even realise the position they have on this is an ultimately unwinnable one for them. If the NBN goes ahead as planned they just look silly every time the numbers come in and if it is ever halted they can never be proved right.

  15. I have a dream, that in my lifetime politicians will debate the facts, using facts, and those who deliberately seek to obfuscate and avoid the issue at hand with political double-speak are swiftly rejected and removed from the system.

    Despite the obvious complexity of the issue, the whole NBN argument at the moment can be reduced to a number of indisputable facts:
    1) Fibre is the best, most reliable, fastest, lowest maintenance, long-term-cheapest networking technology that exists. As soon as you introduce other technologies to the ‘mix’ you introduce weakness. Obviously, for a country with a population as geographically remote as ours, fibre does reach a point where it becomes excessively expensive to deploy when compared with other technologies, so you need infrastructure that can meet these challenges intelligently, hence satellite services. But in no circumstance is copper (or HFC) a superior technology. In no long-term scenario is copper or HFC cheaper, or easier to maintain, or cheaper to upgrade. In no way can copper or HFC outlast fibre in the ground. In no scenario can any other networking technology hope to meet the long term needs of a growing demand for bandwidth in an increasingly digitised world.
    2) Private enterprise will never deploy a ‘national’ fibre network. At best they would deploy a series of (possibly dissimilar) interlinking smaller networks centred around the highest profitability population centres. They would also deploy redundant, competing networks in the same highly profitable areas, while the less profitable regions will go without. For this core infrastructure, the interests of the nation as a whole are best served by a single, standardised network independent from the retail telcos.
    3) Private enterprise is concerned with maximising profit. They do this by reducing costs and increasing prices. This philosophy is directly opposed to the interests of ‘consumers’ or, in this case, the population as a whole, as we want and need a high-quality, well maintained service, as affordably as possible. Critical infrastructure (roads, water, waste, electricity, core telecommunication infrastructure) can be more cost effectively deployed, operated and maintained by the state than by private enterprise – there are no shareholders to appease, no stock price to be concerned with. Once the initial investment has recouped costs, ongoing revenue merely has to cover operation and maintenance expenses. It will be more effectively maintained because the service is the primary remit – no one is distracted by the need for ever increasing quarterly profits.

    These are facts.

    Telstra is an excellent example of what happens when you privatise critical infrastructure – service levels suffer as it is costly to employ lots of support staff, it is costly to perform routine, scheduled maintenance when you can just fix or replace things when they stop working (far easier to justify to shareholders). It is also easy to increase prices when you’ve inherited a monopoly that everyone requires… And in markets where you do have competition, it is useful to employ your monopolies in other sectors to leverage against your competitors.

    For these and other reasons, I personally disagree with the plan to privatise the NBN in 30 years – I believe that is in direct contradiction to the long term interests of Australians as a whole (although I’m sure a small number will profit considerably from it).

    But in the near-term, you can only argue facts with facts, and the facts dictate that not only is the NBN in the national interest, the technology mix as designed is the best alternative by far, and any changes will merely cripple its effectiveness while also increasing long term costs (although, of course, year-on-year the dollar costs are minimal when you choose to do nothing). You don’t need a 12 month inquiry to determine these things, that’s just an extra waste of another 10+ million in taxpayer funds (not to mention the run on costs of delaying NBN deployment, in both immediate infrastructure costs and long term social and economic impacts). The facts demonstrate that a government built network is the only reasonably likely scenario for deployment of a national communications infrastructure that will address the requirements of the country going forward.

    So my message is, any statement, objection or policy from the coalition regarding the NBN must either address the facts, or any reasonably logical person must reject not only their argument, but their policy of dishonest avoidance and obfuscation. The facts demonstrate that the blinkered Liberal obsession with capitalism at all costs will cost all of us very much indeed.

  16. I think the Liberal policy will be exactly the same as last time: Leave it until as late as possible to outline a policy, feed the public, who are less informed and get their ‘news’ from news.com.au or some similar piece of spin, misinformation such as ‘faster speeds for everyone at a greatly reduced cost’, while giving Conroy as little time to take it to pieces. Turnbull will rely on people’s technological ignorance to promote his ‘superior’ policy. I have a feeling it would work too :(

  17. We hold these things to be self-evident:

    – That the coalition intends to sell the NBN to Telstra at “mate’s rates”
    – That the coalition will enter into an agreement with Telstra to complete the NBN
    – That this agreement will have more holes than a sieve
    – That this agreement will enforce Telstra’s monopoly while not requiring Telstra to put much effort into network upgrades
    – That all of these will happen despite, rather than because of, Malcolm Turnbull holding the ministry, and the reason why the coalition can’t currently release its policy is because Turnbull and Abbott cannot agree, as Abbott simply doesn’t care about technology.

    • @Stephen:

      – Agree fully with your first point, in relation to the part of NBN built before Turnbull can stop construction
      – The coalition may enter into an agreement with Telstra for unspecified work, but it won’t be for the NBN
      – Yes, more holes than a sieve
      – Yes, and yes
      – These things will happen because of, not in spite of, MT being the responsible minister. He’s spoken merely of ‘completing the objective’, which could only be said to mean whatever he wants it to mean.

  18. ‘ However, if the Coalition releases a solid and well-researched policy, without much in the way of holes (and there is a great deal of evidence that the thoughtful and well-educated Turnbull would indeed release such a good policy, given his previous track record in policy development), this would have a very interesting effect on the debate.”

    You are assuming, based on very little evidence, that this is possible.

    While I have no doubt that Mr Turnbull will do the best possible job he can, he has to work within the framework of coalition idiology

    • Well assuming the policy Labor brought into the 2007 election was a ‘well researched policy’, a ‘well researched’ policy from the Coalition is not an impossible task when we start looking for precedents here.

      • That “well-researched policy” of 2007 was found to be wanting, mainly from Telstra’s lack of responsibility for consumers. THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS when presented with new information.

        The Coalition however, choose NOT to change their minds when showed new information.

        • The Coalition however, choose NOT to change their minds when showed new information.

          I assume what you meant by that is the Labor formed expert opinion panel outcome and the Coalition subsequently not agreeing with it – jeez that is a surprise!

          I am sure at the appropriate time a Coalition formed expert panel will provide them with an ‘expert solution’ as well.

          • An independent expert is an independent expert and will come up with the same conclusion…

            It would have been much easier for the government if the poe said FTTN was the way to go and do as the Coalition will, hand it over to Telstra…

            But instead they listened to the POE… gee a Politician who listens, how about that. You prefer those who don’t apparently?

            For one who claims he hasn’t decided who is he is voting for (sigh) you again side with the Coalition (so far 100%) and this time against an independent panel of experts… go figure.

          • I am sure the Coalition can come up with a ‘independent panel’ which will disagree with the Labor appointed ‘independent panel’ decision.

          • Oh, so you agree with the way the anti NBN proponents are arguing?

            Labor got a panel together and from its advice changed their policy, thus showing they didn’t put together a panel to support their FTTN decision.

            Where as you say “I am sure the Coalition can come up with a ‘independent panel’ which will disagree with the Labor appointed ‘independent panel’ decision”
            And you are saying the Coalition will put together a panel to support their FTTN decision. Thanks, that’s about what i thought was happening.

