Release your NBN plan already, Conroy tells Turnbull


news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy this afternoon demanded his opposite Malcolm Turnbull release the Coalition’s rival National Broadband Network policy, after the Liberal MP admitted to the Financial Review newspaper this morning that the policy was “ready”.

The newspaper this morning quoted Shadow Communications Minister Turnbull as stating that the Coalition had a fully costed policy document “ready” to be released, based along similar lines as the fibre to the node rollout currently being implemented in the UK. Turnbull also slammed certain “specialist technology journalists” who he said were “fanning a pro-NBN zealotry among tech-savvy citizens”.

In a follow-up statement release this morning, Conroy called on Turnbull to stop “hiding” from the Australian people and release the Coalition’s broadband plan. “In an interview with the Australian Financial Review, Mr Turnbull says ‘we do have our policy ready’,” Conroy said. “If that is the case, what is the hold-up? Instead of accusing Australian IT journalists of being NBN-zealots, he should reveal his plan in detail.”

Conroy said Turnbull had identified British Telecom as the model for Coalition policy. However, in doing so, the Communications Minister alleged, Turnbull had ignored the fact that BT is a vertically integrated incumbent telco — like Telstra in Australia. “Is his plan to get Telstra to build a fibre to the node network and give Telstra back its monopoly?” Conroy asked. “Or is he planning to have NBN Co buy back Telstra’s ageing copper network, with its estimated $1 billion annual maintenance bill and establish a new government monopoly called Network Co?”

Conroy further questioned whether Turnbull’s rival NBN policy relied on the use of the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus, as the Liberal MP had stipulated in the past. “How will he ensure these networks are upgraded to be open access, are connected to apartment blocks, and can provide business grade services?” asked Conroy. “What year will Mr Turnbull finish the Coalition’s FTTN network? Will it only be finished in 2020, as predicted by Goldman Sachs? It is time Mr Turnbull came clean and released the Coalition’s broadband plans for public scrutiny.”

The Gillard Government’s current NBN policy being implemented by NBN Co predominantly focuses on using a fibre to the home rollout in which cables are deployed from centralised points (usually telephone exchanges) all the way to home or business premises around Australia. The Coalition’s rival plan appears to focus on using fibre to the node-style technology, in which fibre is deployed from telephone exchanges to neighbourhood cabinets or ‘nodes’, with the remaining distance to premises to be closed by the existing copper cable.

In the UK, BT is using a FTTN-style deployment to provide speeds of up to 80Mbps to two-thirds of UK premises by the end of 2014. Some areas are also being upgraded to FTTH infrastructure on demand.

The comments by Turnbull and Conroy today come as Turnbull has faced new criticism of his plan by prominent business and finance commentator Alan Kohler, who in an article yesterday argued that the Coalition’s rival National Broadband Network policy was unworkable, as the Government’s existing fibre to the home-based NBN project would be too far advanced to stop before the next Federal Election and that the Coalition’s fibre to the node-based alternative would require negotiations with Telstra which would see the balance of power overwhelmingly shifted to Telstra’s side of the table.

Turnbull fired back at Kohler yesterday, describing his comments as “pure fantasy”. However Kohler published a follow-up article today entitled “Sorry Malcolm, it’s still crazy”, and continuing to argue that the Coalition’s rival NBN policy was unworkable.

The news also comes as Turnbull’s office has not responded to a list of questions regarding the Coalition’s FTTN plans forwarded to it last month, following a fact-checking exercise conducted by Delimiter into an article Turnbull published in July strongly pushing for the potential for the NBN project to be modified to focus on fibre to the node technology instead of its current fibre to the home rollout.

