NBN backers question Turnbull’s support

By
Renai LeMay
-
224

news A number of commentators and politicians have questioned a claim by Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the Coalition would not “cancel or roll back” the Government’s National Broadband Network project, with one commentator labelling the claim as “disingenuous”.

In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald last week, Turnbull stated that a Coalition Government would proceed with the NBN project. “No, the Coalition will not cancel or roll back the NBN,” he said. “The NBN will continue to roll out but we will do so in a cost-effective manner in particular in built-up areas.”

The comments echo comments Turnbull made earlier last month, when the Liberal MP publicly gave what he described as a “solemn undertaking” to the Australian people that a Coalition Government would “complete the job of NBN Co”, instead of ripping up the network or abandoning Labor’s NBN policy altogether.

The comments appear to represent something of a backflip for the Coalition. When Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull was appointed to the role in September 2010, the ABC reported that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had ordered the Member for Wentworth to “demolish” the NBN. At the time, Abbott said he believed the NBN would “turn out to be a white elephant on a massive scale … school halls on steroids”.

Coalition telecommunications policy broadly focuses on fibre to the node-style broadband, which only requires rolling out fibre to neighbourhood cabinets and using Telstra’s copper network for the rest of the distance to residences and business premises. In comparison, Labor’s NBN policy would see fibre rolled out all the way to premises, in a rollout style which features dramatically greater speeds (up to 1Gbps, compared with an expected up to 80Mbps) and faster network latency compared with the Coalition’s plan.

Asked about the apparent Coalition change of policy on Saturday, Prime Minister Julia Gillard rejected Turnbull’s claim that a Coalition Government would continue the NBN project. “What are your thoughts on the Coalition backflip on the NBN, they’re going to keep it now?” a journalist asked Gillard. “The only government that will build the National Broadband Network is this Labor Government,” the Prime Minister replied.

On Sunday, telecommunications industry worker and commentator Michael Wyres — who has been broadly positive about the NBN — labelled Turnbull’s comments that a Coalition Government would continue the NBN to be “disingenuous”.

“There has been yet more FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] and disingenuous statements from the Federal Opposition in recent days with respect to the National Broadband Network (NBN),” Wyres wrote in a post on his popular blog. “In other words – ‘We will stop the NBN, we’ll just replace it with our own plan, but keep calling it the NBN so we can say we completed it.'”

“The opposition show over and over again that they care little for truth with respect to the entire NBN debate,” Wyres added. “We know that the opposition plan will cost even more in the long run, and that the technologies their plan relies on are dead-end technologies. It is time Turnbull and the entire opposition stop playing three-year political “our solution is cheaper” games, and start thinking of the future of our nation. There is nothing wrong with leading the world – but the opposition just wants to get into government, no matter what it takes.”

Key to the Coalition’s concerns about the NBN is the fact that the fibre rollout has grown more and more delayed over its period of implementation, with the Coalition believing its fibre to the node-based alternative could be delivered faster and cheaper.

Turnbull also last week heavily criticised NBN Co’s rollout performance, in a detailed speech delivered to parliament. “In their corporate plan, the NBN estimated that by 30 June 2012—in other words, by the end of this month—there would be 145,000 households passed with the fibre optic cable. As of May, 18,200 premises were passed; so not even 15 per cent has been achieved,” said Turnbull.

Turnbull — who may be one of the key figures involved in setting policy for the future of the NBN project in a Coalition Government — went on to describe the project’s deployment so far as “a colossal failure”. “In the industry, there is general amazement at the slowness of the NBN Co.’s rollout,” he said. “There is general amazement and disappointment at what appears to be much less than competent management on the part of the NBN Co.”

In April, NBN Co informed the Parliamentary Committee into the NBN that it would be revising its initial targets for its rollout as detailed in its previous corporate plan. The company has delivered a new corporate plan, including new targets, to the Government, but the plan has not yet been published publicly. At the time, NBN Co told the committee that a number of factors on which its rollout schedule had depended, namely the availability of telephone exchange facilities to deploy its points of interconnect connections, negotiations around greenfields fibre deployment and the securing of contracts with suppliers and construction contractors, had “changed for reasons … [it] simply could not control.”

In his speech, Turnbull linked the apparent slow speed of the NBN rollout to the Coalition’s case that technology which it claims would be faster to deploy — such as a fibre to the node style instead of fibre to the home — could be used in some areas. “It is very cold comfort indeed for Australians who have been waiting to have their broadband services upgraded to be told by the NBN, ‘Oh, we will get to you sometime in the next decade or perhaps the decade after it,’ and then, as they lament the leisurely timetable in the NBN’s corporate plan, discover that even on the basis of that timetable, which is slow enough, the NBN is barely able to reach 10 per cent of its targets,” said Turnbull.

However, unlike Labor the Coalition has not yet provided substantial details about how its own policy would be implemented — or what the approximate cost and/or projected return on investment would be from its plan. A number of core details of the plan remain undisclosed.

opinion/analysis
I wrote the following several weeks ago, when Turnbull said a Coalition Government would complete the “NBN objective”:

“It is fascinating to see how the Coalition’s approach to the NBN has changed radically over the past several years as Malcolm Turnbull’s understanding and maturity in the portfolio has continually grown. I think it is a tribute to the quality of the NBN debate in Australia that we appear to now have come to a point where most sides of politics agree on the fundamental policy underpinnings of much of the policy, with appropriate differences higher up the stack. It would be fascinating to see precisely how the Coalition would (will?) approach the issue in practice if it took Government. I suspect much of NBN Co as an entity and the NBN as a policy would now survive — which is not something I would have said even a year ago.”

However, I now think Turnbull has gone past his initial statements in this area and is indeed being disingenuous. From what we know of Coalition telecommunications policy, it seems clear that a Coalition Government would immediately halt the NBN rollout upon taking power. It would then spend a great deal of time conducting a cost/benefit analysis into the project, before likely proceeding with a radically reworked NBN plan — so radically different that it would be very hard to envision the old NBN policy in the new. The Coalition may complete the “objective” of delivering high-speed broadband to Australia, but it will definitely not do so by continuing the NBN in its current model.

What Turnbull is doing right now is quite subtle. By clothing his new NBN policy in the vestments of the old, he will be able to make it appear to much of the electorate as if there is not a substantial difference between the two major sides of politics when it comes to the NBN, thus attempting to neutralise it as an election issue. However, I do not think Australians are as stupid as some would believe. Polls have consistently shown overwhelming support for the NBN policy, and I think it will be very clear during the lead-up to the next election campaign that the Coalition will not be offering a comparable policy (unless it changes its policy markedly in the interim).

While the two plans do share some fundamental similarities, it is also true that the Coalition’s NBN policy is also vastly different from Labor’s — and that is a fact.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

Related posts:

  1. Coalition rejected: 78% support Labor’s NBN
  2. Turnbull avoids Treasury costing question
  3. Stop “hiding” your NBN policy, Conroy tells Turnbull
  4. NBN support weakens in the electorate
  5. Release your NBN plan already, Conroy tells Turnbull

224 COMMENTS

  2. I take Malcolm at his word that if he had his way we will get an NBN of some particular form, but I don’t trust Abbott to keep him in the position if he wins government. I think it is a lot more likely he will put someone like Paul Fletcher in the position who will act on his petty political greivances without being mindful of irrelevancies such as achieving good policy outcomes for the Australian people.

    • Nor would I bet my life that Abbott is leader by the next election and certainly not after it. His colleagues all know he has no head for policy. He’s also constrained by who he can appoint. Even conservative commentators keep saying he should have a better team, but political reality means he can’t or else he’d be out on his ass. After all, he only stabbed Turnbull in the back with a one vote lead.

    • It is a sad day when the public cannot take politicians at their word. People should be given the people’s trust until they show that they do not deserve it.

      Thank you very much Ms Gillard.

      • John Howard: “No, there’s no way that a GSTwill ever be part of our policy.”

        Journalist: “Never?”

        John Howard: “That promise is quite explicit”.

        Thanks John, thanks Michael, thank you ballboys, thank you linesmen…

        • Renai: There was usually a level of trust in that what a politician promised at election time he would try to deliver or else suffer at the following election. Implicit in the promise was the trust of the electorate in that you knew what the politician stood for and what they could deliver. If it didnt occur a valid reason was given to the people as the general population has shown it is not stupid over extended peiods of time.

          Duke: You are missing a key fact (just repeating labour spin doctors lines is never a good idea). John Howard did not introduce a GST in the term of office after he made the promise. John Howard told the electorate at the election that he would introduce the GST and then let them vote on it.
          The polar opposite is Gillards example, where she promised “There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”. Then within a week of forming government (less than 1 month later) said she was introducing one and tried to dissmiss her earlier words. Personally changing her mind on the tax to form government is one thing, I can accept that to a certain extent, but trying to deny the promise when it was on record is treating the electorates like idiots.

          As far as Turnbull’s position; if you look at the influence he has had on the liberal telecommunications policy, just keep extrapolating it out. It may not be identical to labour’s policy but it will contain the essential parts of the NBN (minimum speed and coverage.)

          • ‘minimal speed and coverage’

            Leaving out all the good bits, such as cost, reliability, uniformity, lifespan, time to delivery, competition etc.

          • @ Michael, as I said to Tom the other day here at Delimiter…

            (You are) “defending one former PMs political lies whilst deriding another’s… Ah so by taking lies to an election and winning absolves the liar of those lies (3 hail Mary’s, 1 our Father and voila)? Just make sure you’re popular first… Nice.”

            “Newsflash: They are politicians, all from the same mould, just different flavours.”

          • I personally disagree with you alex. It is a matter of perception so there is room for a wide variety of opinions though.

            When John Howard changed his mind on the GST he gave the public an opportunity to vote on the policy. He gave the public an opportunity to reject the LNP if they disagreed with the policy by taking it to an election.

            Julia on the other hand did not. The ALP broke their promise almost immediately after making it. There was no opportunity to take it to an election. There was no vote on the new policy. (Disregarding my views towards trying to deny it had been made or broken.)

            This is the key difference to me. I personally respect the right of politicians to change their mind as circumstances change and holding politicians absolutely to election promises is a road to ruin but they need to do so in a manner that is respectful to the electorate. This can involve explaining the altered circumstances or taking it to election. Denial or word games is just condescending the general populance.

          • “When John Howard changed his mind on the GST he gave the public an opportunity to vote on the policy. He gave the public an opportunity to reject the LNP if they disagreed with the policy by taking it to an election. ”

            Worth noting that the ALP got 50.98% of the vote and the coalition got 49.02%. In simple terms, a majority of people rejected the GST, yet the coalition claimed they had a mandate to impose a GST.