          • +1 Noddy…

            We are being told by NBN critic #1 that Labor loved 21st century FTTN and hand picked a Panel of Experts to err… disagree with them?????

            ROFL

        • the coalition are very stubborn this is why I will not vote for them anymore

      • “Well assuming the policy Labor brought into the 2007 election was a ‘well researched policy’”

        It wasn’t. Good thing they realised this and changed it to a proper FttH build.

        “a ‘well researched’ policy from the Coalition is not an impossible task”

        I’d say at this stage it actually is impossible due to their insistence on redundant and substandard technologies from Labors not very well thought out policy from 2007… wow 6 years and they still haven’t progressed.

        • What has been stated so far is nothing like Labor’s policy from the pre 2007 election.

          • “What has been stated so far is nothing like Labor’s policy from the pre 2007 election.”

            Ahhhh, really? Labor were going to do FTTN where there wasn’t HFC and fibre……the Coalition are going to do FTTN, in SOME places where there isn’t HFC or fibre…..

            REALLY??

          • “What has been stated so far is nothing like Labor’s policy from the pre 2007 election.”

            yep, you are right, come to think of it does sound worse. Thanks for confirming that and giving yet another reason why we shouldn’t trust the coalition clowns with this vital communications infrastructure.

          • This is what gets me.

            2007, Labor says “we will roll out FTTN” and the Lib’s disagree, saying its not good policy.

            So, by 2010, after a hand picked panel said FTTN was a bad idea, Labor has changed to FTTH, while Lib’s are saying FTTN is the best policy.

            What made them change their mind?

          • I believe it’s just politics. The Coalition needs a plan, FTTN is the semi reasonable alternative. Though I think it’s too little, too late. I get the impression that Abbott would rather do absolutionly nothing at all, and the policy is because they need one to win votes. So, we have a policy that does the minimum, doesn’t show coverage and could be “implemented” by just rolling out FTTN in a couple of areas, a few 4G towers in others, satilite picks up the bits they missed. Job done. Got in to government without having to give those scumbag leeches much at all, leaving lots of money to pump in to business that will ensure they have a profitable retirement.

      • And I bet when Labor went into the 2007 election you bagged them and particularly their FTTN plan, didn’t you?

        Or do you agree in 2007 Labor were right and the Coalition wrong

        Gee a first!

      • Actually alain, had you bothered to read the initial RFP’s doc. instead of spreading bullshit, you would already know that the government asked for either FTTN or FTTP.

        So actually they didn’t change their minds on the technology at all. The POE just made them aware that of the two options they asked for FTTN was unviable and FTTP was the obvious way to go.

        • Actually if you cared to read the Labor Party press release which you have because I have linked in other discussions with you as it is still on Conroy’s Department website it was ALL about FTTN and it was going to ‘take us into the 21st century’ – that’s what voters voted on, the RFP AND the subsequent change of mind to FTTH came well AFTER the election result – but then you know all of that.

          • Oh and alain from the article you linked to from 2007 (when the Coalition were still in government)…

            “And today – months after Labor announced its plan for a fast national broadband network – the government presented its own proposal.”

            There’s a turn-around. The then opposition having policies…

            And policies months before the government, hmm!

          • “it was ALL about FTTN and it was going to ‘take us into the 21st century’ – that’s what voters voted on”

            That was 2007. It is now 2012 and we actually had an election in 2010 where the majority of Australians voted for candidates that were overwhelmingly in favour of a nationwide FttH network. That’s what voters voted on; the proper NBN build. The government changed their minds and the voters agreed with their decision. You lost. Get over it cry baby.

          • Yes Hubert…

            Going by alain’s rationale, he must still be smarting at JWH reneging on the GST pledge to never ever introduce one, even though he did later take it to an election.

            And I ask him again, if TA goes into the next election pledging to spend an additional $5B on health and he spends $10B, should we all be up in arms and call him a liar.

            Seriously I can’t believe the childish, one-off rules these critics apply to the NBN.

          • “FTTH came well AFTER the election result”

            False. It came way before the 2010 election result.

          • Which lead to a hung Parliament where each party got the exact same number of seats from the Australian electorate.

          • Actually alain, since you love to play silly pedantics and can’t accept the Independents casting votes… why don’t you tell us exactly how many seats each party actually won?

            Here, I’ll get you started with 4 and leave you 4 –

            Country Liberal Party – 1
            Greens – 1
            Katter Australia Party – 1
            Labor Party –
            Liberal Party –
            The Nationals –
            The Nationals WA – 1

            And of course the Independents –

            Let’s see what you come up with.

          • This is so painful, like getting blood from a stone. Here’s the results:

            Labor Party – 72
            Greens – 1
            Independants – 4
            The Nationals WA – 1

            Coalition
            Country Liberal Party – 1
            Liberal Party – 44
            Liberal National Party QLD – 21
            The Nationals – 6

          • “Which lead to a hung Parliament where each party got the exact same number of seats from the Australian electorate.”

            The 2010 election result was a government made up of labor, green and independent members. They are all in favor of a nationwide FttH network and the proper NBN build. They are the majority and represent electorates which have voters that is why it is called the “House of Representatives”. These are all facts. Stop wasting everyone’s time with your repetitive idiocy and look it up… and get over it.

          • So if Abbott had said to the Greens and the Independents I will mirror the Labor NBN 100% they would have backed the Coalition Government into power and not Labor?

            Of course not, there were many other enticements that Gillard brought to the negotiating table post 2010 hung election, including the Carbon Tax, funding for the Royal Hobart Hospital and gambling reforms, but then you know all of that.

          • ‘Ask these guys.’

            That’s old stuff that been regurgitated over and over in Delimiter before in many discussions, ask these guys what and what guys do you mean?

          • @alain,

            Firstly you haven’t filled in the seat wins from the 2010 election, as requested above…?

            Secondly, can you explain better than the Coalition as to why the Coalition had their worst electoral result in 40 years in Tasmania alone (4.62% swing against) when the rest of Australia trended towards them?

            Perhaps as opposed to the Coalitions findings, which found the NBN was paramount in this result, you could find it was just coincidence, that this was the very state where the NBN began?

            You may also like to explain what WOULD have occured had there not been such a terrible outcome for the Coalition in Tasmania… again better than the very people (Liberal party high flyers themselves) can? Refer below)…

            Dear oh dear…

            ___________________________________

            Excerpts from the review of the 2010 Federal Election by the Hon. Peter Reith

            “This Review was commissioned in the context of the Liberal Party’s worst federal electoral result in Tasmania in forty years. The swing away from the Party of 4.62% was the largest suffered in any State and the ensuing two Party preferred result of 61 :39 reflects a want of confidence in the Party. The loss of a Senator and the inability to regain lower house seats, despite a national trend towards the Coalition, makes the identifying and remedying factors acting against electoral success in Tasmania an urgent priority.”

            “The failure to properly explain the Liberal Party’s broadband policy and the Labor Party’s effective scare campaign was a major cause of the Party’s failure to win seats in Tasmania. This was the nearly universal view of people making submissions to the review and is borne out by research undertaken by the Liberal Party, In the view of many, the Party’s policy amounted to a threat to come into people’s homes and rip the internet out of the wall.”