At the time, a consensus had appeared to develop amongst those commenting on the National Broadband Network project on Delimiter that Turnbull needed to provide more evidence that Fibre to the Node is the best style of broadband infrastructure rollout for Australia’s long-term telecommunications needs. The questions were:

  • What international examples of FTTN-style broadband deployments do you consider most pertinent to the Australian situation, and why?
  • How long do you estimate it would take, if the Coalition wins the next Federal Election, to deploy FTTN to more than 90 percent of the Australian population?
  • What, specifically, do you estimate would be the cost difference between deploying FTTN and FTTH as part of the NBN rollout?
  • Do you consider it possible to re-work the current Telstra/NBN contract to focus on FTTN instead of FTTH, and how long do you estimate this would take?
  • What broad details of this contract would need to change, and how long do you anticipate the ACCC would take to approve a modified version?
  • Do you have a long-term plan to upgrade a FTTN-style network to a FTTH-style network, or a medium-term plan to allow ad-hoc upgrades of this network to FTTH?
  • What do you consider to be the time frame on which a FTTN-style network would continue to be used without an upgrade to FTTH? Will there, in fact, be a need to upgrade in the long-term to FTTH? On what evidence do you have these beliefs?
  • How would you address the claim that FTTN is a short to medium-term technology that will be superceded over the next several decades by FTTH, and that Australia should only be investing for the long-term when it comes to this kind of telecommunications infrastructure? On what evidence do you feel this way?

It’s hard not to agree with Conroy that Turnbull should publish the Coalition’s rival NBN policy, if it has developed one and had it fully costed already. It is very hard to meaningfully debate the Coalition’s position on the issue without knowing what it is; and it is important that issue be debated at length before the next Federal Election. The differences in the two sides of politics’ broadband policies was a key deciding factor in the previous 2010 Federal Election, according to a study conducted by the Liberal Party into the results.

Image credit: NBN Co


  1. Yup. Put your facts and figures where your mouth is Malcolm. Enough mealy-mouthed rhetoric is enough mealy-mouthed rhetoric.

    If your plan is better, put it out there so we can debate it honestly.

    Show us some testicular fortitude.

  2. Looking forward to seeing the massive #fil on Turnbulls effort. and not looking forward to the 2GB/Bolt etc reports talking (lying) it up over the NBN

  3. Watch out Renai and Michael, you’re showing your zealotry. How dare you actually try to question Lord Turnbull and his FTTN gift from the gods.

        • @Bob
          LOL… or better “Duke of Earl of Wentworth” (with ref to the Gene Chandler/The Four Tops classic “Duke of Earl” :)
          Could be on to something here… it would be a geat ring tone for Malcolm’s smart/dumb phone and even better (if your read the lyrics below) a great theme song should he have a tilt at the Leadership position of the Libs… watch out Abbott.. I can only think of Abbott & Costello skits :)

          Duke Of Earl lyrics

          Duke of Earl
          (E. Dixon, E. Edwards Sr., B. Williams)
          Gene Chandler (Eugene Dixon) & The Dukays
          Pop Chart #1 Jan. 13, 1962
          Vee Jay Records single #416
          (original master Nat Records
          (Bill Sheppard & Carl Davis producers)
          Album: Golden Hits Vol. 11
          Compose Records 9048-2 (1989)

          Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
          Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
          Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
          Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl

          Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
          Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
          Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
          Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl

          As I-I walk through this world
          Nothing can stop The Duke of Earl
          And-a you, you are my girl
          And no one can hurt you, oh no

          Yes, a-I, oh, I’m gonna love you
          Oh, oh
          Come on let me hold you, darling
          ‘Cause I’m the Duke of Earl
          So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah and

          And when I hold you
          You’ll be my Dutchess
          Dutchess of Earl
          We’ll walk through my Duke-dom
          And a paradise we will share

          Yes, a-I, oh, I’m gonna love you
          Oh, oh, nothing can stop me, now
          ‘Cause I’m The Duke of Earl
          So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah



          Yeah, I
          Oh, I’m gonna love you
          Nothing can stop me, now
          ‘Cause I’m the Duke of Earl
          So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

          So, whoa, whoa, ho-whoa


      • It’s actually ‘Lord Turnbull of Wentworth’.