          • Also, the Democrats platform was against the GST. That election they had a record vote. I think it was 8 in Parliament. The only reason Howard got his GST was he sweet talked Meg Lees into betraying those that voted Dem on the basis of their anti GST stance giving them that representation.
            Note that that action effectively destroyed the Dems influence

          • As you say Michael, its a matter of perception. What happens if you think of the Carbon Tax not being a tax, but a levy? Its a flat amount ($23/tonne) and has a limited audience (~300 businesses) . Not things that most taxes enjoy, particularly the limited audience part.

            So if you look at it as being a levy (of $23/tonne), then Gillard hasnt lied – a levy isnt a tax. And as taxes are based on a financial figure (and the carbon tax isnt, its based on a volume), then you can actually argue thats the case here.

            What happens after its imposed is a different thing alltogether, but the reality is, only 300 businesses will be paying it to the Government. The rest of us ‘enjoy’ the flowon effect.

            Dont get me wrong, if Gillard had rolled this out as a Carbon Levy, public perception wouldnt be noticably different (argument would be she’s hiding behind a technicality), but depending on your point of view and/or agenda, the perception on a topic can be greatly different.

          • Michael, I will accept that both Howard and Gillard lied. Because regardless of anything else… “they both did”.

            Also I do not have a “definite political” favourite. Can you say the same?

  3. We need to know what his version of “high-speed” speed is
    and how will that change over the next few years

    remember at once point 56k was “high-speed”

    • We need to understand that all the talk about how much speed is enough, is a distraction.

      The NBN is being paid for by its users. Its cost effective and it gives us a network we can afford to use and at the same time is future proof.

      Given that, the discussions about speed are irrelevant. We can have any speed we want, decades into the future, and it will pay for itself long before it gets old.

          • Care to wager? On the NBN I mean?

            Seeing as you’ve stated before you believe the NBN will NOT be the winning factor in the 2013 election, would you like to place a bet on simply that the majority will NOT support the NBN at the 2013 election?….

            Didn’t think so….

          • Oh I see, it’s ok to promote the premise over and over that the 2010 election which led to a hung Parliament the result of which is Labor clinging onto knife edge Government courtesy of the cross bench was because of the NBN and if the Coalition wins the 2013 election I have to prove it was Coalition ‘NBN” policy got them the wining votes.

            What do you want me to do, conduct exit polling at every booth in Australia?

          • @alain

            I never said anything of the sort. Once again, you deflect because you don’t want to answer.

            I asked, would you care to wager if the Australian people, at the time of the 2013 election, are still majority in favour of the NBN?

            I never asked you to prove if the Coalition win, did they win because of the NBN. It is, as HC has stated before, one of many policies being voted on.

            I asked YOU if YOU would care to wager on whether the Australian people will STILL majority favour the Labor NBN policy at the time of the 2013 election? You don’t have to do anything. I GUARANTEE there will be polls including the question on the NBN. You just have to step up and ACTUALLY commit to something.

          • The very fact that the election result was knife edge, made it easier to see how much of an election winning policy the NBN is. Ask Oakeshotte :)

          • Alain, yes, the coalition broadband policy announced on the Sunday one week before the 2010 election is exactly why we now have a Green Labor minority government.

            Labor was very much on the nose immediately before the August 2010 poll, and no-one was more surprised than Julia Gillard when she had to front the media on election night to acknowledge that she had not been annihilated.

            The coalition engaged Peter Reith to analyse their failure to win an unloseable poll and he said the same thing.

            Elections are won and lost on raw numbers, not the relative importance of policies in the grand scheme of things. In 2010, the coalition should have narrowly won several electorates which fell to Labor, Greens and Independents, and would have then formed government. They could have rescued the situation by offering broadband to the independents and still formed a minority government, but chose not to. These are the facts.

            In 2013 we will again have an on-the-nose Labor government which is promising the NBN, as are the Greens and most independents. The coalition will certainly win if they adopt the NBN. They will risk at least regional seats if they do not, which will fall to independents or Labor, and this will give a hung result. Coalition supporters should be bringing this fact to their candidates’ attention now.

          • I see, so you have unquestionable proof coaltion will win this 2013 election?

            Please provide some evidence if this is what you are claiming and also please provide proof that the NBN will be the only consideration on voters minds. Previous you have mentioned that the coaltion dont need to announce any broadband plan because they will win the 2013 election regardless so there must be other issues or an inconsistency with your reasoning.

          • By then, everybody will have realised all the grief surrounding the carbon tax was just another one of Abbott’s scare campaigns.

    • How?

      Please explain how a poll about what speeds someone would desire on the NBN proves that the vast majority of people dont care about the NBN.

    • @ john,

      It seems while you believe people don’t care about the NBN, I believe the Coalition care about what people think, following this self-analysis…

      http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Peter%20Reith%20Review%20of%20the%202010%20Federal%20Election.ashx

      A few snippets –

      “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 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.”

      “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.”

      “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.”

      • So at the start they say:

        “The failure to properly explain the Liberal Party’s broadband policy”

        At the end it morphed into:

        “If we had negated NBN and offered, in a timely way, a decent Tasmanian package”

        Just LOL.

        • Of course you left out this bit at the end.

          ‘Bass might have been a win instead of a loss.”

          So it might have made no difference at all also and what’s the population of Bass that makes it a key control group for all of Australia?.

          • I also missed a great big chunk in the middle so what exactly is your point besides looking for an other opportunity to whine like a baby yet again?

          • The point is what approx 50% of a electorate of 71,686 voters MIGHT have done is insignificant.

          • Alain, see my post above. If the Libs had taken Bass and Lindsay they would have formed Government.

          • “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).”

            That’s what commentators said. Cont…

            “Maybe. But it could also be said about Bass.”

            That’s the Liberal Party’s own analysis – to join the dots – “we might have won the election if we had won Bass.”

        • This is actually the bit I found interesting Hubert…

          “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.”

          This is a clear admission from the Coalition’s own post-mortem, that the NBN is perceived as a boost, provides employment, will attract people to NBN areas and will supply all of the flow-on effects we have mentioned but the NBN critics/Coalition supporters have said you have no proof…

          Well there it is from those who oppose the NBN’s own mouths…!

          It’s little wonder MT has changed his “wording only”, to try to, dare I say, disingenuously, jump on the NBN juggernaut… from “we will kill the white elephant NBN and use FttN”… to “we will continue the NBN… err with FttN…”.

          • Well Alex you must remember I have mentioned numerous times that the coaltion clowns will have to adapt their own plan every time NBNco makes progress until they finally come to the conclusion that FttH is the right choice. Turnbulls mouth words are indicative of this however that certainly does not mean we will get a proper FttH build with their plan, the coaltion are notorious for being disingenuous when it comes to the NBN issue so we have no real reason to trust them now either.

        • Its doublethink at so many levels aint it :)

          And to think all they need to do is to “negate”.. rather than actually come up with a better policy. Shows you how much they’ve become clones of the Republicans from the states.

      • [quote}“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.[end quote]

        Notice the assumptions built into the review: “the Liberal Party’s broadband policy” and ” the Labor Party’s effective scare campaign”. No concept of an absence of Liberal broadband policy beyond a thought-bubble level, nor a recognition that the Libs pushed an anti-NBN scare campaign, as they currently still do. No recognition that Australians might actually want fibre-premises broadband or a willingness to reconsider their stance about opposing fttp for most Australians. I read their review some while back and what was evident was a belief, not that they had backed the wrong horse in the broadband stakes, but that they needed to be more effective in getting their message across; in other words, they believe that they lost the election because of a communication failure, not a policy failure. They learned nothing from the experience.

    • @John

      “This poll proves the overwhelming majority of the electorate barely have an understanding of the significance (good or bad) of Labor’s so-called “reforms” and generally do not care enough about the NBN to make it an election issue.”

      You refer of course to the idea that alain brought up, that 70% of people don’t understand teh NBN is a wholesale only company and they will not buy their services from them. I will quote NPSF3000 directly here:

      “I once asked someone if they liked Pepsi or coke… they said Pepsi but luckily for me their inability to recite the prices of both [bottled and canned] in the nearest 5 supermarkets rendered their answer irrelevant.” (http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/28/nbn-85-of-australians-want-50mbps-or-higher/#comment-476618)

      It is an apt analogy. Just because people do not understand that they will not buy a service from NBNCo. does not mean they don’t understand what internet is and what speed they want, which is what the poll asks and is reported in the article.

      You do not have to understand a car, to be able to drive it at all. It HELPS to understand it to drive it VERY well (Formula 1, Rally Cars etc.), but there are many, MANY people who couldn’t change a tyre, let alone change an oil filter. And yet there are BILLIONS of cars out there…..

  5. Whether its FTTN or FTTH, we will still get a national broadband network. A program designed to nationally provide a faster connection than the current dialup/ADSL/ADSL2/wireless/satellite setup we currently have.

    My concern is that the Lib’s will change the rules, so that areas contracted for FTTH, or surrounded by exchanges with FTTH will get FTTN or worse instead. It will still be a national broadband network, just not how we picture it today.

    I also worry that if you dont get FTTH now, you wont get it for decades. And be left behind by the areas that do have it.

    • Gav,

      What’s worse than thinking that its ok, we’re going to get FTTN, is waking up in the morning and realising that it sucks.

      What’s worse than realising it sucks is, realising it will take at least another 3 years to even begin to happen.

      What’s worse than realising that FTTN will take at least until 2016 to even begin to happen is knowing that the Liberals have no intention whatsoever of actually giving you FTTN anyhow.

      You know what is even worse than all of the above? Waking up in a fibre served area that’s been sold to Telstra and then finding your new bill…

      • +1 ungulate

        Part of my concerns though are that a lot of what you say wont be immediately apparent. The general population will compare whatever they get as the NBN and compare it to what they had.

        Inevitably, it’ll be a step forwards. The downloads will be faster, streaming will have less/no buffering, etc etc. They wont see past that initial face value to what the pro-NBN crowd sees as a key problem – future capability.

        It will be an NBN no matter what each party does. And for that initial burst of use, whatever is out there will look the goods. Its only 10, 15 years from now that the horror of Frankenabbotts monster will be seen, and the public realise the need to totally replace their portion. At great cost.

        Frankenabbott wont care, he’ll be long gone, and it’ll be someone else’s problem.

  6. What he means is “We’ll contract the work to Telstra. They’ll own the infrastructure and rent it out on ‘reasonable terms’ to other telcos”.

  7. “The opposition show over and over again that they care little for truth with respect to the entire NBN debate,” Wyres added. “We know that the opposition plan will cost even more in the long run. . .