            “Policy on the National Broadband Network had a particular effect in Tasmania for a range of reasons. In several towns Tasmanians could see the NBN being rolled out. Tasmania is often behind the mainland in receiving new technology so being at the forefront of the NBN was seen as a boost to Tasmania. The NBN provided jobs for Tasmanian contractors and it brought people to Tasmania from the mainland having flow on effects for Tasmania’s tourism, hospitality and service industries.”
            “One of the problems of the Broadband policy was that nowhere in the policy document was there any carve out forTasmania oran explanation of whatthe Liberal Partywould dowith existing infrastructure. Numeroussenior Liberals in Tasmania had raised the issue of Broadband in Tasmania with senior Federal Liberals in Canberra but a carve out forTasmania was forgotten. The Broadband policy was written at the last minute without a set of Tasmanian eyes cast over it, The Party needs to make a clear and unambiguous statement about its intentions on Broadband infrastructure in Tasmania in the future.”

            As an aside, a number of commentators and others have said we might have won the election if we had won Lindsay in New South Wales (NSW). Maybe. But it could also be said about Bass, The Tasmanian State Director told me that, based on Liberal polling, we were 50/50 in Bass on a 2PP basis, 10 days out from the election. Then the NBN issue really got going. The post election polling confirmed that the NBN was a major reinforcement for people to vote Labor in Bass. If we had negated NBN and offered, in a timely way, a decent Tasmanian package, Bass might have been a win instead of a loss. Certainly, Bass and Braddon are seats we must target for the next election.

            Given the importance of the approach to policy preparation, it is sufficient to say we need to be on top of this now…

          • I have already responded to that multiple times, especially in the original piece here in Delimiter that discussed that Liberal post polling survey in Tasmania in depth, if you choose to put your head in the sand and ignore any of those comments in your ongoing futile campaign of ‘ let’s nail alain’ that’s your prerogative.

          • @alain,

            No you typically tap danced around the issue by saying it had been done to death and wanted to throw back one seat (whereas there was actually the worst swing, statewide for 40 years).

            So with that nasty statewide swing in Tassie alone (the NBN state) in mind – here’s you chance…

            *** Were the Coalition right, did the NBN cost them yes or no…?***

            If no, please tell us why they were wrong in relation to their own downfall.

            We are all ears, as you claim to want meaningful discussions without anything personal, so…let’s hear this meaningful discussion not further clip/clopping of those tap shoes ;-)

          • “So if Abbott had said to the Greens and the Independents I will mirror the Labor NBN 100% they would have backed the Coalition Government into power and not Labor?”

            I dont know, why dont you go and ask them. Any answer now is pure speculation. Fact is they failed to fool the independents with their substandard patchwork plan so they did not form a government with the coaltion they instead decided to form a government with the one that is not shortsighted and is rolling out a nationwide FttH network. You lost, get over it.

          • First of all you state any answer is ‘pure speculation’ then that is followed by a statement starting with ‘Fact is……’

            Is that the same as having a bet both ways?

            :)

          • That is because the ‘pure speculation’ part was refering to the Coalition mirroring the Labor NBN and the “fact’ was about the Coalition losing the last election when the independants didn’t believe in their broadband policy and went with Labor because theirs was better.

            So, he is not having a bet both ways.

          • Yep, totally ignored your primary question multiple times when you clearly stated what you were asking of him then cried he was being picked on.

          • “Is that the same as having a bet both ways?”

            Nope. Learn how to read and most of all learn how to comprehend things.

  19. HC- “It wasn’t. Good thing they realised this and changed it to a proper FttH build.”

    seven_tech- “That “well-researched policy” of 2007 was found to be wanting, mainly from Telstra’s lack of responsibility for consumers. THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS when presented with new information.”

    HC- “I’d say at this stage it actually is impossible due to their insistence on redundant and substandard technologies from Labors not very well thought out policy from 2007… wow 6 years and they still haven’t progressed.”

    seven_tech- “The Coalition however, choose NOT to change their minds when showed new information.”

    Lol HC. Isn’t it amazing, We make the EXACT same arguments…seems like we might actually perceive the same courses on the NBN WITHOUT being told what to think….SHOCK!

  20. Sorry about the Wall Of Words and the philosophical rant
    Food for thought. Agree or disagree, but do give consideration.
    This NBN debate and furore is not about need, technology, cost or politics, but rather philosophy.
    It is not about providing an essential infrastructure component of our economy, but rather the model being used. It is not just about Australia, rather a global re evaluation of “holy incontrovertible precepts”. Many countries are looking at our NBN Model.
    We are in a Global information age, wireless/mobile communication is of massive importance but constrained by spectrum and the laws of physics. It is only a matter of time before TV and FM radio and military and essential service spectrum is sacrificed to the insatiable need of data. Landline capacity is essential to reduce the load. The problem is how to provide and make it work on a National basis. That is why a wireless solution as the core network is self defeating.
    Our Model is based on the Government building a ubiquitous, universal, standardised business capable, scaleable upgradeable wholesale only model using the best technology available that will provide the core platform for many decades to come to the maximum practical premises. Yet still allow private sector networks that integrate and even provide much of the links and backhaul on a leased basis. It is Government built and designed to not COST the taxpayer over time with a ROI of 7% and be self funding and efficient especially during times of national emergency as a flexible centrally managed core interface
    The alternative models including our Coalitions, utilizing the private sector all depend on substantial ongoing Government (taxpayer) subsidies and cash upfront to pay for the initial upgrades none of which will ever be returned to the Government or taxpayer, so massive cost to Governments that are all having difficulties juggling the demands on their taxpayer dollars and will result in segmented, segregated zones of wildly varying standard and quality with many different interfaces required and varying ability and capacity for guaranteed to be needed upgrades especially if all private sector provided networks are mandated over by the ACC to wholesale at mandated rates, Without Taxpayer subsidy they will only cherry pick the cheap high profit areas. With the coalitions model so few of the boxes ticked in the current model will be ticked, yet the COST to the taxpayer will be many Billions over the years robbed from other equally needfull areas in the budget with the assets privately owned, so just masive irresponsible waste of scarce taxpayer funds.
    The US is facing major issues in the future which is why over 300Bill is being spent for a partial bandaid. Their Fibre and Cable and Copper networks are vertically integrated to recover costs as there is competitive infrastructure, meaning the mobile carriers such as Verizon and AT&T only cover such a miniscule footprint of their mobile coverage, as reasonable wholesaling is a non event for ROI reasons the load on the Wireless networks cannot be shed and inadequate landline capacity is being provided to the degree essential
    The philosophy being challenged is simply that the private sector will do it more efficiently and effectively and that government subsidies of the private sector will deliver the required results in a cost effective manner for the taxpayer.
    Many Nations need to upgrade their communications infrastructure.

    • I certainly agree it is a philosophical/political ideal being waged here.

      The problem is, the Coalition’s stance sets Australia up for decades of patchwork solutions that will be expensive, unreliable and ultimately hamstring the economy. All the while, the companies make a profit out of it and that money goes to the people who already have money, further splitting the “1%” that the Occupy protests have been about.

      We have been relatively lucky in Australia. The 1% have been much smaller than 1% and the other <99% have had a much wider distribution of income. That is not to say it's all roses and fairies- we still have a way to go on class warfare. But the ideology behind the NBN focusses on spreading the wealth, not segregating it. Whereas the Coalition's plan does the opposite.