        Well, he seems to think it’s an hereditary peerage…

  4. To be fair, and as an avid NBN supporter, I still think it’s a bit rich for Conroy to call on the opposition to release its policy, when the Labor government has a track record of sitting on reports while it considers what to do with them.

    I predict that the opposition policy won’t see light of day until as close to the election as possible – I’d go so far as to venture that we won’t see it this year. That way, while all the keyboard warriors box at shadows, the coalition strategists are reading it to carefully, and using it craft messages designed to hit a home run with the anti-NBN crowd.

    • True. But does the labor government stand on a pulpit calling everyone zealots for disagreeing with the contents of reports it hasn’t released yet?

    • Predictions are all very well. But we vote, we are entitled to ask and we are untitled to draw our own confusions when we get no or inadequate answers.

    • Caesar…

      In 2007 when the now opposition were last in government, the then Rudd opposition released it’s initial NBN plan months prior to the Howard government’s.

      Interestingly when the Howard governmnet did release theirs (OPEL), they said they would do it “cheaper and sooner than Labor’s fraudband”.

      Ironically they were calling FttN – fraudband and are now using the same catchcry of cheaper and faster (faster being an even sneakeir word than sooner in BB terms) in relation to their very own FttN (fraudband) plan :/

  5. Malcolm: “We have the most amazing broadband plan…it will cost half as much for connecting, you will be able to double the budget for roads and hospitals, and it will be done in 18 months…trust me”

    Pro-NBN Zealot Journo: Sounds good, tell us about how it works…

    Malcolm: “How DARE you doubt my word…you will have the details after we are elected…”

    • My money on the excuse being something like:

      “We cant release the plan and budgeting yet, because we dont know far much further in debt Australia will be until after next years budget. To release details now would be fundamentally irresponsible. All I can say is that it will be cheaper, faster, and better.”…

    • You blokes are forgetting about Tony Abbott’s involvement in all of this and I have discovered Tony Abbott’s vision:

      “there will be no #NBN under the government I lead
      Luv Tony”

        • lol, I pinched it from a twitter post I made the other day. :-D

          But in answer to your question, no i dont. :-p

      • I’m speculating but it’s worth noticing that Tony Abbott’s popularity is as low as the Prime Minister’s. Both of them could be gone by the time the election rolls around and MT may have to change his position entirely (Politics being politics and the NBN being popular with the electorate and I imagine swing voters).

        This could be another reason he’s hesitant to nail his (well Abbott’s really) colours to the mast…

  6. MT wont release it because he knows it is crap, the longer he can sit on it, the less time there will be to scrutinize it!

  7. Every government calls for the opposition to release policy well before the election and no opposition does it. This is just politics.

    Whilst the copper does have ~$1bn pa in maintenance costs it also has ~$2bn in revenue.

    You could ask Turnbull how long it will take to create the Network Co (if that’s how he goes) and get it to a position where it could start any network upgrade. I think about 3 – 5 years.

    afaik the main difference in the Telstra deal is that instead of paying to decommission copper and lease ducts from the exchange to the customer the NBNCo would need to pay to decommission copper and lease ducts from the exchange to the node and lease copper from the node to the customer. That’s not a massive change but it is Telstra on the other side of the table.

    • Telstra: “We have a binding contract to lease the duct all the way to the customer. How much more are you willing to pay to lease the copper on top of that?”

      Liberals, meet barrel. Get used to being over it.

      • Telstra will be bending the Libs over the barrel as they have nothing to threaten Telstra with!

    • CMOTDibbler, that $2bn in revenue that the copper network generates in line rental is a prime example of why telecoms is expensive in Australia, and is effectively forcing down the productivity of every single business in Australia that uses the copper network. Trumpeting the higher revenue due to line rental from the copper network fits the broken window economic fallacy to a tee.