    All these doubts and accusations about the Coalition’s assertions generated by unqualified bloggers will be resolved by a comprehensive PC inquiry.

    If only Conroy would commission one now — what is he so afraid of?

    • “All these doubts and accusations about the Coalition’s assertions”

      The doubts are warranted. Consider that they want to govern the country so is it unreasonable for us to be asking questions especially when they refuse to voluntarily give any concrete details and hide behind vague statements? In your version of democracy you may prefer to bury your head in the sand. I wont. All the questions asked of the coaltion regarding the NBN are reasonable and should be answered.

    • “All these doubts and accusations about the Coalition’s assertions generated by unqualified bloggers will be resolved by a comprehensive PC inquiry.”

      So all these “unqualified bloggers” who actually work in the tech industry are less qualified to speak on technical issues than luddite politicians?

    • “All these doubts and accusations about the Coalition’s assertions generated by unqualified bloggers”

      When broadband implementation details are being generated politicians, against the strong recommendations on experts in the industry?

      So, what does qualify someone to detect lies and half truths?

    • John,

      Why conroy would be stupid in doing a CBA is that it plays into the Oppositions deceptive narrative.

      The narrative goes “The NBN is spending. Like any other spending, you need a CBA to justify that spending in terms of indirect benefits”.

      Well, the lie in there is that which the Libs want you to believe, or to not question, and that is that the NBN is ordinary spending. When in reality the NBN is a business investment and generates its own return. This is totally unlike a highway.

      With a highway you need a CBA because the only return you get is indirect. With the NBN, being an investment, what you need is first of all a feasibility study (that’s already been done.. google for KPMG NBN implementation study) and secondly you need NBNco to do its own business case – which it is.

      All of which confirms NBNco is quite capable of making a sufficient return to pay for itself – directly!

      Now, you do a CBA and you generate a lot of noise that further distracts people and keeps them from noticing the Liberals are actually lying to them about the fundamental difference between road funding and NBNco.

      • “When in reality the NBN is a business investment and generates its own return. ”

        If the NBN pays for itself in terms of direct positive economic returns (to the entity itself), it would pass a cost benefit with flying colours. There would be absolutely no need to quantify indirect benefits to other sectors of the economy (in terms of the “benefits” part of the cost benefit equation).

        This is Conroy’s Contradiction:

        Labor’s NBN would be the first infrastructure project in world history to struggle to pass a conventional cost benefit analysis, but yet is guaranteed to be profitable in itself.

        That’s like saying an elephant will fit though the door of an English cottage but will struggle through the gates of Buckingham Palace.

        l challenge any member of Conroy’s illustrious staff or policy advisors to resolve this contradiction.

        • I am neither and have no association with any political party, I am however an admitted NBN fan…

          As such I think it’s quite obvious, what Conroy is saying john…

          Whilst the current NBN benefits can be concluded by a CBA… due to the one-off nature, size, timeframe and speedy, ever progressing technologies unparalleled in other areas, the “conventional guidelines set down for traditional CBA’s”, simply cannot clearly identify such parameters/scales in “future NBN benefits”.

          This being the case, as a traditional CBA is not able to clearly capture all of the NBN’s potential benefits, it therefore “cannot provide a clear indication/fair analysis”. I.e. the cost may disproportionately, in purely cost vs. benefits terms, appear to be excessive in comparison to the “current benefits only”.

          But… due to the migration deals with Telstra and Optus, decommissioning of old/obsolete technologies, projected patronage, funding methods, pricings/ROI, our economic situation, building of infrastructure for all Aussies and the flow-on effects… it is clearly demonstrated that, even without knowing the potential future benefits, the NBN will none-the-less, be profitable.

  8. If NBN Co are having difficulties with “the availability of telephone exchange facilities to deploy its points of interconnect connections, negotiations around greenfields fibre deployment and the securing of contracts with suppliers and construction contractors, had “changed for reasons … [it] simply could not control.” what makes the Coalition think that they have some “magic bullet” that is going to fix this if they decide to go to a FTTN rollout? How are they going to provide high speed broadband faster if these problems exist?

    Until the Coalition announces a broadband policy for Australia all we have, and will have, is FUD and negativity which suggests to me that the further from the NBN the Coalition is kept the better for this country and its people. At present they don’t seem to be able to agree amongst themselves what broadband system they support. One can only wonder if Malcolm Turnbull is between a rock and a hard place with this and to what extent his pronouncements reflect the true views of the Coalition.

  9. In my opinion, Abbott could give two hoots about the NBN.
    The coalition spending promises were already in hot water. Now Abbott is talking about tax cuts without the carbon tax, canceling the mining tax as well.
    They are going to have to cut spending pretty dramatically somewhere. It will be no surprise to me if the NBN becomes their biggest target for deep budget cuts.

    • Made even worse, with the NBN costs going back on budget as an expense, rather than an investment.

      • Well, it would have to, unless they have changed their ideas on giving the telcos incentives to build it, because it will just be all expense, not return.
        But how would be know? They aren’t really saying anything. They simply say they will do womething faster and cheaper then mention every possible way implement fast BB, including ADSL mind you and never give anything. It could be as little as roll ADSL2 out to the bush by upping incentive payments and paying some more incentives for Telstra to roll out some FTTN, where they feel like, the rich areas so they can charge top dollar.

    • “They are going to have to cut spending pretty dramatically somewhere. It will be no surprise to me if the NBN becomes their biggest target for deep budget cuts.”
      How many times does it need to be said? The NBN is not under ‘spending’ on the budget.

  10. I’m actually glad you seem to have modified your views somewhat Renai.

    I agree the Coalition “plan” has changed significantly from an all out hostile environment towards the NBN. But, as you say, it has been my belief from the MOMENT Turnbull began his “We vow not to stop the NBN rolling out” spiel, that they ARE in fact trying to neuter the NBN as a political issue.

    “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.” (http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/08/turnbull-evasive-on-coalition-nbn-policy-says-conroy/)

    I said this more than a month ago now and I’ve never seen anything to change my mind since. My greatest fear, and the one that has spurred me into trying to set up Fibre4Oz, is that, as they’ve done with the Carbon Tax (65% support before 2010, to 65% against now) they’ll produce a negative campaign against the current NBN with FUD (as they’ve already been doing) AND supplement it with this new “We’ll do it faster, better, cheaper” attitude. This MAY be enough to convince the majority of Australians again (with help from the Murdoch Media) that the NBN ISN’T a big deal and it’ll get done by the Coalition and not to worry our little heads.

    This sort of politicking makes me very angry because it is essentially WILFULLY hiding the truth from Australians, in the hopes of simply nullifying it and getting into power regardless. That is against all our Democracy stands for and, if you’ll indulge my slight conspiratorial side for a moment, is actually uncomfortably close to Orwellian and 1984.

    “Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.” – George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 7

    If the people don’t KNOW what the Coalition’s “NBN” is they cannot rebel against it. They cannot rebel against it if they don’t know. I sounds tinfoil hat-like. But take a close look….we’re not that far from it.

    • You’re spot on seven tech.

      This is a smokescreen and bookmark tactic from the Liberals.

      Create as much confusion as you can. Give the gullible something to hold onto.

      When you win the election, only then try and figure out how to get out of the situation as quickly as you can. This reflects the Liberals approach on broadband in the past. Ignore it. When you can’t ignore it, throw band aids at it. When that still doesn’t work, work on a big “scheme”. Call it Opel. The Liberal diehards will swallow it. Rinse, repeat. This time if they do win they’re in a corner. They’ve promised budget suicide on other fronts. They have a $70B black hole in their costsings. And the last thing they want is NBNco to go back on budget..

      Lets all join in the chorus…

      Flog off NBNco!
      Flog off NBNco!
      Flog off NBNco!…

      • If the coalition gain government one can expect these things to happen:
        1. They will claim to have a mandate to carry out all their policies;
        2. After a short time they will say they’ve found a financial “black-hole” in costings and the budget left in secret by the previous administration and they’ll have to reconsider things:
        3. They’ll have to reduce, withhold or delay various tax breaks or other concessions;
        4. They will say the best way to raise money will be to sell the NBNCo to Telstra or some other worthy private company, but impose “strict conditions” about “broadband accessibility for all Australians”, to show that the coalition is “really serious” about building a national broadband infrastructure;
        5. When Telstra shows its willingness to plunder the pockets of Australians with inflated broadband prices the coalition government will either say,
        (a) “Tsk, tsk; naughty smacks to Telstra; unfortunately, we can’t do anything because Telstra is independent, but we will show the public how devastated we are with this demonstration of hand-wringing in a plaintive manner”; or they will say,
        (b) “We take this very seriously, and to show how much we care we will fine Telstra as much as 1% of what they’ve gained from inflated prices, which will go into Consolidated Revenue for building hospitals and a new Pacific Highway.”

        • *The above is a joke* (mostly); I don’t want to be accused of displaying a lack of rationality or reasonableness.

        • Nbn has a lot of capex/opex but have little assets, so you cant even sell that, for the hard assets in the ground, eg. 5000 customers, that would be work maybe less than 10million.

          Most of the $1bn already spent was building the company, but when the company is dissolved this intellectual property is gone, and all you are left with is about 10mil dollars of assets that no one wants to buy.

    • You mimic much of what I’ve said here and elsewhere on the subject 7T. Just one thing – you got a link to where the carbon tax had a 65% popularity pre-2010? Want to shove that figure down a friends throat and evidence would be handy. :p

      Be good for the ‘Gillard is a liar because of Carbon Tax’ group of FUDites.

  11. Sorry I have to laugh when I see discussions like this about the Coalitions commitment or not as the case may be to the Labor FTTH if they win Government and accusations about Turnbull is being disingenuous about FTTH.

    Because obviously Labor’s commitment to their election platform private public partnership FTTN plan before the 2007 election not only could have been called into question as being disingenuous but post election after they got into power proved they indeed were proved to be 100% disingenuous.

    • Wow, a government changing policy for a better one? How dare they!

      The Coalition won’t even tell us their plan, except along the lines of “a little of this, a little of that, some that other bit, blah blah blah…” — AND they crack the sads when people criticise it.

      If their plan is so much better, why are they afraid to detail it, and cost it?

      That is what is disingenuous.

      • Your response has nothing whatever to do with the example which of course refers to political parties not being genuine in their pre election policies, when it comes to Communications Policy back flips Labor leads the lot.

        • “when it comes to Communications Policy back flips Labor leads the lot.”

          FttN to FttH is the best “back flip” ever. Totally destroyed the coaltion at the last election since the independents agreed it was a great idea too.