      There are times where segregation of wealth is necessary or even right; there's the old analogy of if we split all the money in the world between everyone, it would be back in the hands of those who had most of it originally in 6 months. Why? Because they KNOW how to manage it. Are there those who are simply greedy too? Yes, but some of the wealthiest people around are also some of the most philanthropic, but they simply KNOW how to make and KEEP money.

      This is why, Abel, I'm putting together something I hope has the ability come the election, of swaying public opinion AWAY from the Coalition. People keep saying the NBN isn't the most important policy in the world. Of course it isn't. But it is VERY important policy. It sets Australia up for long term growth and stability of a staple of Australian digital life- broadband. People should KNOW what they're voting for/against, not spin like the Coalition want, actual FACTS. And the facts, as they stand without any sort of decent policy yet from the Coalition, is that a Coalition broadband policy WILL cost Australians more, now AND in the long run and produce little gain in digital or whole economy terms. It will further delineate along lines of Urban and Regional and increase the population in cities, leading to more traffic, higher prices and higher pollution. It WON'T do this in isolation, but it WILL be a large contributing factor.

      I cannot see, even IF the Coalition were to come up with a proper policy, HOW it could compete in an NBN-world- because that's what we're in, whether you like it or not. The NBN HAS started and CANNOT be treated, as the Coalition wish to, as a normal, not yet implemented policy. What I find flabbergasting is that, in normal circumstances, if a new government is elected, an act of them shutting down a MAJOR overhaul of, for example, the Health system, costing BILLIONS of dollars to change tactics, would see public outcry. And yet, in the NBN, which is ALREADY far advanced in planning stages and has well and truly begun, if slowly, on construction, there is so little being said about the possibility of the consequences, both social AND economic, of cancelling it. Why? Because of Coalition spin, nothing more.

      To that end, as I've said, I have something cooking I'm hoping will, without bias (PRO or ANTI NBN, and Political) show that Australians WANT and NEED the NBN, REGARDLESS of if a political party, who is SUPPOSED to be democratically elected BY THE PEOPLE, decides they are arrogant enough to decide they know better. You might say it is arrogant of me to say that we have to influence them seeing as they WILL be democratically elected; it is only Democratic if it is based upon truth and facts, neither of which I have seen from either our mainstream media OR our Opposition. That, in my mind, nulls any right they have to fair governance, as they are not governing for the people, but for themselves.

      • 7 T
        I read your posts on your local rag site. The issue up there is so many, especially truly rural either don’t have internet of reasonable standard or don’t even have computers. As such all they have is their beloved print media which I have noted gives Luke an unquestioning run, the other ones they get are your Weekly Times, Stock and Land etc and the Murdoch and News rags. They don’t have a hope of ascertaining the facts. Start doing mailouts locally , brochures and pamphlets in shops and stores, provide links to information. Give them access to the information and facts to make an informed decision

        • Would love to Abel….but I ain’t in Coffs Harbour! Lol. I got onto that site via Gizmodo’s “What’s happened in the NBN this week” weekly article.

          I actually followed it because I found it hilarious that Rob had asked Luke to come along to the info night “to get better information than your party can give you”…..VERY tongue in cheek. I couldn’t leave though after I saw the RUBBISH that guy thunda was pedalling in the comments- PAY for the NBN to be connected?? Your computer isn’t FAST enough??? What a load of bollocks.

          I’m down in the Southern Highlands, south of Sydney. I plan on trying to do an opinion piece AND a mailout to the district. Problem is, our average age down here is about 60 (no joke) and there are so many of the lovely darlings who don’t even know what an internet IS, so naturally they’re going to vote against anything that spends money on what doesn’t improve health or the roads (of which BOTH of ours down here are shocking). Nevertheless, I still feel a mailout down here would work better than a virtual mailout. But I’m forging ahead with my website idea too. Difficult when you’ve got full time work too, but I need to make the time; it’s gotta be up in the next few months to be useful by election time and this is too important to see go down the political blackhole that is our parliament.

          • Talk to the local weekly rag 7T, and see if they can syndicate your story to other weeklys around the place. I know the Wollongong version has direct links to numerous other local rags, and can quickly supply a story to each one.

            Push it right, it gets a page 7 or so showing, and people might actually read it… :)

            But convince them that its beneficial for the rural rags to run the story, and let them do the work. At worst its a 10 minute chat, at best it spreads provable facts around the place.

          • Make sure your ‘local rag’ has both sides of the story though, with a totally impartial objective view, where readers can make up their own mind, they would not want to be accused of bias would they?

          • So far, its only been one sided apparently. No proof, I’m not privvy to what the Coff’s Harbour local rag prints, but from what I’m reading (Abel’s comments above) its heavily biased to one side, with little to no evidence backing up whats written.

            So if Seven_tech can provide a counter point to that editorial, then it gives the locals 2 opinions to consider.

            If there was only one heavily biased opinion, favoring NBN, I have no doubt you’d be squealing as loudly as possible for a counter argument to be printed.

            Its one thing to post an editorial simply providing an opinion, its another to back an opinion up with facts like 7T does. And if the only editorials being printed are showing just one side of the story, then its hardly a fair situation, is it?

            Biased or not, opinions still have validity – people base them on something after all. But you still need a counter argument to be fair about the process, whether that counter argument is biased or not.

          • Well that’s why I contribute to Delimiter because the comment ratio based on the number of posters is about 100:1 in favour of pro NBN comment, which is what you would expect in a tech based discussion web site like this to be, but it seems for many that ratio is not high enough and the manic frenzy to ‘shut me down’ no matter what is quite comical and doesn’t do anything for their pro NBN argument at all, in fact quite the opposite.

            Unfortunately discussions like this are not read by the majority of punters, even if it was in more high profile mainstream publications, the majority of readers would switch off and not read any of it – it’s ‘tech stuff’ – dead boring.

            Also you and others also severely underestimate the Coalition task here because the baseline assumption is that the Coalition cannot combat the ‘technological right’ to build FTTH so they might as well give up and implement a ‘same as’ policy mirroring Labor.

            First of all the NBN will not determine the outcome of the 2013 election, if you believe the polls and keep in mind the primary and two party preferred vote trend over many polls which is what determines the winning party has not changed at all, the Coalition if the trend continues will win easily, Labor currently hangs onto power on a knife edge, and I am not sure the Australian electorate see the Independents in effect running the country as being a good thing, that sort of ‘balance of power’ held by a few won’t happen next time around.

            The last hung Parliament we had was 72 years ago in September 1940, statistically I don’t see it happening two elections in a row.

            As far as the Coalition version of NBN policy is concerned all they have to do is prioritise their version of the rollout into the areas that need it most, regional and rural Australia, they will have do this because their National Party partners will insist on it, if that means FTTN is the fastest way to do it then so be it, those who are struggling to get any decent fixed line BB speed at all or are totally reliant on Telstra Next G for example will be more than happy with a FTTN solution, especially if it is years ahead of the Labor NBN rollout in their area.

            What would be a winner for the Coalition is to prioritise the Telstra 4G rollout into these areas also, with Government subsidised plans where 4G is the only solution.

            If the Coalition go into the 2013 election with a genuine program fast tracked to help those that really need it most they are in Government in their own right at a canter.

