Fifield ignores evidence in angry NBN response

163

news Mitch Fifield has released a sharply worded response to detailed evidence showing Malcolm Turnbull’s version of the NBN has fallen behind on its rollout and is billions of dollars over its cost projections. However, the Communications Minister did not directly rebut the details of the evidence involved.

Late last week Labor published a detailed and referenced table which appears to conclusively show that the version of the NBN initiated by Malcolm Turnbull was behind on almost every measure by its own measurements, as well as having blown out in costs. The table compared the NBN company’s 2013 Strategic Review and current statistics.

labor-table

The construction of the Strategic Review was overseen by JB Rousselot, an executive appointed to the NBN company after Turnbull became Communications Minister. Rousselot has close links to Turnbull, having worked with the Member for Wentworth at a number of previous companies. The pair reportedly jointly own a yacht together.

Despite the inaccurate nature of the Strategic Review published in November 2013, in September this year it was revealed that Rousselot had received a bonus performance payment of $165,000 on top of his NBN salary. The bonus took his total salary to $1.04 million, according to the Daily Telegraph.

In a statement issued this afternoon, Fifield slammed what he said were “careless claims” being made by Shadow Communications Minister Jason Clare. Delimiter recommends readers download Fifield’s whole statement in PDF format here.

In his statement, Fifield said a number of claims made by Clare recently had been “extraordinary”, as they were “full of hot air and careless of the well-known facts”.

However, Fifield did not directly refute any of the details of the evidence presented by Clare in the Opposition’s financial and rollout timing table released last week. Instead, in his statement today, the Minister attacked a number of other statements made by Clare recently.

The situation mimics similar comments in an interview with Sky News yesterday. On that occasion, Fifield similarly refused to directly respond to claims about the cost of remediating Telstra’s copper network, but instead attacked Labor’s approach to the NBN.

Regarding Clare’s statement that as Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull had bought back the “old” copper and HFC cable networks owned by Telstra and Optus, Fifield said in today’s statement that the Government had not paid a single dollar more for the networks than Labor had under deals Labor had previously struck.

“In June 2011 it was the former Labor Government which oversaw binding deals with Telstra ($9 billion) and Optus ($800 million)  — to stop using these networks,” Fifield said. “Despite paying these companies to stop using their networks, Labor did not negotiate any rights for NBN Co to access or acquire this infrastructure.”

Labor’s plan had been to see the networks shut down and replaced with technically superior Fibre to the Premises architecture.

Fifield also attacked a statement by Clare that the Telstra and Optus deals were “both bad decisions made without proper due diligence”.

With respect to this claim, Fifield said the Coalition had an approach of using the copper and HFC cable networks to get high-speed broadband to Australians “quickly and cost-effectively”, compared with Labor’s slower FTTP rollout model.

The Minister said the NBN company’s 2016 Corporate Plan had forecast the cost per premises for the Coalition’s Fibre to the Node model at about $2,300, compared with a much higher per-premises cost of $4,400 for Labor’s FTTP model. For HFC cable connections, the cost is forecast to be lower again, about $1,800 per premises.

“The FTTP rollout took NBN about 15 months to get the first 1,000 premises connected. In the FTTN areas, it has taken just 51 working days to get 1,000 premises connected. By the end of this financial year, around 500,000 homes and business will be able to access this technology,” Fifield said.

The Liberal Senator also attacked Labor’s statements regarding what the cost of remediating Telstra’s copper network for FTTN. Leaked NBN documents have shown the estimated cost to be $641 million — a factor ten times higher than the Strategic Plan had estimated.

Fifield did not refute this cost figure directly. He said:

“All costs associated with upgrades, extensions and remediation work on the NBN fixed line network have already been accounted for within the 2016 Corporate Plan peak funding range that was released in August.”

“The Australian Labor Party is relying on inappropriately obtained and selectively misused internal working documents for its key claims despite these documents being out of date and unsourced.”

He also pointed out that the NBN company had stated that there was “no serious copper remediation required” in its FTTN deployment so far.

Finally, Fifield took aim at the release of other leaked NBN documents which appeared to show that Optus’ HFC cable network was not fit for use as part of the NBN.