          • Which once again has nothing whatever to do with Labor being disingenuous prior to the 2007 election.

          • Wouldn’t being disingenuous mean that you’re knowingly withholding information? What are you basing this on with pre-2007 election?

            How do you know that they went into the 2007 election with prior plans to scrap that idea once they got into power?

            Based on nothing, the same as your comment, I say that labor went into the 2007 election with the strong intension to follow through on the original plan. Once getting in however, they noticed that it wasn’t as good as they’d first though, and then improved their policy.

          • Well let’s look at the scenarios, Turnbull this far out from the election next year is labeled as being ‘disingenuous, but let’s face it we really won’t know that until after the 2013 election if they win.

            So why now are we in a position that is worse in regards to Communications Policy knowledge than we were 12 months before the 2007 election where what we knew about Labor policy right up to election day was wrong anyway?

          • I think you may be missing the point a little here. He’s being labelled disingenuous because he’s taking the NBN label and putting it onto something that isn’t what the public knows it to be.

            So when he creates his version he can say that he’s completed the NBN, which in fact he’s changed it by quite a bit.

            The only way he would not be disingenuous in this case, would be for him to change his FTTN/HFC/Wireless/Whatever it is policy to be a full FTTP policy that the NBN currently is. However I dont see this happening, as changing you policy to what you’ve been campaigning against for the past 2 years would be quite the “Back flip”.

          • Exactly, it’s not a national ubiquitous Broadband network, it is in fact a patchwork quilt of obsolete technologies aka NOBN (national obsolete broadband network)!

          • alain, the Rudd government spent a year getting on with the detailed work of locking down it’s FTTN NBN Mark I. It was found to cost closer to $11 billion to build, compared to its $6 billion budgeted, in fact, Telstra submitted a 12-page letter including the reminder that FTTN would require the government to compensate it for the acquisition of the last-mile copper to premises that FTTN requires.

            For this access, Telstra wanted $15 billion, which we later learned they intended to spend on a private FTTP network and steal all the customers.

            So Labor did, in fact, start work on FTTN, but when its cost proved to be $26 billion due to Telstra’s copper monopoly, the only practical option for universal broadband happened to be the best one, FTTP.

            The NBN project is uniquely excellent by contrast to many recent Labor failures, and should be adopted without further delay by the coalition if they wish to win the 2013 election.

          • Disingenuous?

            FttN 2007 = labor win (who cares?)
            FttH 2010 = labor + independent + green win (great!)

            Are you confused? Are you ever going to get this? I am not in favor of a FttN patchwork, I do not care if labor, the coalition or the greens suggested it previously. I am in favor or nationwide FttH network and the one being rolled our by NBNco right now.

            Stop. Your. Whining.

    • @alain

      “Because obviously Labor’s commitment to their election platform private public partnership FTTN plan before the 2007 election not only could have been called into question as being disingenuous but post election after they got into power proved they indeed were proved to be 100% disingenuous.”

      alain, there is one MASSIVE difference here. The FTTN NEVER went ahead. AT ALL. The FTTH IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

      FTTN never even got a committee to LOOK at it, let alone a board, company or committee to set it up. And yet you would compare that to a FULLY fledged GBE, with over 100 administration staff, having had almost $600 MILLION dollars spent on admin, call centres, data centres and BOTH trial phases finished and commercial rollout of satellites, with satellite contracts awarded and commercial rollout of fibre and soon to be commercial rollouts of wireless……..I could go on and ON.

      Please. Just stop with this argument. NBN MkI WASN’T going to work. Labor abandoned it…..FOR SOMETHING BETTER. That something better IS BEING BUILT. NOW. NOT as a promise at the next election, NOT as a plan on paper, NOW. IT IS BEING BUILT.

      Please, stop this ridiculous troll argument about “disingenuous Labor” because they grew some balls and put out a better policy they’re following through with, just because YOU don’t like it.

      • Once again like Wyres your response has nothing whatever to the point I as making, I point out how Labor were disingenuous in the 2007 election re Communications Policy , you both then go off into a diverting tangent about that being ok because what Labor came up with post election was better than the pre election policy anyway.

        Well two can play that semantic game, don’t worry about what the Coalition are saying as to what they policy is prior to the next election and how ‘disingenuous’ Turnbull is because they will come up with something better after they get in.

        • “blah blah blah that being ok because what Labor came up with post election was better than the pre election policy anyway.”

          Wow, you finally got it.

          • You know when an argument is getting desperate when the copy and paste is so severely truncated the original point is made meaningless.

          • yep, your arguments have always been desperate, perhaps you could explain why I should waste my time on anything more?

        • “Well two can play that semantic game, don’t worry about what the Coalition are saying as to what they policy is prior to the next election and how ‘disingenuous’ Turnbull is because they will come up with something better after they get in.”

          Probably right, if they do come up with something better than what they have currently (which is almost nothing), then yes.

          Thing is, you could go with the better policy that is currently being rolled out, or you could cross your fingers and hope that Turnbull “back flips” into a better policy.

          I know which one I’d prefer

          Also, if Turnbull does iron out his policy pre-election, then introduces a much better policy post-election, do we have free rein to say he has done a back flip?

          • Exactly MikeS.

            When this silly back-flip claim was made by the same poster previously, I asked a simple question, typically unanswered.

            Ok using that logic, If Tony Abbot becomes PM and pre-election promises to spend $5B extra on Health, but ends up spending $10B extra, is he a lying back-flipper?

            *sigh*

          • Well it depends how you look at it, did you vote for Labor in 2007 fervently hoping they would change their FTTN policy?

          • It’s good to see that you assume that I voted for labor in 2007. You think that because I support the Idea of labor’s NBN that I must be a long term labor supporter.

            I’d base my vote on the current policies, not based on what I hope they change it to post election. The same that I’d hope everyone else does.

            If a good policy is being enacted now, why would I vote against it in the hopes of the other side bettering their policy?

            If a policy is change for the better post election, I dont see how that could be viewed as a negative.

            So I ask again, if Turnbull introduces a better policy post election, does this make him a back flipper. As Alex, states above, if a politician introduces a policy (in the case, health) then improves upon it post election, does that make him a “back flipper”?

          • It was rhetorical question but you answered the point anyway :

            ‘I’d base my vote on the current policies, not based on what I hope they change it to post election. The same that I’d hope everyone else does.’

            So feasibly there would be a lot of disgruntled voters who based their vote on Labor FTTN policy as detailed prior to the 2007 election post election.

          • @alain

            “So feasibly there would be a lot of disgruntled voters who based their vote on Labor FTTN policy as detailed prior to the 2007 election post election.”

            NOW you’re trolling. The same could be said of ANY government. Coalition included.

          • I suppose, if they had their heart specifically set on a FTTN solution. HoweverI’d assert that most people that were in favour of the FTTN, were mostly in favour of improved comms in Australia in general. The change to FTTP is still an improvement to comms in Australia, even more so than FTTN.

            I’d assume that there would be a lot more disgruntled FTTN voters if the changes to policy were a backwards step instead, from FTTN to a blanket wireless solution for example.

          • Indeed MikeS…

            Again to use a health analogy, I guess if people had their hearts set on a new, pre-election, 5 storey hospital they could be pissed off at getting a 10 storey hospital instead?

            …. if they are totally devoid of all common sense and are 100% biased against the political flavour of the government in question, that is.

            ;-)

          • Why on earth would we even need a 10 story hospital??? Don’t you know all health issues will be cured by an as yet undiscovered revolutionary wireless technology called “magic” Stop the waste!

          • Indeed and until then to make ‘hospitals and comms more cost effective’, when elected the opposition will have all exchanges fitted-out with surgical equipment and beds.

            FttH – Fibre to the Hospital… brilliant ;-)

          • Alex that analogy is flawed, FttN is not more cost effective than FttH for 4 reasons:
            1) It costs the same to the end-user for a poorer service.
            2) It costs money to buy and then maintain the copper that is in the ground right now.
            3) It would cost even more money to upgrade FttN to FttH in the future.
            4) It costs money to government (and hence to the taxpayer) where FttH does not, because private investors aren’t going to be interested in a dead-end technology network with all of those flaws.

        • “don’t worry about what the Coalition are saying as to what they policy is prior to the next election and how ‘disingenuous’ Turnbull is because they will come up with something better after they get in”

          Better than what? They haven’t got a plan to judge if anything they do is better.
          Based on what they said the only option is instead of doing is
          “Faster and cheaper”
          it wil;
          “Fasterer and cheaperer”

        • Alain you keep saying that no one is addressing your point.

          What you need to understand is, that everyone is addressing your point, by disagreeing that you even have a point.

          If the Coalition come to power in 2013 and after consulting with experts in their field, upgrade their broadband policy to a superior technology/better policy than they took into the election, I for one will welcome it, not claim them disingenuous. As I’m sure most impartial thinking people would?

          What about you?

          Seriously I don’t know of too many people, you excluded, who would argue that government’s heeding advice from experts (rather than forging ahead willy nilly) and improving policy is not a good thing?

        • “Once again like Wyres your response has nothing whatever to the point I as making, I point out how Labor were disingenuous in the 2007 election re Communications Policy , you both then go off into a diverting tangent about that being ok because what Labor came up with post election was better than the pre election policy anyway.”

          @alain

          Once AGAIN you deflect. My comment was based around the fact that even if they WERE disingenuous in the 2007 election, of which there is no proof either way, they are not NOW being disingenuous. The NBN is being built NOW. Not in a few months. NOT after the next Election (read: Coalition maybe) but NOW.

          How is that not relevant to your discussion about the disingenuousness of Labor??

    • FTTN to FTTH is an upgrade
      FTTH to FTTN is a downgrade.

      Get over it and stop your whinging.

      • FTTN to FTTH is an upgrade
        FTTH to FTTN is a downgrade.

        And lets not forget that Labor’s old FTTN plan was to 98% of the population. The Libs NEW IMPROVED FTTN 2013 VERSION is going to be at most to 30%-40% of the population. That spells an even BIGGER DOWNGRADE.

        Labor = one step forward from 2007
        Liberal = three steps backward from 2013

    • I think I speak for everyone else when I say we also have to laugh when you come on desperately trying to divert attention away from the issue at hand and direct it else ware :)

    • Yep, so Labor actually invested over a year into the process, and got accused of being too slow, despite Minchin doing his best to add delay tactics in a Liberal controlled Senate. And in the end the experts said no, FTTN just won’t work. It won’t provide value for money – at least not for taxpayers. And the government listened. Wow. You’d expect a government having tried something and found it wanting, to then move on.