          • No one wants to shut you up, seriously, do you really believe you are that consequential *sigh*?

            All we ask is for the silly pedantics to stop.

            But I do find it odd how you refuse to accept any positive NBN data (even actuals like the current 100mbps take up) and call it too early, speculative or assumptions, whilst readily accepting the Coalition are as good as elected in 2013, because the polls say so…

            I guess this is where the term wishful thinking comes into it…!

          • Well for starters, the ratio is hardly 100:1 but I get your point. But that statement is a good example why people disagree with you.

            Mainly, you make wild statements, pick highly selective comments, and when you do provide information to back your claims up, ignore when they are proven wrong. You also dont answer questions yourself where they counter your opinion. Its not about you disagreeing with the NBN, its how you go about it. That means attacking your line of reasoning, which can easily slide into attacks on character, or at least appear to unfortunately.

            As for me and others severely underestimating the Liberals task, no we arent. We understand perfectly what their task is – to get into power. They understand that national broadband is a very key issue, and has been for years. They also understand that their policies on the subject in the past were wrong, and they are doing what they can to change that.

            I for one respect that. I can read between the lines easily enough, as can most on this site, and see that fundamentally, they have changed their stance significantly and in many ways would be happy to let the NBN keep on going.

            Its the anti-NBN crowd that seem to be missing this, at least in our eyes. People like youself roll out tired old arguments that have long since been dropped by the Liberals themselves, and try to use them as some sort of crutch to base their stance on.

            Have you noticed that the Liberals policy these days in no way includes a dollar amount?

            What would be a winner for the Liberals is to go to the next election with minimal changes. Do their ‘cost benefit analysis’ while the allready signed contracts keep on rolling out, then state that its too far along for them to change, and let it go on.

            I’ve said elsewhere on this site that the NBN as it stands will keep on being rolled out until 2017. Liberals will honor any agreements, so all Labor has to do is sign a 3 year plan before the next election, and it will keep getting rolled out. If those agreements start in the following year, as they have continually done so far, then they go to 2017. Or after the NEXT election.

            Whats to stop Labor from signing agreements to roll out 100% of premises to every exchange where the NBN has started? Basically, the Liberals will be tied into NBN contracts for the full term, which is a wonderful excuse for them to just let it finish.

            All they need to do is some time during the election period come out with some line about putting 1Gps into exchanges instead of 100Mps, and they have a policy thats hard to argue against.

            If they can work out a method of speeding up the rollout, that also is a policy hard to argue against. And I have a feeling thats where they will be coming from – get Telstra, Optus, etc to do the rollout for them, paying them to do so. Then leave most of whats in place alone – the rollout, NBNCo, etc.

            That speeds things up, leaves the ROI strategy in place, and ultimately costs less because its private enterprise speeding things up. All things that they like.

          • Thing is GongGav, Telstra is doing a lot of the roll out ( at least they would have made sure to lay rodent proof cable (Always was a problem. Their research labs put much research into that subject, plus other vermin and insects, plus in some areas there can actually be appreciable shiftage of substantial boulders threough the soil that can crush cables – caused problems with coax in the past). Considering the NBN’s budget and need to build the core infrastructure to handle it all , speding up the cable laying is of marginal benefit untill the actual areas have been physically surveyed and assessed to enable the local design. That is an area something can be done to speed it up. But then cost and quality of assessment? Vermin proof cables not laid? when a fact of life in Australia

          • I gotta go with Abel on this one GongGav. I don’t see how they can speed up the FIBRE rollout, UNLESS they were to change some of the rollout to “Fi-Wi” we’ve talked of before. But seeing as this would be a contentious issue (what with all the “cancer causing” horrible radiation flying about) I seriously doubt they’d do this.

            I don’t see how the Coalition could significantly speed up the fibre rollout. NBNCo. has some of the best people in the world working on it.

          • I wouldn’t say that that the Coalition is locked into stone because of existing NBN agreements that are in place if they gain power, it didn’t stop Conroy ripping up the OPEL agreements, granted the NBN rollout is much further down the track than the Coalition OPEL rollout ever was but there are ways and means of changing the rollout detail while still keeping the main contractual aspects of it going.

            Then again they may be prepared to pay the penalty of cancelling some contracts, whilst at the same time as a offset promoting their revised plan as being more economical in the long term anyway.

          • “I wouldn’t say that that the Coalition is locked into stone because of existing NBN agreements that are in place if they gain power, it didn’t stop Conroy ripping up the OPEL agreements, granted the NBN rollout is much further down the track than the Coalition OPEL rollout ever was but there are ways and means of changing the rollout detail while still keeping the main contractual aspects of it going.”

            OPEL had barely begun when Conroy stopped it. NBN has been going for 2 years and will be going for another 1.

            “Then again they may be prepared to pay the penalty of cancelling some contracts, whilst at the same time as a offset promoting their revised plan as being more economical in the long term anyway.”

            Which, IMO, would show how arrogant and self-serving they are. There is no economical long-term way to do FTTN. It’s eventual upgrade is FTTH and if you do FTTN NOW, you STILL have more than half of an FTTH to upgrade to when we inevitably get there in 10 years. So we pay $17 Billion NOW for FTTN, plus payout on contracts, so a round $20 Billion by the time we’re done. And then another $20-30 Billion for the FTTH upgrade in 10 years…..which makes it $40-50 Billion….compared to the $30 Billion of the governments money NOW for the FTTH.

            The Coalition are normally good “economists.” If they simply choose not to accept it is good policy ECONOMICALLY to do the FTTH NOW as opposed to FTTN, it truly shows how little they ACTUALLY care about broadband AND the country’s welfare, seeing as it will ultimately be more expensive to do it their way. And we get SQUAT in the intermediate time while they make up their minds.

          • @Alain

            “Well that’s why I contribute to Delimiter because the comment ratio based on the number of posters is about 100:1 in favour of pro NBN comment, which is what you would expect in a tech based discussion web site like this to be, but it seems for many that ratio is not high enough and the manic frenzy to ‘shut me down’ no matter what is quite comical and doesn’t do anything for their pro NBN argument at all, in fact quite the opposite.”

            no-one is trying to “shut you down”, poster here are trying to get you to open your eyes to the reality of the situation and stop repeating your ideology over and over – unlike we care about the reality of the situation, ideology be damned!

            “Also you and others also severely underestimate the Coalition task here because the baseline assumption is that the Coalition cannot combat the ‘technological right’ to build FTTH so they might as well give up and implement a ‘same as’ policy mirroring Labor.”

            that’s right, unless the noalition do a 180 degree uturn andsupport the NBN as is their policy will always be inferior, that’s simply the reality of the situation.

            Im not a Labor fan-boi, I personally quite like Malcolm Turnbull and if he were to get that Neanderthal TA booted from the Liberal Party Leadership and support the NBN pretty much as is I’d vote liberal and I know a lot of others who feel the same way! But until that happens I’ll vote Labor!

            I really think that the Liberal party underestimate how voters will approach the next election, if TA is still at the helm I know a huge number of folk that wont vote Liberal even tho it is their preferred party because they dont believe TA has the ability to be a decent PM – he’s an attack dog with no constructive idea’s of his own and it’s really starting to show!