      A few days ago, there was a report that said NBN could save $700m per year in maintenance. In other words, NBNco could charge $1bn in total line rental, and everyone comes out ahead – NBNco having a higher rate of return, businesses and residences pay less for a more capable network. What is there not to like?

  8. It’s hard out there for a zealot.

    I mean, I want to be a zealot for my main man Malcolm, and his dream of modest, responsible government. But how can I, when he gives us so little to go on?

    If a tech-head wants to feast their tech-hungry eyes on something, they must subsist on an NBN-heavy diet. Corporate Plans – yum yum! Rollout maps – delicious! Mike Quigley’s PowerPoint slides – mmmmm!

    Malcolm’s Responsible Rollout Restaurant across the way always has those “OPENING SOON!” signs up, but there’s nothing I can snack on, let alone devour to sate my hunger.

    Until that changes, Conroy’s juicy NBN steaks are the only thing on the menu. Yes, you have to wait for a seat, but boy are they well done!

  9. The NBN was the deciding factor in the 2010 election… You would think that they (Liberals) would have stuck their heads down and made the NBN a major issue in the next election considering it won the last election.

    • Except that they have this belief of a God given right to govern. And if they are in opposition that it is not for more than a term.

  10. “Mr Turnbull said the UK’s policy meant its network would be rolled out to two-thirds of the country, or 18 million households, by the end of 2014 for £2.5 billion ($3.7 billion). Even given geographic differences, he said that represented much better value than the Australian plan.”

    Yes in the same way that building a smaller mine costs less and generates less revenue than a big one…

    So lets drill down into the BT plan if that’s his benchmark..

    BT took a year to get from announcement to to active trial, plus whatever time it took for internal planning. I don’t see how the first trial sites would be active before 18 months. That means 18 months of going back at to a snails pace in place of a full throttle FTTH rollout.

    Then you get to the cost to the consumer. BT is materially cheaper with it’s 42,000 odd cabinets and entry level plans with voice starting at AUD$43 but the price difference blurs if you’re using VOIP (which seems fairly obvious you would when on reliable fibre).

    But lets say it’s about 25% cheaper for arguments sake when the base level local plans with voice would be about AUD$49.

    Obviously the BT prices factor in the lower build costs and government subsidies. How much of that 25% difference is going to be eaten up by the Australian geography, lack of government subsidy, and all the additional overhead of switching between FTTH and FTTN mid contracts?

    At the bottom end the plans might be marginally cheaper, and at the top end the can be a lot cheaper but not nearly as good, and in the long run it gets financially written down over 20 years instead of the NBN’s FTTH’s 40.


    • A builder is in the market for a new truck. Which does he buy, a Great Wall or a Toyota Hilux? Which is the more responsible purchase, the one costing more but lasting longer, or the cheaper one that will be replaced sooner?

      • Depends on the revenue you can make from said truck and the depreciation involved.
        (and the effect any unknown asbestos recalls can have)

        • Well, nobody’s really sure what a Great Wall can put up with, but Top Gear has shown the world what a Hilux can go through.

          Dont worry, this is just my analogy of the week. Next week I’ll think of something else…

  11. MT’s plan will COST Australians $20B (with no return on that money), while the NBN will give Australians a RETURN of $2.6B.

    So much for the Libs being the financially responsible party :/

    • This little detail says it all.

      They want to spend my tax money.
      Well after seeing how much i get taxed after starting to earn just a little bit more… Yeah the LNP is not getting my vote, no way. I don’t need the gov spending any more money than they need to be.

      Why they want to spend money when the NBNCo plan will not affect how much I need to be taxed… no idea at all. Oh that’s right, this is politics… where spending money to do something worse can possibly be better than making a profit to do something better, and ignoring the fundamentals of accounting is considered to be OK.