    • This attitude is exactly why government projects run over budget it is be public servants and politicians unwilling to change what they doing in the face of better advice for fear of it being called a backflip. If a government gets better advice on how to do something or early in the piece discover it is not going to work I don’t want them to carry on regardless.

  12. Bizarre to base ideas of what speeds are required by polling the population.

    Some industry estimates show whatever people think they need now it could be 15 to 50 times what you they are using now.

    How can an individual even estimate what new technology will mean in a practical way.

    Same for cost /benefit analyses for a new technology that will be as ubiquitous as the net is now but 10, 50, 1000, 5000 times faster than now.

    Copper is so close to the end of its life. There’s no possibility of building enough 4G towers to connect a large part of dense urban populations this way. Telcos don’t want to invest in it because it’s wasted money and resources.

    The full labor plan is a minimum. And at least the fibre is there.

    • “Bizarre to base ideas of what speeds are required by polling the population.”

      Yes and no Michael Storer. The poll was about what speeds tehy’d CONNECT with. In other words, what speeds they’d like and be willing to pay for. Not necessarily what they’d need.

      I agree with the rest though. Fibre at least provides protection for increased bandwidth in the future. Copper doesn’t.

  14. I’d like to take issue with some wording.

    (up to 1Gbps, compared with an expected up to 80Mbps)

    Can we replace it with the reality?

    (1Gbps, compared with an expected 0-80mbps depending on distance)
    [note: there will always be *someone* outside of the range of the FTTN. however anyone that gets a fibre, gets their full stated linespeed as per their bought plan] – and yes I know not everyone will get a fibre.

    The fibre is not distance dependent , only dependent on the plan chosen by the end-customer. (GPON not withstanding)

  15. Labor, Liberal, Nationals..blah blah , who cares? not me.. its the NBN i want..

    • I have to agree strongly here. I cant stand either party – neither reflect my opinions and political persuasion.

      I’d vote for whoever can bring this policy to light. Labor’s done an excellent job so far of reforming communications, my primary industry.

      If the LNP change their tune, i’d possibly be convinced to swap.

  16. “The NBN will continue to roll out but we will do so in a cost-effective manner in particular in built-up areas.”

    So basically, Malcolm would like to cherry pick profitable areas and give them FTTH and the rest get whatever is cheapest. Gee, that sounds like a real good plan doesn’t it?

    • Which goes back to the original point – disingenuousness.

      “I will complete the “NBN” by building “my network” and calling it the “NBN””.

      It is saying he will complete it, but not making it clear that it will be a significantly different solution.

      ie: disingenuous.

      • But Renai in his opening comments doesn’t have a problem with determining it is different.

        ‘While the two plans do share some fundamental similarities, it is also true that the Coalition’s NBN policy is also vastly different from Labor’s — and that is a fact.’

          • I don’t have a problem determining that Coalition Policy is different to Labor policy, Labor policy never mentions FTTN, it also never mentions utilising existing HFC infrastructure.

            I have mentioned before it would be nice to know what Telstra and Optus have to say about keeping HFC and keeping some copper for FTTN, until some Coalition support from the major incumbent Telstra especially indicates they are comfortable with that the Coalition doesn’t have much of a concrete policy, especially as Telstra has signed a binding NBN agreement approved by the Telstra board and ratified with a big YES by shareholders.

          • “I have mentioned before it would be nice to know what Telstra and Optus have to say about keeping HFC and keeping some copper for FTTN”

            What they say will be entirely dependant upon what money they get.

            Telstra would not build FTTN with their own money, they would build FTTH, they have said this a number of times. With government money they would build whatever they got money to build.

            “Telstra especially indicates they are comfortable with that the Coalition doesn’t have much of a concrete policy, especially as Telstra has signed a binding NBN agreement approved by the Telstra board and ratified with a big YES by shareholders.”

            They can see the dollars signs and the opportunity to hold onto some monopoly powers into the future.

          • Yes, they get the $11billion, get paid to roll out FTTN. The copper is stills theirs, they get paid for it. It cuts out the current DSLAM competition. If they don’t have full control they will just use the money to run FTTH in the same areas as they have already stated.

          • And they will probably wrangle a deal for the government/us to foot the bill for copper maintenance!

          • Oh of course.
            Because Telstra didn’t stop maintaining it 10 years ago because Sol wanted to cut costs and push the shares prices up to line his own pockets. It’s only because the NBN was going to decommision the copper they stopped the maintenace, so obviously it is Labor’s fault and the Libs have to give Telsra a large wad of cash to fix up Labor’s mess.

          • Oh FFS…

            * Turnbull says he will complete the NBN.
            * He will do no such thing.
            * Turnbull will replace the NBN plan with his own plan.
            * Turnbull will continue to call it the NBN, so he can say he “completed” it.

            It’s not the same network, so he is being disingenuous. Some people will go “ahhh, well, we will get the NBN anyway.”

            Which was the whole point of the article in the first place – however, as per usual, you’ve squirmed and redirected the discussion to suit your own irrelevant points.

            Turnbull’s words are a deliberate twisting of phrases to imply something that is true, when it is not. Given your track record around here, I’m surprised you don’t recognise this form of deceit.

        • “But Renai in his opening comments doesn’t have a problem with determining it is different.”

          @alain

          Yes. He doesn’t. Because Renai reads widely and mostly ignores mainstream (read: News Ltd.) rubbish. He’s also a very good tech journalist. It’s his JOB to see incorrect or misleading info and report on it.

          We are NOT discussing if people such as himself and you or I can see it. We are discussing if the GENERAL POPULOUS can. And with the media “backing” the idea of the Coalition “NBN”, why WOULD the general populous believe Labor??

  17. It’s real simple folks, if you:

    A/ want a FTTH NBN, vote Labour!

    or

    B/ if you want a National Obsolete Broadband Network (NOBN), vote for the Coalition!

    doesnt get any simpler than that!

  18. hi Alain,

    FYI I have banned you until the end of 2012 on commenting on Delimiter. The reason for this is this comment:

    “Stacked polls are meaningless.”

    In actual fact, independent polling has consistently shown popular support for the NBN:

    http://delimiter.com.au/2012/02/21/nbn-enjoys-prolonged-popular-support/

    I have determined that your contribution to our debate is not rational and evidence-based. Our comments policy states that we do not accept “Comments which display a lack of rationality or reasonableness.”

    http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/

    Thank you for your contributions over time to the debate. I encourage you to find other forums for your comments from here on in.

    Cheers,

    Renai
    Editor + Publisher, Delimiter

    • In before someone else says it :

      BAM and the dirt is gone. :)

      Good piece today Renai – running a close second in best piece to the series where you annihilated Hockey’s comments.

  19. One important thing I don’t see mentioned much in these debates (not for any evil reason I’m sure) is that the Labor NBN plan is clearly designed to level the technological playing field for most in this country.
    It’s costly to do so, building hi-tech resources way out in the Outback, but I think Labor genuinely believe new businesses can be built all over Australia, with up to date tools (via the NBN).
    If the private sector were building the next generation web infrastructure, they’d do what they always do, build it in high usage, highly profitable cities only.
    I already live rural, and I would be happy to move further out, if I could still carry on my internet dependent business out there, and my health care wasn’t handicapped by poorly resourced medical centres and unfilled staff vacancies.
    Labor have put millions into spreading knowledge and modern communication around the nation. That’s not the job of the private sector, and i believe an election victory for The Coalition would see much more private sector involvement and therefore a shift from genuine nation building to simple profit making.
    I’ll be voting Labor, no matter what.

  20. According to NBN supporters, “the Coalition is telling lies” and “FTTH is the best solution”….

    If l was in your shoes, I’d be focusing my energies on petitioning the Govt to commission a PC inquiry immediately.

    Since the PC report would expose the Coalition’s NBN claims as supposed “lies” and declare FTTN as apparently “wasteful” (as various under-qualified bloggers are boldly asserting), it would immediately force the Coalition to commit to retaining Labor’s NBN.

    There’s no reason to wait till after the next election to have the PC carry out a cost benefit. An early favourable report would immediately ensure the Coalition changes policy even before the next election and minimise disruption to the roll-out post-election.

    So, instead of harping on silly referenda, pushing for an immediate PC inquiry would actually have direct impact on policy and resolve any uncertainty.

    • “Since the PC report would expose the Coalition’s NBN claims as supposed “lies” and declare FTTN as apparently “wasteful” (as various under-qualified bloggers are boldly asserting), it would immediately force the Coalition to commit to retaining Labor’s NBN.”

      The media and noalition would ignore it so whats the point?

    • “Since the PC report would expose the Coalition’s NBN claims as supposed “lies” and declare FTTN as apparently “wasteful” (as various under-qualified bloggers are boldly asserting), it would immediately force the Coalition to commit to retaining Labor’s NBN.”

      Pretty good for “under-qualified bloggers” hey? To come to the same conclusions as all the most highly qualified experts in the industry. It’s not hard though, it’s pretty obvious for the computer literate.

      • This is an interesting find Alex. Kudos.

        Its interesting to see that Reith is openly slathering the strategy of his former comrades, given that they again pretend the NBN is a non-issue. He goes on to highlight the issues with the Incumbent and the bonuses the NBN could make.

        I guess the only question that remains is : Will they adopt his idea and take the NBN by the horns ? They’d swing the independants overnight, the government would be ousted right before the election.

          • Indeed Master_T, but keep in mind, in 2010 when the election was held (which the Libs doc is based upon) Tassie was (iirc) all there was NBN wise…which I think adds further credence…!

    • I have a better suggestion. Let’s petition the coalition to release a fully detailed and costed policy. So that we can compare apples and apples.

      The thing you seem to ignore is that the NBN is now a reality (maybe not to your liking but nevertheless a reality). Now MT wants to change what exists. So, rather than criticising wouldn’t be better for him to give people an informed choice based on facts rather than slogans and carefully worded promises.

    • How very odd. Seems that video is only 480p. There is no 720p or 1080p available at all… I wonder why, perhaps it is still in transit on a USB stick being delivered to YouTube by bicycle.

      • My face looked a bit like Salad Fingers face after watching that *poker face*
        Not to sure what the heck I just watched :(

        • I’m not sure either, Turnbull is not really making much sense here. I mean exactly what was the point of the USB sticks. He’s complaining that the NBN isn’t getting here quick enough and recognises that the faster upload speeds NBN will provide are needed but with his FttN patchwork plan we will still need the bike and USB sticks for large files…

        • This is seriously worrying guys.

          Turnbull is turning this into another scare Carbon Tax “song and dance” as it’s become.

          Normally, Turnbull is thoughtful and considered. This video is just poor taste, badly done AND simply political one up. “You can call me names, so I’ll call you names” There is no information, no debate, no argument. This is just, plain and simple, political slander of NBNCo.