          • ‘no-one is trying to “shut you down”, poster here are trying to get you to open your eyes to the reality of the situation and stop repeating your ideology over and over – unlike we care about the reality of the situation, ideology be damned!’

            Well ‘shut down’ in terms of responding with personal attacks and even making up argument attributing it to me when I never made that point of view in the first place, it’s a standard tactic when you cannot dispute the point made, pretend it is about something else and attack that instead.

            ‘that’s right, unless the noalition do a 180 degree uturn andsupport the NBN as is their policy will always be inferior, that’s simply the reality of the situation.’

            Well no that’s your opinion, not reality, if the Coalition win with whatever they come up with before late 2013 election time I assume that proves the Labor NBN solution was inferior, that’s the ‘reality’ outcome.

            ‘Im not a Labor fan-boi, I personally quite like Malcolm Turnbull and if he were to get that Neanderthal TA booted from the Liberal Party Leadership and support the NBN pretty much as is I’d vote liberal and I know a lot of others who feel the same way! But until that happens I’ll vote Labor!’

            Well I prefer Gillard over Abbott as well, I think Gillard is very good in many areas and politically smart, but it doesn’t mean I have to therefore agree with Labor NBN policy.

            ‘I really think that the Liberal party underestimate how voters will approach the next election, if TA is still at the helm I know a huge number of folk that wont vote Liberal even tho it is their preferred party because they dont believe TA has the ability to be a decent PM’

            But I don’t think the leadership preference on its own will determine the election outcome, and polling trends so far show that, Labors primary vote especially is abysmal and not getting any better as the months tick on to 2013.

            Recent state elections in NSW, Victoria and Qld our most populous states where Labor was virtually rolled into oblivion show that Labor is on the nose.

          • “Well ‘shut down’ in terms of responding with personal attacks and even making up argument attributing it to me when I never made that point of view in the first place, it’s a standard tactic when you cannot dispute the point made, pretend it is about something else and attack that instead”

            Those “personal attacks” are usually complaints about you doing just what you discribed above.

            “Well no that’s your opinion, not reality, if the Coalition win with whatever they come up with before late 2013 election time I assume that proves the Labor NBN solution was inferior, that’s the ‘reality’ outcome.”

            That proves nothing of the sort. The NBN will probably not be a deciding point in the election. It was in the previous one, but that was a little unusual. Technically it is a less capable network. On value for money it is debatable if it has a sufficient life span to not just be classed as a waste of money.

            “Well I prefer Gillard over Abbott as well, I think Gillard is very good in many areas and politically smart, but it doesn’t mean I have to therefore agree with Labor NBN policy.”

            What exactly do you disagree with and why? Honestly I have no idea as most posts you make seem to be an attack on Labor, another poster or just plan regurgitating irrelivant or out of date information.

            Sorry if you take this as a personal attack, it isn’t, it’s a comment on why, I believe, people respond to you the way they do. See my post i made in response to you just before this one. What were you doing with your reply? Why try to say he was something was a fact and unknowable and having a dig at him about it when it was obviously about two different topics? I am sure it was deliberate. Do you think people are all dumb or something?

          • Interesting side note from today, speaking of the leaders…

            http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/06/12/Abbott_defends_poor_polling_760081.html

            What’s the scariest was what Tony (allegedly) said – “it’s his job to be negative”.

            Negative for negativities sake/whether deserved or not…? Come on those aren’t the words of our future leader. Howard would never have said such a thing surely and from what I understand neither would have Fraser…

            And this gem – Mr Abbott has told Macquarie Radio he’s not running in a popularity contest… err that’s exactly what you are running Tony it’s your job to be popular and currently your party is but you aren’t (whilst the other mob both party and leader are unpopular) which has saved your skin, for now…

            Again I reiterate imo, TA is Labor’s best chance (yes better than the NBN) of winning the next election.

          • I forgot to add :

            I disagree with your assumption the everything 7T writes is ‘backed up with facts’ as my and others responses in Delimiter show.

          • I didnt say everything he writes he back up, I just said he does. Every time you provide ‘facts’ they are highly selective, and usually wrong.

          • Just 1 thread for starters

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/01/us-telco-verizon-launches-300mbps-unlimited-fibre/

            Even the most cursory of glances at your posts suggest a high rate of being incorrect. Example: Seven_tech states that of the major ISP’s, only TPG offer unlimited downloads, with your response being to list a few minor ISP’s as well.

            You were wrong, as shown by 7T’s response – all but TPG enjoy a less than 2.5% share of the market, hardly a major ISP, which was the main point being made at the time. Simple mistake, not surprising.

            Later, you go off on some tangent about a structurally separated Telstra doing something, ignoring the points being made. Again.

            Then you go off about loans and bonds, acting quite like a child along the way, and completely missing the point. Again. Oh, and once you were answered, you change the question. Classic.

            Hmm… maybe this one thread is enough. Then again, perhaps not.

            Can you NOT see how these sorts of actions are going to rub people the wrong way? This is a forum for debate, not petty squabbles, yet you apparently come here just to argue.

            Read through just that one thread, and in every instance I can see where you ask a question, you dont care about the answer, only to quibble over every word in an answer, trying to somehow make a point that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

            But you wanted wrong. Look at the ISP comments at the start, theres a starting point for you. Or are you going to argue about that as well?

            I’d also like to point out that when I asked you a question, you ignored it. Which is also pretty common with you. And you wonder why people complain. You dont answer questions, and when people give reasons why you are wrong you change the question.

            If you were truly here for debate, these wouldnt be tactics you’d use. Take muso1 for example. He is clearly here to enter debate on various topics. Some, he gets disagreement. Others, not so much. But he is always willing to listen to reason and debate evidence, which you dont seem to.

          • Hey GongGav…

            I actually have a bit of a conspiracy theory about this…

            We all know Malcolm Turnbull reads and at times comments @ Delimiter… and let me say I think it’s great that he does this… something “I” have never seen Stephen Conroy do. It show’s he is in fact interested in the nuts and bolts not just the politics of comms!

            +1 MT
            – 1 SC

            However the downside is, as Malcolm is here, seemingly, so too are those with ‘ideological associations’… and although no one can question their fanatical 100% support to the cause, having much less finesse than Malcolm, they tend to come across as somewhat doltish, in relation to the strange arguments they present, regarding their obvious anti-NBN at all costs agenda.

            Now I’m not pointing the finger at any one person, as there are a few here from time to time who have never said anything positive about the NBN ever (and again I’ll say the NBN is NOT perfect, but it IS the best alternative we have, imo). But unlike them, I can easily, as a pro-NBN person, still find positives in MT’s/Coalition’s FTTN plan, in comparison to the previous pre-NBN situation and positives even compared to his/their own previous broadband plans. I just find their plan falls well short of the current NBN, in nearly all aspects… easy, nothing sinister.

            But for anyone to not be able to find even 1 positive NBN point and even to try to turn anything which could be perceived as a positive into a negative, paints a very clear picture imo?

          • ‘Even the most cursory of glances at your posts suggest a high rate of being incorrect.’

            High rate of ‘being incorrect ‘ based on what you stated -you are joking.

            ‘Example: Seven_tech states that of the major ISP’s, only TPG offer unlimited downloads, with your response being to list a few minor ISP’s as well.’