    • In my mind I’m trying to create a list of costs on both sides – it was something like this but I would appreciate any clarifications:

      MT’s FTTN plan
      Build cost ~$16B (Citi report from early this year or late last year)
      NBN dollars already spent or committed (including Telstra and Optus deals) ~ $16B (NBNCo)
      We’re already near $30B and you have to add:
      Higher maintenance / operational costs for FTTN over FTTP
      Renegotiation of Telstra contract ($’s above existing amount)
      Ongoing subsidies for services to rural/uneconomic areas
      Telstra profit tax
      Future upgrade to FTTP. Either from FTTN foundation with higher operating costs or a total replacement

      NBNCo plan
      No ongoing tax payer subsidy.
      Great asset providing dividends to our government (eventually). Anyone hating on Australia Post?
      Productivity benefits from a ubiquitous service
      Productivity benefits from a restricted growth in profits (not commercial) for the service.
      Best rural development scheme ever conceived

      I really can’t see how MT can produce a plan that will be significantly cheaper. All of the things he points to relating to BT don’t correspond to Australia’s situation. It’s mostly to do with Telstra. Surely any reasonable assessment of what to do will consider how much has been spent already that isn’t recoverable. Therefore MT’s plan has to be less than what is left of the NBNCo build price, not the original price.

      On a separate note, I’m fairly new to Delimiter and I’ve really enjoyed reading articles here and Renai’s stubborn adherence to factual journalism. It’s a great standard and one to hold up to the industry as a whole.

  12. The big question that needs to be asked of Mr Turnbull, is how did he create fully costed policy without his all important CBA. He has been banging on for a long time about how important a CBA is, and that Labor was letting taxpayers down having not done one before developing their policy. Now we find that Turnbull is doing exactly the same thing! What will be the point of doing a CBA after the election ( which was of dubious value anyway), now that he has his policy decided regardless.

    Secondly, does his fully costed policy include the cost of going from FTTN to FTTH as is happening else where in the world, and as will be required soon after his FTTN “upgrade”. Providing that differential would be the only real way we can match apples to apples in determining the best value. i.e matching FTTH to FTTH.

    • “The big question that needs to be asked of Mr Turnbull, is how did he create fully costed policy without his all important CBA. He has been banging on for a long time about how important a CBA is, and that Labor was letting taxpayers down having not done one before developing their policy. Now we find that Turnbull is doing exactly the same thing! What will be the point of doing a CBA after the election ( which was of dubious value anyway), now that he has his policy decided regardless.”

      A very valid point, which I have been wondering myself.

      • I had – (well, I’ve had several) – a Twitter debate with Malcolm some months ago about the CBA question, where I suggested if he wanted some more credibility to his plan, that he might like to have a CBA done on it.

        His response was: “we are in opposition and therefore do not have access to the Productivity Commission”.


        Because of course, the Productivity Commission is the only organisation in the world who can perform cost benefit analyses.


        • Yes, I have never understood why the Productivity Commission has to do it. We see plenty of studies done by consultants that would be capable of doing it. Why cant he engage one of those? More importantly, why isnt he getting it done before the election when it would actually be useful for him, in shaping policy, and for voters to be able to be fully informed before they consider his plan as part of their vote deciding process.
          The CBA has never been anything more than a political pointscoring tool for Turnbull. He has now shot himself in the foot on that front too. What happens if the CBA comes back with recommendations vastly different to Turnbulls fully costed policy? Certainly would make him look foolish (I strongly beleive this isnt likely to happen anyway because Turnbull will make the terms of reference for the PC such that they have to find in line with his policy – which is why I said the CBA was going to be of dubious value ayway)

    • Well, he doesn’t say how it’s been costed. He could’ve just whipped something up in Excel over the weekend.

  13. You know, In the last 5+ years, nothing has actually happened to improve broadband for the unconnected and the underconnected. The industry has frozen. I need to read this rag every now and then to be re-indoctrinated.

    • Umm. There’s a number of communities down here in Tas and elsewhere in Oz that would disagree with you.

      They had Sweet F#$% All before, and fibre now.