          I’m actually quite shocked to see Malcolm stoop this low.

          Renai, you seen this?

  22. Please stop using the word “disingenuous” and just call a spade a spade.

    He’s lying.

    What he does and says are lies.

  23. Did anyone, anywhere, ever believe the Coalition would continue the NBN to roll out FTTP to 93%? How many times do they have to say “$50bn white elephant” and “FTTN”? Surely everyone must have got that message.

    Where I did think they were moving, possibly like you Renai, is toward keeping the NBNCo. It’s still not 93% FTTP but at least we have a consistent delivery mechanism (the NBNCo) and a national network. The Liberal party web site shows me to have been well and truly wrong …

    “Our approach to broadband will be to restore competition to the network so that costs are met by the private sector, not the taxpayer.”
    http://www.liberal.org.au/Labor-tells-lies.aspx

    The Coalition still intend to get the private sector to build whatever and wherever they will and then try to cobble that together to come up with a national solution. That’s exactly the same rubbish they’ve been spouting for years. They haven’t changed one iota.

    Is Turnbull being deliberately misleading or is he out of step with his party (again)?

    Scrapping the NBNCo is not continuing the NBN roll out in any way, shape or form. We are looking to the media to call Turnbull out on this.

    • I don’t think they have changed at all. It all comes down to them saying the same thing with different words.
      We will stop the NBN and roll out cheap broadband.
      We will continue the NBN and roll out cheap broadband.

      The impression I always got was that they have to say something to win at least Joe Publics support by appearing to do something like the NBN. I feel Malcolm is very limited in what he can say because Abbott doesn’t want to do anything, so his to make do with this vauge word play and commit to nothing at all.

      Really, what has he commited to? There will be a continuation of something named “The NBN”.
      Some HFC that already exists will be used, no change there. Some FTTN will be rolled out, it currently is Tophat) Some wireless, yep Telstra 4G. Satilite, already got that. He could do absolutely nothing if they win the election and be true to everything he has said.

    • Why on God’s Earth would the Coalition want to keep NBNco?

      NBNco is nothing but a corporate shell for an ugly state monopoly protected and privileged by anti-competitive legislation, staffed by Labor cronies doing nothing beneficial other than handing out contracts to crony contractors and squandering taxpayer resources by overbuilding existing valuable networks. And they can’t even achieve all that on a timely basis in accordance with their own timetable. Why would the Coalition want to hang on to a bunch of incompetents?

      “consistent delivery mechanism”? — must be a modern C21st euphemism for communism.

      “The Coalition still intend to get the private sector to build whatever and wherever they will and then try to cobble that together to come up with a national solution. That’s exactly the same rubbish they’ve been spouting for years. They haven’t changed one iota.”

      Using targeted subsidies to achieve minimum outcomes in undeserved markets via an updated broadband USO mandate is “rubbish”? Funny, this is precisely the approach recommended by the Productivity Commission in its review of the greenfields competitive neutrality issue.

      • They keep the NBNCo because it gives them a way to control and coordinate the national build. They can fund it how they like. They can privatise it when they like. In the end it’s not much different to the Network Co Turnbull wanted to create by separating Telstra.

        I’m not sure how you get from having a national provider offering consistent delivery to communism. Perhaps if I’d said there should be no competition. I didn’t though.

        fwiw … I agree that allowing other infrastructure to be built and operating the cross-subsidy via something like the USO is better than what the government is doing.

    • [quote] Our approach to broadband will be to restore competition to the network so that costs are met by the private sector, not the taxpayer.”
      http://www.liberal.org.au/Labor-tells-lies.aspx [end quote]

      To the Liberal Party:
      This is marvelous news! I am very pleased to pass on to the Liberal Party a scheme that will allow the costs of the broadband network to be met by private enterprise and not the taxpayer. It’s called the “National Broadband Network”. You may not have heard of it. It’s being installed by the National Broadband Network Company, using private investment funds and (get this!) isn’t being billed to the taxpayer!

      I am sure that, now that you know about this, you will wholeheartedly give your unqualified support to this infrastructure development and full endorsement if you gain government.

      • “It’s being installed by the National Broadband Network Company, using private investment funds and (get this!) isn’t being billed to the taxpayer!”

        Get this:

        If NBNco was being funded by “private investment funds”,

        1/ the Govt’s $27bln equity stake would be replaced by $27bln of private equity placements with the major telcos or industry superfunds;

        2/ NBNco would be directly raising loans in its own name and corporate credit rating from the debt capital markets, instead of having the Commonwealth put its credit card on the table and borrow on NBNco’s behalf.

        You gotta love it when tech geeks try to lecture the former Executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs Aust on “finance”.

        • Who is the “former Executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs Aust” you’re talking about, and what did he have to say about the NBN? I can’t find any links in a quick Google search.

        • Well considering GS’s role in the GFC I dont believe anyone from that org deserves any credibility!

          However on the AFR the other day they published this story:

          http://afr.com/p/technology/nbn_critics_misguided_state_street_FHzJ4R17aLt4K4YfM3gyqL

          “The head of technology at one of the world’s biggest banks says calls for a cost-benefit analysis on Labor’s $36 billion national broadband network fail to understand the true value of the internet.

          State Street manages $US1.86 trillion ($1.82 trillion) in assets, a value greater than Australia’s entire gross domestic product. It also has $US21.8 trillion in assets under custody and in late 2011 was officially named one of the world’s 29 most critical banks by the G20.

          But despite frequent calls for the government to launch a commercial cost-benefit analysis into the NBN by its critics, State Street executive vice president and chief information officer Christopher Perretta said infrastructure projects with wide-ranging benefits should go ahead regardless. “When you get to that scale of investment it becomes strategic and I would argue that whenever you connect businesses the multiplicative effect is very strong,” he said.

          “You can go back to the railroad, the telegraph and you can go back to the first internet and just think how much wealth was generated by the internet.”

          • RoFL.

            So, the incoming Government should ignore the advice of Prof. Fred Hilmer (the father of competition reforms), the Productivity Commission, the Governor of the Reserve Bank and all other public policy experts calling for a cost benefit. . .

            and listen to the resident IT geek at some random financial institution?

            That advice would have more credibility if it came from the Chief Investment Officer or Chief Economist or Chief Investment Strategist at State Street who make a living analysing investments and economic trends, as opposed to the backroom guy who spends his time unboxing and plugging in new servers.

          • @John

            ohhhhhh, I see. You want to PICK who us asking for a CBA as compared to who is ACTUALLY saying whether it will be useful.

            Feel free. It’s already been stated the Coalition won’t accept one now. So keep harping on. It’s bound to do some good.

            Meanwhile, NBNCo. will just get on and build it. Rather than waiting 3 or 4 years and bleeding money…..like the Coalition want.

            if you don’t want to accept statements by prominent experts, don’t expect us to listen to you at all.

          • John your ignorance really knows no bounds, Chris Perretta is the Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer (CIO), of StateStreet, he’s not some “geek” as you put it!

            http://goo.gl/mgDZU

            He has a pretty distinguished pedigree but you just call him a “geek”, nice!

            “Christopher (Chris) Perretta is executive vice president and chief information officer (CIO). In this capacity, Mr. Perretta is responsible for State Street’s information technology businesses globally and the strategic direction and management of State Street’s information technology organization, which includes more than 5,300 employees and contractors around the world. He oversees global technology infrastructure, application development and systems architecture for all of State Street worldwide.

            Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Perretta was the chief information officer for General Electric Commercial Finance. Previous to this he served as CIO for the North American Consumer Financial Services unit and chief technology officer for GE Capital. Prior to his tenure at General Electric, he was an associate partner at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture), where he dealt in both the industrial and financial services practice areas. He also spent more than five years leading the development of various technology initiatives in Europe.

            Mr. Perretta holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in electrical engineering from Johns Hopkins University and Syracuse University, respectively.”

            @Renai I think John’s behavior is contravening your rules!

          • Everything you just posted proves my point exactly.

            The guy is an IT/systems engineering expert.

            He has zero expertise in public policy or economics of infrastructure investment.

            “@Renai I think John’s behavior is contravening your rules!”

            how lame.

          • John your points a irrational and lacking in reason!

            You dont get to be a CIO of State Street Finance* or General Electric Commercial Finance or associate partner at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) without a massive amount of experience in delivering business outcomes, but you clearly dismiss all this because it doesnt fit your irrational opinion!

            *”With US$23.2 trillion in assets under custody and administration, and US$2.0 trillion* under management as of March 31, 2012, ”

            Lame indeed!!!

          • john, there are many people who say do a CBA as you suggest – imo, mostly conservative bean counters and old school business people, just as you highlighted, who only are seemingly only interested in C not the B.

            Fancy the PC wanting to do a CBA though? Bit like McDonalds wanting us all to eat burgers.

            But there are just as many who say an absolute CBA simply can’t be done successfully (one as pointed out by djos) due to the nature of the beast. Off the top of my head, Graeme Samuel former ACCC chief being one. One who was actually involved hands-on with comms related issues/governance, not just bean counting…one who perhaps has a greater understanding of the difficulties substantiating the B’s not just seeing the C’s and one who for all intents and purposes, traditionally has more in common with the Coalition than Labor, so political bias is not an obvious agenda.

            As such the government has decided no CBA – so be it. If the Coalition are elected and decide to do a CBA – so be it. I really can’t understand the biased rationale in being bogged down with the same old stale CBA arguments rehashed time and time again.

            And what’s your thoughts on the McKinsey NBN report john?

            Considering one of your CBA proponents Fred, was there for many years (iirc), wasn’t he? Does that now legitimise their report after all? Or is it still, as the NBN critics have said, a paid for document with paid for outcomes?

        • john, you just inadvertently answered the question of funding…

          …”Commonwealth put its credit card on the table and borrow on NBNco’s behalf”…

          Yes… the funding is coming from borrowings not general taxation revenue. That was always part of the funding plan from the onset as announced in 7 April 2009.

          Of course due to the NBN being in it’s infancy stages there aren’t any NBN specific bonds as yet (which is common sense). Because remember, to be able to offer like products/prices in the bush and to keep prices comparable to current prices as NBNCo has promised, NBNCo are only asking a modest ROI. So investors won’t invest in NBN bonds yet and it’s ridiculous to suggest they should already have specific bonds (particularly with the threat of the NBN being rolled back and FttN handed to Telstra by an opposition the polls suggest will romp home in 2013).

          But once the NBN is, if not vindictively bastardised by such a new government, up and running in more areas and becoming profitable, they are planning to offer NBN specific bonds (2015 iirc).