“NBN has publicly confirmed its HFC trial in Queensland is proving to be a great success and that the key claims asserted regarding Optus’s HFC network are untrue,” the Minister said.

“There are 4,500 premises involved in the trial and users have been receiving speeds of around 100Mbps/40Mbps. NBN has not found any unexpected technical issues with the Optus network in the Redcliffe area.

“There was a simple explanation for the matters canvassed in the internal planning document. As any commercially-focussed business would, NBN Co thoroughly and regularly reviews its strategy and forward plans. Modelling a range of scenarios to determine where there are risks or potential cost savings is commonplace.”

“NBN also confirmed the unsourced material had not even been seen by the executive management yet the Labor Opposition continues to seek to carelessly peddle inaccurate claims, with disregard for the reputations of both Optus and NBN.”

opinion/analysis
I have nothing personally against Mitch Fifield — he is a highly competent Senator and Minister. I have, in fact, a great deal of respect for him in his professional capacity. I wish we had more level-headed and capable figures in the Parliament like Fifield. He rarely puts a foot wrong and does much to keep the Senate on track. He is proving to be a solid Arts Minister in his early days administering that field, quite aside from his role in the Communications portfolio.

However, I must apologetically note that in his detailed statement today, the Minister has simply not addressed the core claims made in the Opposition’s detailed table released last week. That table, using the NBN company’s own data, shows that that the version of the NBN initiated by Malcolm Turnbull is behind on almost every measure by its own measurements, as well as having blown out in costs.

Until the Minister or the NBN company can provide new information to refute Labor’s detailed and evidenced comparison table, we must consider that the table stands.

In this vein, Delimiter will shortly start to change the way that we report on the NBN under the Coalition Government. Previously, we have taken the general approach of reporting that Labor has claimed that the project has blown out in cost and is delayed, compared with the Coalition’s projected estimates.

From now, unless the Government provides evidence to the contrary, Delimiter will report as commonly accepted and referenced fact that the project has blown out in cost and is delayed.

This is a subtle difference, but a profound one. Claims made by any Opposition or minority party should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Labor obviously has a huge incentive to sledge the Government. And its own record with respect to the NBN is not spotless … it severely underestimated the size of the task.

But when one side of politics provides hard evidence of its claims, and the other does not refute them, it is another situation entirely. Labor has thrown down the gauntlet to the Government this week to show that it is keeping the NBN on track. Today’s response from Fifield really does not cut the mustard. If he wants to retain control of the narrative on the NBN, the Communications Minister must come down out of the clouds and respond with hard facts: Not the mere fighting words we’ve seen from him today.

Image credit (photo with Mel Gibson): Office of Minister Fifield

163 COMMENTS

  1. That the good thing about useing there own facts they can’t refute them. All they can do like others who comment on here is try to brush them aside and hope they don’t exist.

    Would have been real funny if they had put the FTTP $64Bprice rollout on it too.

  2. Us the consumers should be the angry ones. This government is hellbent on spending over $50 billion on a second rate piss poor pathetic excuse of a broadband network.

    Fifield has no right to be angry, us the tax payers have that right to be angry at them to continually screw us with a total fraud.

    • Personally I think calling it “2nd rate” is being too kind, there are 3rd world countries with better broadband infrastructure than what the crooked liberal party is delivering to Australia!

          • Don’t worry Derek Richard can’t even give us one ISP anywhere that delivers a min 25Mbps or a min 50Mbps on FTTN

          • @do your list is for Internet backbones.

            No one that has travelled to developing countries would make such a ridiculous statement.

          • @do nothing on your latest list doing “national FTTP”. Telkom SA fibre to a few cities, larger coverage using FTTN & LTE.

            I repeat anyone that has travelled in developing countries (including South Africa) would know the claim is absurd. Please stop.

          • Richard how about Turnbull claim to deliver a min 25Mbps on FTTN anyone that has travelled in develop countries would know that claim is absurd

          • No Richard…

            You see, these developing countries can see the advantages of having fibre, so as to pull themselves up…

            Whereas we have ultra-conservatives who yearn for the past, too stupid to see that without fibre, we are dragging our selves down.