      I wouldn’t call that frozen.

    • You know, In the last 3 years, nothing has actually happened to improve broadband for me and someone else I know. The industry has frozen. I need to stop reading other rags then to stop being indoctrinated.


  14. I suggest everyone in the IT industry, everyone with a business, everyone who enjoys online games, everyone who enjoys fast downloads, everyone who likes to be able have more than 1 home user on the net at once, everyone who cares for the business and future prospects of this country in general to vote against the Liberal party at the next election because whatever these clowns deliver it will be a second rate service done incorrectly. They are living dinosaurs. Vote Labor and show them their BS doesn’t ware anymore, hurt them where it hurts most. Don’t look back at what could’ve been before they came in and wrecked it. Have the public been heard? oh yes i believe they will be once more.

  15. “In the UK, BT is using a FTTN-style deployment to provide speeds of *up to* 80Mbps”

    The upload speed is never mentioned. They never mention the upload speed.

    What I would like to know is the worst case FTTN speeds we could be stuck with for those living at the very edge of the node’s footprint. VDSL(2) transfer rates drop down very fast after the first 500 m. How many nodes must there be to guarantee even 50Mb/s down?

    My old ADSL2+ was *up to* 24Mb/s. Sadly I don’t live in the exchange but live at the very edge of its footprint.

    • VDSL2 Profile 17a can deliver a max speed of 100 Mbits/sec total up+down. Usually they split this to 80+20. Of course if you are 500 m away you only get 30+8.

      800m you only get ADSL2+ speeds. And any farther away there is no advantage in FTTN at all.

      • bubububu with line bonding and phantom menacing mode u can get 300MBPS!!! yay!!! Turnbull told me!!!

        Seriously though I wonder if the coalition clowns and their hapless apologists have even thought about ridiculous implications of rolling out a FttN patchwork. Once such a substandard FttN patchwork is in place every time someone suggests doing a proper job to FttH there will always be some “breakthrough” to refer to that improves the copper speed just a little bit and the clowns will say “it’s a waste! let’s just upgrade the nodes instead of rolling out fibre” So more money will be wasted here, the alternatives of course are do nothing or upgrade to fibre.

        Meanwhile we already have a well thought out plan that is future proof, one that anytime we need more speed we can just call up our ISP and change it and they want to take ten steps backwards just to satisfy their political egos.

        • “every time someone suggests doing a proper job to FttH there will always be some “breakthrough” to refer to that improves the copper speed just a little bit and the clowns will say “it’s a waste!”

          They will say it’s a waste because the speed improvement will not be enjoyed by or needed by everyone or will not be as big an improvement as it is between what we used to have in 2012. In other words, the “proper job” will not get done and folk will have a second rate service pretty much indefinitely.

          It’s paradoxical that because the speed improvement in going to fibre is so great it is seen as “too much”. Presumably the planners of the Harbour Bridge had a similar problem: “the ferries aren’t that inconvenient and the Bridge WILL cost a lot.”

          • FTTN will never be upgraded to FTTP in the same way that people upgraded from VHS to DVD, but few people upgraded to Bluray (at least until their DVD player dies, which also fits into this analogy).

            FTTP upgrade from FTTN will probably cost almost as much as FTTP from the onset anyway. Unless the FTTN was done in such a way that there is one fibre per 32 premises leading from the exchange to the nodes, but that won’t save much since that’s the easy part.

    • Does anyone know how much copper wire will need replacing or improving for users to get VDSL? Malcolm?

      • I’m going to follow MT’s lead and highlight the best case scenario: none of it .

        – it never rains again
        – houses on the worst of the copper get swallowed up by micro black holes

        • Further assumptions:

          1) Competition will cause companies to fall over each other to fix black spots and poor connections.

          2) Wireless will fill all black spots with service superior to FTTP. Advances in technology will allow contention ratios of 1:1 and a 5 nanosecond latency to the other side of the planet.