          That’s why the current funding has been rolled into the general bond issuance (as well as BAF and contingency reserve) because due to economic performance, we are seen as a pretty reasonable place to invest in, so these general issuance bonds are attracting off shore investors.

          So actually rather than the Aussie taxpayer paying for the NBN, it is more likely that overseas investors are actually funding a lot of the equity injections.

          So in actual fact, looking at the over all picture, a state of the art network which will provide for all Aussies for many decades, profitable build, affordable via cross-subsidisation/fair ROI, not affecting other budgetary areas and in all likelihood overseas money being current used… it’s actually quite clever!

          Especially when considering this policy far and away out shines many years of comms policies from the opposition and “it was drawn up on one single flight on the back of an envelope, wasn’t it”? ;-)

          • “it was drawn up on one single flight on the back of an envelope, wasn’t it” — just to draw on a similar story from Europe.

            The EU asked for suggestions on how to fix all the financial dramas. They were giving out EU$20,000 prizes for the best ideas. One idea, that didnt win a prize but got an honorary mention, was based on pizza.

            Boot Greece out of EU, make them trade back their EU$ for their own local currency again, and split that EU$ between the other remaining EU countries based on GDP, or something like that. Near enough to get the idea.

            It was a 12 year old boy that suggested it. All based on the slices of a pizza.

            Point being, good ideas can be simple, and dont need legions of analysts/bankers/experts to create the base idea before being fine tuned.

        • Yes because Goldman Sachs knows what is good for an economy and didn’t act in their own self interest and was one of the banks responsible for the GFC. The private sector doesn’t do what is best for the nation they do what is best for themselves and Goldman Sachs is one of the companies that demonstrated this. It seems MT has brought this attitude into the LNP where they only think about getting elected in a couple of years time and not what is good for the nation. If they had a policy that was good for the nation they could get it through parliament now it is not as if labor have absolute control.

  24. Renai,

    Turnbull is not only being disingenuous in his attempts to reassure would-be Liberal voters that they won’t be “wrecking” the NBN, he’s also succeeding in stampeding a good many people – including yourself – into thinking that the likely outcome of a Liberal win will be the re-engineering of the network into the now familiar “suitable alternative technologies”.

    Renai, you’re being had! The Liberals have no such plans. And even if they wanted to achieve this outcome, there are practical and political realities that would get in the way.

    One of the things you’ve got to understand is that politicians (of all stripes) don’t like unfinished business. Nor do they like complex tasks. Nor are they immune to the general human tendency to laziness.

    The danger for a Liberal government, in actually going about re-engineering the network, is that it would be messy, complex, time consuming, and in the end run into the roadblock of the Senate – which will almost certainly still be dominated by the Greens.

    The Liberals, if they really, actually, tried to re-design would end up in a situation where they had a half baked, half legislated, half understood, and even less liked policy position.

    Lets have a look at some of the problems they’d run into.

    1. NBNco is an organisation run by people who actually care about what they are doing. If Turnbull were to direct it to do a major re-design, the first thing you’d encounter is the delays involved in re-appointing much of its senior management. Then even with the best will (and I can assure you, it will be resisted internally) it will take upwards of 18 months for NBNco to come up a “whole new design” – presumably one that also attempts to integrate some semblance of an upgrade path.

    2. This process is likely to be met with political interference. Causing further delay.

    3. It might become obvious at some point, that to merely take NBNco, and redirect it to use “suitable alternative technologies” results in NBNco coming up with a business plan that shows you the folly of using obsolete and soon to be replaced technologies. Costs including partial replacement of copper, upgrade of HFC segments to accommodate the two thirds of houses theoretically serviced by HFC but not actually connected. Costs due to the disruption and weakening of the fibre footprint, resulting in reduced economies of scale and global optimisations. Costs due to disruption of the workforce and contractors. In the end what NBNco is likely to do is to come back and say “anything but fibre doesn’t have a long term future and therefore we will have to put the price up to compensate for the reduced lifespan of the technology”.

    4. This will cycle into the political debate where it will filter down to the average punter that in fact, fibre was cost effective and the Liberals are now putting us down a path where NBNco probably won’t break even and then it will end up on budget. Now, seeing budget over-runs is the last thing the Liberal’s want to see.

    5. You suggest halting the NBN. However, to do this will disrupt its business case and push it, at least partly, back on budget. The Liberals will never allow this to happen. This is precisely why Turnbull is I think quite honestly saying he will not halt it.

    6. As a result of simply letting NBNco continue with business as usual whilst the management gets disrupted, new designs are brought forth, and contractors start getting itchy feet, the process will proceed such that another couple of million houses will be connected before any such plan is ready. By this time, the plan will have to reflect the patchwork quilt of actual fibre builds and other issues. It will be a shocking mess and rightfully attract scorn.

    7. NBNco will have to renegotiate with the owner of the copper. As we know by now this is a process that itself could take over a year.

    8. Lets not forget Optus, or all the other major stakeholders, some of which will come out openly and demand the fibre roll out will continue.

    9. Its difficult to imagine a process whereby NBNco is steered into doing an “alternative network design” without this having repercussions that require legislative effort. For one thing the separation of Telstra is pretty much a built in consequence of Telstra transferring its customers onto the NBN and then agreeing to switch off the copper after some time. It’s a separation by abandonment of the actual copper. What Turnbull proposes isn’t. What he proposes will require a new approach to regulation of Telstra. This cannot be done without legislation.

    10. Labor and the Greens are solidly behind the NBN. Do you really think they will pass anything in the Senate enabling Turnbull to achieve anything on the NBN (or carbon pricing, or the MRRT.. and just to be be persnickety they could feel quite inclined to just say no to Mr. NO. on everything :))

    11. So how long before we start seeing FTTN cabinets being installed? Answer not before a 2016 election. Do the Liberals REALLY want to go to another election fighting a losing battle? I don’t think so.

    So, Renai, For this and several other reasons, have to do with the nature of the Liberal organisation and ideological purity, there just isn’t any good reason to think that this whole “alternative network” thingy is going to fly.

    Instead, the Liberals are going to do what is both politically easiest for them and suits them ideologically. It gets the “ownership” of the problem away from them. And that is simply this. They’ll flog it off.

    Yep, NBNco is going to no longer exist under the Liberals. And the most likely scenarios will be spun as “bringing forward the selloff”.. or “advancing private equity”.. But in practice it will mean 3 things.

    1. Telstra or some subsidiary in control with relaxed effective regulation.
    2. Higher retail prices. Just look at the prices Telstra is willing to charge where it has monopoly fibre.
    3. Continued roll out of fibre, but only to major cities. Beyond that we’ll end up back in the situation where part of the network will be subsidised continually and forever, by the taxpayer. And that’s all part of the deal.

    Oh and btw, even Telstra doesn’t want monopoly FTTN, when it can have monopoly FTTH. Why build something that’s not cost effective over the long term, and can be superseded by a future government, when you can get your hands on a monopoly over fibre and then your monopoly can never be taken away.

  25. The Hipocrasy is mind-numbing.

    Oh, none of your criticisms of the NBN are in the NBN’s newspaper? isnt that what you have News Ltd in your back pocket for, Malcom? Not to mention none of the extremley large list of pro’s for the NBN are in YOUR video.

    Oh, the NBN is behind schedule? i wonder how long it will take you to re-negotiate the deal with Telstra, Malcom.

    “This will indeed be a project for our grandchildren, except most of them will be enjoying it in their very old age” Only if LNP win the next election, Malcom.

    Oh we will keep having to write letters to each other and post them, and go to our friends houses with our USB sticks… that will only continue longer with your FTTN plan, Malcom.

    Go away with your political agendas. Its about time a politician put the good of Australia before his or her own career. It’s a shame your videos have so many dislikes. Next time, in order to put a cap on your embarrasment, perhaps turn comments off for your video. Better yet, dont post one at all.

  26. Ungulate, your post has an uncomfortable truth about it. We should be afraid…
    IANAL, but isn’t there more than the two stakeholders agreement required for the sale? Didn’t the sale have prerequisites like the network being finished? Is the comms and finance mins. say so enough, that it is finished? Is the Senate able to block legislation to sell, and is new legislation even required? Would ACCC have any power on behalf of consumers to intervene?

    • @Ully

      The legislation states that for sale to proceed:

      – the Communications Minister has declared that, in his or her opinion, the
      national broadband network should be treated as built and fully operational;

      – there has been tabled in parliament a report by the Productivity Commission
      on various matters listed in the bill;

      – the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Ownership of NBN Co has
      examined the Productivity Commission’s report; and

      – the Finance Minister has declared that, in his or her opinion, conditions are
      suitable for entering into and carrying out an NBN sale scheme (this
      declaration is disallowable, and takes effect only after the period for
      disallowance has passed)

      These, unfortunately are vague enough that it COULD be gotten around, with a vague PC conclusion. However, the same legislation states that it MUST provide wholesale only, open access network. This is legislated and must be taken to Senate to change. This is the ONE thing from protecting NBNCo from being FORCED to build an FTTN, as an FTTN is difficult to make wholesale only. However, that doesn’t stop them declaring “the NBN is built (as they want it to be as is)” and therefore being able to sell it and get Telstra to build the FTTN.

    • Ully,

      It may be possible to side step outright sale of NBNco and thus sidestep the legislation that covers outright sale. What it may mean is directing NBNco to issue shares to the extent that the government then loses effective control.

  27. I personally believe it would be easy to demonstrate greater benefit over cost (in a cost/benefit report).
    I can only think Labor were nervous any report might throw an inadvertent spanner in the works, or turn out to be short sighted and simplistic in terms of benefits.

    The whole capitalist society experience teaches us that you can’t compete with cheap manufacturing (first Japan, then Taiwan, now China and Vietnam). therefore, developed societies need to take advantage of creativity and technology. Thins under developed societies can’t afford to do initially.
    There are vast areas of Australia that are undeveloped and therefore under performing because of 20th Century infrastructure.
    Why can’t Esperance become a world centre for animation, or movie post production? Ans: because the whole town is probably struggling with 1Mbps internet connections.

    • Muso,

      Entering into the whole cost/benefit thing merely gives credence to the assertion that the NBN is (like a road) an item of spending, without direct return. Because cost-benefit analysis is precisely what you do do if you’re spending money but there’s only indirect return. The NBN doesn’t do this – it actually gets a direct return. So unfortunately, as much as I’d like to see more studies into the indirect return on the NBN (which is a bonus since its already paying for itself), the politics is such that this can’t be done now.

      • If the NBN pays for itself in terms of direct positive economic returns (to the entity itself), it would pass a cost benefit with flying colours. There would be absolutely no need to quantify indirect benefits to other sectors of the economy (in terms of the “benefits” part of the cost benefit equation).