            So I missed the word ‘major ‘in front of his response and that minor quibble is all you have?

            ‘Later, you go off on some tangent about a structurally separated Telstra doing something, ignoring the points being made. Again.’

            Nothing specific there I see, just a generic ‘keep it vague’ rant.

            ‘Then you go off about loans and bonds, acting quite like a child along the way, and completely missing the point. Again. Oh, and once you were answered, you change the question. Classic.’

            I answered the question, and didn’t miss any point, you might not like the answer because it was not pro NBN enough, but that’s not the same as ‘not answering’.

            ‘Hmm… maybe this one thread is enough. Then again, perhaps not.’

            Why – because you looked really hard and all you could find was the ‘major’ ISP qualifier quibble?

            ‘Can you NOT see how these sorts of actions are going to rub people the wrong way? This is a forum for debate, not petty squabbles, yet you apparently come here just to argue.’

            But you think that pro NBN argument and petty squabbles are ok, you also think that chucking in personal attacks now and again is ok as long as its part of pro NBN argument, where virtually anything is acceptable as long as it is pro NBN.

            You and others don’t want debate at all, you just want to see long boring lists of pro NBN spin repeated over and over with no one having the gall to interrupt the flow.

            ‘I’d also like to point out that when I asked you a question, you ignored it.’

            What questions have I ignored, and don’t count questions I have answered and you simply don’t like the answer because it is not pro NBN enough, and stop turning a blind eye to abysmally poor no fact pro NBN argument based on clap trap and repetitive mantra, where the tactic is if you just keep repeating the same BS spin over and over some of it has to stick eventually.

          • ” ‘Example: Seven_tech states that of the major ISP’s, only TPG offer unlimited downloads, with your response being to list a few minor ISP’s as well.’

            So I missed the word ‘major ‘in front of his response and that minor quibble is all you have?”

            No, you didn’t miss it. You chose to ignore it. There’s a big difference. It’s the difference between someone who is willing to debate and someone who is simply quibbling for the sake of it, as you’ve done once again. THIS is what GongGav is talking about.

            “I answered the question, and didn’t miss any point, you might not like the answer because it was not pro NBN enough, but that’s not the same as ‘not answering’.”

            You never admitted we were correct once we had showed you that the money from the NBN came from bonds and that was where the “loans” you had asked about came from. You just simply stopped replying. That is not debate that is ignorance for the sake of confirming a point of view.

            “But you think that pro NBN argument and petty squabbles are ok, you also think that chucking in personal attacks now and again is ok as long as its part of pro NBN argument, where virtually anything is acceptable as long as it is pro NBN.

            You and others don’t want debate at all, you just want to see long boring lists of pro NBN spin repeated over and over with no one having the gall to interrupt the flow.”

            alain, produce an argument for the Coalition’s broadband policy. I don’t care how flimsy or not it is, produce one. I will then procede to tell you what is wrong, in my opinion, with that argument, basing my opinion on facts. If you can produce facts that back up your argument, THAT will be the first actual DEBATE you and I have had.

          • @seven tech

            ‘No, you didn’t miss it. You chose to ignore it.”

            I said I missed it and I did, don’t make assumptions on motive on my behalf, like I missed your post where you said you were from the Southern Highlands not Coffs Harbor.

            ‘You never admitted we were correct once we had showed you that the money from the NBN came from bonds and that was where the “loans” you had asked about came from. You just simply stopped replying. That is not debate that is ignorance for the sake of confirming a point of view.’

            I asked you a straight up question as to whether you thought 100% of NBN funding has come from bonds, you responded it did, you then posted a link which showed it had not, the Budget 2012 papers also showed they did not, then you turn around as if it said 100% bond revenue all along – all I can say to that is huh?

            You think I didn’t know about that breakup of funding before I asked the question? – that topic like many in Delimiter has been flogged to death before, and the same responses with the exact same links were made at the time, I remember a convoluted very long discussion with a poster called Night Khaos at the time who is no longer posting. (well not under that name anyway).

            Many times I stop replying because the mindless repetition over and over of the same well trodden subject matter with the same well worn responses becomes mind numbingly boring!

            ‘alain, produce an argument for the Coalition’s broadband policy. I don’t care how flimsy or not it is, produce one. I will then procede to tell you what is wrong, in my opinion, with that argument, basing my opinion on facts.’

            If I like the Coalition BB policy months out from the 2013 election I will argue for it, until then any argument is mainly based on conjecture, I am sure the Coalition policy is in flux because they don’t really know until election day 2013 how much NBN Co FTTH will be laid and how many residences will be using it.

          • @alain

            “I asked you a straight up question as to whether you thought 100% of NBN funding has come from bonds, you responded it did, you then posted a link which showed it had not, the Budget 2012 papers also showed they did not, then you turn around as if it said 100% bond revenue all along – all I can say to that is huh?”

            I did NO such thing. You asked if I was saying it was 100% funded by the government bonds. I SAID NO. Here’s the transcript:

            alain: @seven tech
            So let me get this right you are saying 100% of all NBN funding comes from bonds and nothing from taxpayer funds?

            seven_tech: I never said such a thing alain. You asked where the loans were coming from. Currently, from government bonds. Once NBN picks up pace and needs more capital, it will seek interested parties….

            I NEVER stated it was 100% funded from the government. You insinuated that from my comment about HOW the bonds worked, but I never stated it and never meant it. Also, ALEX was the one who posted the link to the Budget papers and he was talking strictly about the government bonds, not the funding options for NBN, I never posted ANY link. READ YOUR COMMENTS. You are making statements up because you do not wish to admit you are wrong.

          • alain, I would first like to say, in regards to personal attacks, I don’t believe I’ve ever personally attacked you. If I have, I truly am sorry for that. Calling your arguments “rubbish” is not a personal attack. It is saying your ARGUMENTS are rubbish. I DO NOT condone personal attacks of ANY form in debate. It is low, debasing and unnecessary for healthy debate. It also puts people off asking questions if they see personal attacks. If I have done this, please point it out and I’d be happy to retract it. Secondly:

            “I forgot to add :

            I disagree with your assumption the everything 7T writes is ‘backed up with facts’ as my and others responses in Delimiter show.”

            Would you please show me where I have not backed up FACTS? I have stated several opinions, made predictions and assumptions, but as far as I know I have LABELLED these as IMO, “it wouldn’t surprise me if” and “it’s not unreasonable to assume” in most if not all cases. If you can find somewhere I have not done this, I will either PROVIDE a source, or retract my statement.

          • Will definitely be talking the the local rag GongGav. And for your information alain, I intend to write an OPINION piece, being Pro-NBN, which I”m sure you’ll manage to find something wrong with, but it is my OPINION so you cannot say it is wrong.

            I will ALSO be talking to the editor and asking if I can collaborate with one of their lifestyle reporters I know to write a BALANCED piece on the NBN. People need the TRUTH. NOT media spin or political spin. This includes:

            – The NBN will cost around $28 Billion to the government. This money DOES NOT affect budgetary increases or requirements to roads, hospitals and other infrastructure projects.