          • Infrastructure based competition, how does that even work? Please inform me because I an seriously confused with how this concept will lower prices.

            Does every household have a combination of FTTP, FTTN, Wireless, HFC running past them from each and every ISP? This is an ideal that can never be reached like the business equivalent of frictionless surfaces in first year physics.

            Will each ISP just choose where to invest? Densely populated areas will have competition, less dense areas will get local monopolies (I don’t want Telstra, guess I have to move house). Rural gets dial-up. This is how the current wireless industry does it in Australia and it’s pretty inefficient. Also see America, where the guy across the street doesn’t get cable.

            Why is Turnbull still touting on about infrastructure based competition when he has said that the Coalition will continue with the NBN business model, a regulated natural monopoly?

          • “Infrastructure based competition, how does that even work? ”

            In the real world if FttN is rolled out that is what you’ll be stuck with for a every long time until(if) the private sector decides to roll-out fibre to your premise. That’s “infrastructure based competition”.

            This is why I find Turnbull’s disingenuous whining about the slow progress of the NBN so laughable. People will get fibre eventually with the NBN but without it they’ll be waiting at least that long or the alternative they simply wont get it at all.

      • Motorola’s E1 Power Broadband VDSL product – (designed for hotel internet systems) – will give you “up to” 70Mbps in perfect copper conditions in the walls of the building, with cable distance of about 200 metres.

        Expect VDSL in moisture sensitive underground pits and pipes to be less successful.

        There will be a lot of copper that needs to be replaced. ADSL only requires one wire in your copper pair to be viable to carry an ADSL service on the line. As a matter of course when you have ASDL provisioned, both wires are tested, and the “best” one of the two is chosen. It is not uncommon that *both* are not declared viable to carry a DSL signal.

        Much like SHDSL, VDSL requires both wires to be viable.

        Malcolm will relaying a lot more copper than I suspect he realises.

        • “Malcolm will relaying a lot more copper than I suspect he realises.”

          Will he tell us how much he “realises” now? It is surely one of the most important aspects of gis Grand Vision.

          From last night’s Landline:

          “So … but the point, Emma, is this. I’m not suggesting that fibre to the premises will never be economically viable. I mean, I don’t have a crystal ball. Stephen Conroy can talk about “future-proofing”; I’ve been involved in technology too long to know that you can’t future proof against anything. We don’t know what will be available in 10 years time.”

          Is it fari to say to be deployable in 10 years it at least needs to be on the horizon now?

  16. If 2010 is anything to go on, the coalition will announce their policy on the Sunday prior to the election. And hand votes to the cross benches again.

  17. More hot air from the Labor NBN department, aka Delimiter. Your analysis consists of regurgitating Labor or NBN press releases or bashing the Coalition. The sense of self entitlement to a taxpayer funded NBN is profound.

    There is going to widespread depression around here after the next election. But taxpayers will be much better off.

    • “bashing the Coalition”

      Boo hoo? Grow a spine. I know facts can be really inconvenient sometimes, cant they?

      “sense of self entitlement to a taxpayer funded NBN is profound”

      Tell us that “tax” money should be going to health and roads. I dare you.

      “There is going to widespread depression around here after the next election.”

      Well that all depends on who wins the next election doesn’t it. If labor win then yes you can continue your whiny depressed comments like a diseased donkey and we will continue to laugh at you but if on the other hand the coalition clowns get in (which is what you are assuming and implying) then all you’ll get from us is a heap of “I told you so” lines.

      Thanks for stopping by!

  18. Go Get em Conroy

    Its about time the liberal parties village idiot (and Turnbull) put some substance on the table.
    They keep criticising the NBN and they cant bring an adequate alternative to the table.

    Lets see this liberal party FTTN garbage so we can show the general public for what its worth, utter tripe, and that the best solution for australia with technology and long term future proofing of infrastructure is FTTH, not liberal party rubbish.

Comments are closed.