        This is Conroy’s Contradiction:

        Labor’s NBN would be the first infrastructure project in world history to struggle to pass a conventional cost benefit analysis, but yet is guaranteed to be profitable in itself.

        That’s like saying an elephant will fit though the door of an English cottage but will struggle through the gates of Buckingham Palace.

        l challenge any member of Conroy’s illustrious staff or policy advisors to resolve this contradiction.

        • It would be easy.

          First of all you use a poor analogy. Secondly, you totally ignore the key word in the sentence “conventional”.

          If the cost analysis went beyond the obvious, then it would more than likely pass the test.

          Why don’t we run a cost benefit analysis on say the defence budget. After all, it cost billions. Shouldn’t we attempt to check whether these billions are spent wisely?

          Perhaps, instead of challenging Conroy’s staff, you should challenge Malcolm Turnbull to produce a fully detailed and costed policy. After all, the time to justify the NBN has passed given Malcolm Turnbull’s professed pledge to continue it.

          The issue now is no longer is the NBN justified but whether the opposition policy is better in terms of outcomes and cost. This, however, can only be done by going beyond the slogans.

          • “If the cost analysis went beyond the obvious, then it would more than likely pass the test.”

            You completely fail to understand the simple point that l made.

            A conventional cost benefit analysis takes into account both direct benefits and indirect (or less obvious) benefits. If the NBN pays off the costs with direct benefits alone (i.e. it is profitable), there would be no need whatsoever to consider the indirect benefits. Passing a cost benefit would be fait accompli for a profitable infrastructure project.

            “the time to justify the NBN has passed”

            How can this be so when Labor’s NBN has never been subject to a proper cost benefit, and NBNco continues to flounder by missing key deadlines, bungling or repeatedly scrapping tender arrangements and failing to anticipate obvious project execution risks?

            “whether the opposition policy is better in terms of outcomes and cost. This, however, can only be done by going beyond the slogans.”

            No, this can only be done by immediately commissioning the Productivity Commission to conduct a fully independent inquiry into the various points of contention about the NBN. This is precisely the raison d’être of the Productivity Commission.

          • “A conventional cost benefit analysis takes into account both direct benefits and indirect (or less obvious) benefits. If the NBN pays off the costs with direct benefits alone (i.e. it is profitable), there would be no need whatsoever to consider the indirect benefits. Passing a cost benefit would be fait accompli for a profitable infrastructure project.”

            Indirect and less obvious have different meanings.

            The causal chain is much more insidious that you obviously can imagine. Furthermore, some future benefits are beyond our present knowledge. Lastly, if the NBN pays for itself, then there is no need to have a cost benefit analysis at all.

            “No, this can only be done by immediately commissioning the Productivity Commission to conduct a fully independent inquiry into the various points of contention about the NBN. This is precisely the raison d’être of the Productivity Commission.”

            Try again. This is no longer about points of contention. This is about one approach being favoured by the opposition and proposed to be a replacement. The Productivity Commission is not there to verify the opposition’s claims. The Australian public should be the ultimate judge of whether the solution proposed by the liberals is an improvement on the current state of affairs. How they proceed, how will it funded, who would get what are highly relevant qyestions.

            Surely if the opposition has a better solution, you would think that by now they would be eager to tell us how so. After all, the government is highly unlikely to copy their policy. So let’s not talk about a cost benefit analysis, let’s talk about a cost benefit comparison. Now that would be useful. Then, those of us who are not enamoured with political ideology can decide what is best for us as a nation (not necessarily as individuals).

          • “The causal chain is much more insidious that you obviously can imagine.”

            “insidious”? How can economic benefits be “insidious”?

            “Furthermore, some future benefits are beyond our present knowledge.”

            How is that relevant to the point l made that an infrastructure project that is shown to be profitable in itself would ace a simple cost benefit as a simple matter of logic?

            How do you reconcile Conroy’s contradictory assertions that Labor’s NBN would struggle to pass a cost benefit, yet is guaranteed to be profitable?

            “The Australian public should be the ultimate judge of whether the solution proposed by the liberals is an improvement on the current state of affairs.”

            Oooh, l very much look forward to Nov 2013.

            “Surely if the opposition has a better solution, you would think that by now they would be eager to tell us how so.”

            They have many times, you just choose to ignore it.

            “So let’s not talk about a cost benefit analysis, let’s talk about a cost benefit comparison.”

            A Productivity Commission inquiry into the NBN would in the natural course of affairs examine the relative cost benefit of FTTN vs FTTP amongst other matters.

            “Then, those of us who are not enamoured with political ideology can decide what is best for us as a nation (not necessarily as individuals).”

            Then why are tech fora disproportionately populated by individual posters from small regional towns clamouring for stupidly expensive and unaffordable regional fibre rollouts?

          • “How is that relevant to the point l made that an infrastructure project that is shown to be profitable in itself would ace a simple cost benefit as a simple matter of logic?”

            Being profitable to the point of paying for itself isn’t necessarily enough to pass a CBA (from a business perspective). That is why it’s relevant to the point you made.

            A country isn’t (or shouldn’t) be in it to make a profit, the fact that it will pay for itself in the end should be enough. As far as I can tell, the opposition doesn’t seem to see it that way.

          • “Being profitable to the point of paying for itself isn’t necessarily enough to pass a CBA (from a business perspective).”

            Yes, it is most definitely a sufficient condition to pass a cost benefit.

            (Not a necessary condition though because economic benefits that do not accrue directly to NBNco are also factored into a cost benefit analysis.)

            It is absurd to argue, like Conroy, that an elephant will squeeze through the door of an English cottage but struggle to pass through the gates of Buckingham Palace.

          • “A country isn’t (or shouldn’t) be in it to make a profit…”

            +1 Justin.

            Something sadly ignored by the anally conservative, who’s alternative of paid subsidies would surely, ironically cost us all more anyway :/

          • “Then why are tech fora disproportionately populated by individual posters from small regional towns clamouring for stupidly expensive and unaffordable regional fibre rollouts?”

            Really? Got some statistics on that?

          • “insidious”? How can economic benefits be “insidious”?

            Please don’t try to change what I said. They are many unpredictable unintended consequences to intended events. Therefore, some benefits may emerge that are not obvious now because we fail to understand the dynamic nature of societal actions.

            “How is that relevant to the point l made that an infrastructure project that is shown to be profitable in itself would ace a simple cost benefit as a simple matter of logic?”

            The point there tiger is that it would make ever more beneficial.

            How do you reconcile Conroy’s contradictory assertions that Labor’s NBN would struggle to pass a cost benefit, yet is guaranteed to be profitable?

            Again, avoiding the key word “convenional”. Nice try , though!

            “Oooh, l very much look forward to Nov 2013.”

            off course you do. This, however, will only be relevant to my point if the opposition give an honest and fully detail plan.

            “They have many times, you just choose to ignore it.”

            They have shown nothing to ignore. Slogans are not fully detailed policies.

            A Productivity Commission inquiry into the NBN would in the natural course of affairs examine the relative cost benefit of FTTN vs FTTP amongst other matters.

            Says who? You?

            Then why are tech fora disproportionately populated by individual posters from small regional towns clamouring for stupidly expensive and unaffordable regional fibre rollouts?

            Careful, your true colours are starting show. I am sure you political allies, the nationals would love your comment.

            I realise it is difficult for someone with such strong political views to accept that some of us don’t give the proverbial about the politics but look at the bigger picture.

          • @John

            “Surely if the opposition has a better solution, you would think that by now they would be eager to tell us how so.”

            They have many times, you just choose to ignore it.”

            I ask one question. If you can’t answer it, I’m not interested in debating with you, because you are obviously peddling mistruths and are only interested in the conservative viewpoint.

            What % of people in Australia will get FTTN?

            Just that. If you can answer that, to even within 5%, with evidence to back it, I will believe you have something relevant to add rather than simply ignoring the fact that the Coalition plan HAS NO DETAILS and is therefore NOT A PLAN.

  28. I really want the NBN, and really want the Coalition in government.

    I will vote Labor though, purely because I know I will receive FTTP that way, if the Coalition could come right out and say, we wont change anything, they would have my vote.

    I still don’t trust the Coalitions Shadow Minister can do an effective job on our nations broadband when he has come right out and said “I can do everything I need to on the internet, on my IPAD” over 3g… with a tiny download limit.

    Advice to the Coalition,
    At least have a Shadow Minister for broadband that actually uses the internet, thanks.

    NT resident.

    • What I question about MT’s ‘support’ of the NBN. The Liberals cChanging the rules.

      I live in Wollongong (hence the Gong part of my tag), which for the Illawarra as a whole has a population of around 500k. One exchange is being upgraded to NBN as we speak, two or 3 others are due to start ‘in the next 12 months’ .

      Two are actually starting this month and next, so should be completed before the 2013 election. Not sure about the 3rd, if there is a 3rd. On top of all that, you have the Kiama exchange which was part of the original rollout.

      I dont have any problems with any of that – even if they arent finished come election time, their rollout wont change.

      Where I do have a problem is what could happen with the rest of the Illawarra. All the remaining exchanges, bar one, are slated to commence ‘within the next three years’ – part of the Labor contracts currently in place.

      What happens to them? If you believe the Lib’s when they say they will honor all existing contracts, then great, that SHOULD mean they get FTTH. If you interpret their policy that those exchanges will be downgraded to FTTN, then they are behind at least 4 other exchanges in the region. And decades away from being on par.

      My fear is that both will happen. The contract will be honored, in that something will start within 3 years, but it will be altered so they only get FTTN.

      The last region has no timetable, so who knows what will happen to them. Will they get FTTN, FTTH, wireless, dialup,…?

      • To GongGav,
        if in doubt vote Labor.
        If you vote for the other mod, you could get it all, part but most likely the finger.

  29. I think its about time we played one party off again the other, so first party who guarantees me a HTTP and a free car gets my vote.

    Labor has already offered me the HTTP part, come on Malcolm step up to the plate.

  30. In the light of the call for a PC cost benefit analysis, it is very interesting to read Productivity Commission’s vision of a decade ago, articulated on page 4 here:
    http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/25354/telecommunications2.pdf

    It should be noted that the government of the day explicitly excluded Telstra structural separation as a consideration of this PC inquiry.

    But the first point the PC articulates is that the focus of the regulatory regime must be on outcomes for consumers, not the support of incumbents.

    The fact is that in Australia today, because of copper ownership, FTTN supports Telstra, whereas FTTP supports consumers. This is why the NBN is the right universal broadband infrastructure.

Comments are closed.