            – It will provide speeds of up to 100Mbps NOW to 93% of premises using FTTH and more than 1Gbps in coming years, 12Mbps NOW to 4% of premises (a lot of villages in our area will be on this) and climbing to 25Mbps in the near future on fixed wireless and 12Mbps to 3% of premises on satellite. This will be done within the next 10 years (it WOULD have been done by 2021, but with the Greenfields delays and the Heads of Financial Agreement delays, it will more likely be finished at the end of 2022)

            – The current Coalition plan, which is based around FTTN, HFC and fixed wireless, will provide speeds of up to 100Mbps to the current HFC area (no change that we have been told) and an as yet unknown % of premises on FTTN, as long as those within that area are inside 2km from the node (a problem in or area). It will also provide minimum 12Mbps on fixed wireless to, again, an unknown % of premises. This will most likely rise to 25Mbps, seeing as it is the same tech as NBNCo. are using. We don’t know much at all about satellites, but can assume the NBNCo. ones will be kept, therefore up to 3% of the population can connect for 12Mbps (to ensure contention issues don’t reduce this figure, as NBNCo. have planned). The cost of this plan is not yet fully defined, but has been estimated at between $7.7 Billion (by the Coalition) and $16.7 Billion by industry groups (Citigroup) NOT including penalty payments to Telstra and Optus, for another estimated $2 Billion. And no timeframe has been given other than “faster than the NBN”

            Problems with that alain?

          • 7 T
            I understand your issues, keep it simple and talk in their language.
            Explain how the Coalition has the same CO2 reduction Goals our nation is committed to, the difference is currently the polluters pay and some will come through to us, but we are being compensated. The Coalition version is to throw Billions of taxpayer dollars at the polluters in the hope they will mend their ways.
            Explain how the world is now digital and how important it is for our economy anf our future, then make sure they understand the current NBN is the better solution and will improve their health sevices. Make sure they understand if it is not messed up by the Coalition it will NOT cost the taxpayer anything. explain how the Coalition solution of throwing Billions of taxpayer dollars at the private sector wont deliver what we need for now or the future.
            Make sure they understand just these two items plus all the other idiocies of the Liberals will all come from the budget and drastic cuts will need to be made to Health. Education and roads etc to pay for it

          • Agreed Abel. The Carbon Tax makes more sense. It is a monetary PENALTY for polluting, rather than the trading scheme, which is a monetary ADVANTAGE for looking like you’re reducing pollution.

            Getting across to older people (of which there are MANY in my area) that the Digital Economy (which didn’t EXIST until the 1980’s, maybe 70’s) is important more and more is difficult when the majority of them have no real use for it. Problem they don’t see is and, let’s face it I don’t blame them for not looking at mortality, if they looked to a time when they WEREN’T around, in 20 or 30 years time, THEIR counterparts in that time WOULD be using it, and excessively as they would’ve grown up with it.

            It’s certainly a difficult argument to make to some people.

          • I am not sure what is driving your zeal to educate the masses is all about, looking at the NBN rollout plan most of Coffs Harbour 2450 in the orange and pink zones is due to be finished soon with work commencing last year in July 2011 and the last in August 2012 in the pink zone, with an average time of the NBN being made available to sign up for is 12 months from that date.

            On that basis the areas marked in orange in postcode 2450 should be ready in about two months time, and maybe even some of the pink zone, what is your strategy, to try and convince residents to sign up for it because you are concerned the uptake figures might not be too crash hot because they don’t really need it?

            http://www.nbnco.com.au/rollout/rollout-map.html?address=coffs+harbour

          • hmmm, you’ve shown again alain that you don’t READ the comments, you just look at them and respond with whatever you believe to be true regardless.

            I am NOT from Coffs Harbour. I am from the Southern Highlands.

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/08/turnbull-evasive-on-coalition-nbn-policy-says-conroy/#comment-457171

            I looked at that discussion because I thought it was FUNNY how the Liberal MP Luke had been told to go to the NBN meeting by Rob Oakshott. I then joined in the discussion when I found one of the commenters producing rubbish comments about the NBN, not the every day sort of stuff, the sort of stuff like “The NBN will cost you to connect to your house” and “You will have to get a new computer because the NBN will be too fast for it,” both of which are absolute nonsense.

            Here: http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/story/2012/06/04/oakeshott-sends-special-nbn-invite/#c340192

            Have a READ for once.

          • Sorry I missed that bit about where you are, someone mentioned the ‘Coffs Harbor local rag’ and putting a article in there and I thought that was the area it covered, well it does but you are talking about another area covered by that newspaper well out of the 2450 zone I assume.

            Yes and I agree those comments are nonsense as stated, there is more meaty stuff to criticise the NBN about than that if they care to do just a bit of research.

          • BTW I noticed a few health care Rep’s are attending that meeting, and in the context of this statement:

            ‘It’s critical infrastructure that will allow regional Australia to have unprecedented access to health and education services, and to business opportunities not matter where they are in the world.” he said.’

            Perhaps the question needs to be asked, what is it about a Coalition FTTN for example that prevents their products from working?

          • “Perhaps the question needs to be asked, what is it about a Coalition FTTN for example that prevents their products from working?”

            They will “work” but at reduced level. Less upload speed limiting video frame rate and resolution. FTTN leaves very little for future capacity increases. Data usage is growing at near 50% per year compounded. It wouldn’t be long before FTTN would be inadequate. I don’t think anyone is saying FTTN is obsolete now. In fact if it was rolled out years ago, say pre 2009 it would have had a useful life. I think starting to roll it out if the Coalition get in, stop the current rollout, plan the FTTN rollout, have it finished by say 2017-2018. Looking at the growth in internet data and speed requirements put out by various companies such as Alcatel Lucent, Google, Cisco, they all pretty much agree, FTTN will be at the end of it’s life and it will be time to start rolling out FTTH. It just seems like a huge waste of money to roll out something that is obsolete by the time it’s complete and doesn’t got an upgrade path that doesn’t require scrapping a large percentage of the FTTN investment.

          • “Perhaps the question needs to be asked, what is it about a Coalition FTTN for example that prevents their products from working?”

            I’ll tell you what. FTTN does NOT guarantee a throughput of anything above what you have now on ADSL. We have discussed this MANY times before. If you’re lucky enough to live within 2km of a node you MAY get better than 25Mbps, IF you’re line is good (ie no water, corrosion). If not, you’re stuck on ADSL speeds or worse.

            Currently, the eHealth services cannot be offered to many people because their lines aren’t capable of even a basic HD Skype (have a look at the 4Corners program on the NBN http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110411/broadband/ – The woman towards the end has Cystic Fibrosis and has to drive 5 hours to her specialist. She TRIED tele-health on her ADSL, but it drops out and can’t handle the most basic of tasks), let alone full tele-health, which needs upwards of 15-20Mbps for full HD immersive face-to-face experience.

            Education too, is the same. It is not about watching a video, it is about an IMMERSIVE interactive experience, which, with a nice big screen TV (you can pick 50 Inch plasmas up for under $1000 these days) and an NBN connection, someone hours away from their nearest school or university could participate in almost the same way as those IN the class. It will never REPLACE one-on-one learning, but for people who are unable to attend, for whatever reason, it is a VAST improvement on nothing.

            I cannot understand your short-sightedness when it comes to this alain. The Coalition’s plan guarantees us nothing. The NBN guarantees us ALL 12Mbps and 93% of us much, much more.

Comments are closed.