          • @Rizz

            Unlike Reality, Richards problem isn’t that he’s a conservative, it’s that he’s an arch-capitalist. In the case of the NBN, they both want the same outcome, but for different ideological reasons.

            Both of them have little regard for society though, as both their ideologies see “society” as an enemy to their ideologies (no doubt you’ve seen them both make comments about “communists” and “socialists” before?).

          • I repeat anyone that has travelled in developing countries (including South Africa) would know the claim is absurd. Please stop.

            Just so it’s clear Richard, are you contending there are no large scale FTTP roll out going on in developing countries?

          • 34 out of the 47 counties of Kenya have been connected to the National Optical Fibre Backbone Infrastructure (NOFBI).

            Link Africa (formerly i3 Africa) announced plans to construct a FTTH network in South Africa covering 2.5 million premises in six cities (Durban, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, and Pretoria) by 2016 with minimum connection speeds of 100Mbit/s. The “open-access” network will allow third-party Internet service providers (ISPs) to sell services. Link Africa will not sell services directly to customers.[11] Telkom, South Africa’s primary fixed line operator, is currently conducting a 100Mbit/s FTTH trial and aiming to launch a commercial FTTH service in December 2014 for a limited number of areas.[12]

            Zimbabwe operator TelOne is rolling out FTTH.[14]

            Richard, the point is that FTTH is being chosen by even developing countries who can’t afford much at all. There is/was nobody doing a full national fibre rollout because of the insane amount of vested interests in the countries that are capable of doing so. Australia was the first country to announce a policy to completely re-do the national communications infrastructure to be fibre based. Yes, it was an ambitious project, but so was the copper network to begin with.

            And to add to that, the copper network was constructed a hundred years ago, without the help of modern technology. The opposition at the time wanted to use iron because it was marginally cheaper.. now we discover that iron couldn’t support ADSL – gee, lucky we ended up with copper, can’t imagine where Australia would be if we couldn’t even do ADSL.

          • Thanks Dylan, I decided I really couldn’t be bothered providing additional evidence as Richard rarely accepts it.

  3. Oh dear if in the future they are held accountable for lying, Fifield knows he’s been given the chalice to wear around his neck and bear the impact.
    Avoid answering question at all costs, repeat usual figures from notebook, rinse, repeat.

  4. It does seem like the FttN NBN is very much a Wizard of Oz trick. I guess that makes Malcolm the Wizard and the rest of them flying monkeys…

  5. “Fifield said in today’s statement that the Government had not paid a single dollar more for the networks than Labor had under deals Labor had previously struck.”

    A commercial entity with shareholders to please never gives anything away if it doesn’t benefit their bottom line! that the price was 0 for those networks obviously means it was costing them more than enough to want to offload it ‘for free’.

      • Oh I know, Just means we didn’t suddenly get a magically ‘for free’ anything out of this because the board would be in hot water if that was the case! (probably a bad choice of wording on my behalf).

        • Exactly.

          I’d hope there is a journo somewhere investigating it, as I really, really doubt Telstra would give anything away for free if they could wrangle even half a cent more out of something…

    • The terms of the two contracts were different weren’t they?
      I thought under Labor that Telstra was responsible for pit remediation.
      Under the LNP nbn now own the copper, but they are also responsible for pit remediation.

      For both contracts Telstra is paid for every customer migrated across to the NBN, and Telstra still own the pits?
      Happy to be informed either way.

        • He asked two questions, what is ‘spot on’, with links confirming what you allude to be ‘spot on’ is actually the case.

      • They also have to maintain the HFC network for Foxtel indefinitely… Yeah Fifield, you did better out of that deal *golf clap*

          • Foxtel pays a set amount as NBN can’t charge them more if the cost of maintaining the HFC goes up you forgot that.

          • What is the ‘set amount’ and why cannot it never go up, are you the author of the NBN Co FOXTEL contract?

          • Alain
            The set amounted is REDACTED. I would link the senate hearing to your second question as its part of the new agreement but it would have too many pages for you to read.

          • Jason K ak Rizz,

            “The set amounted is REDACTED.”

            lol when you cannot answer shove in a big word which has no bearing whatever in answer to the question and hope no one notices you don’t have a clue what FOXTEL are paying the NBN Co for HFC access and what the conditions are.

            ” I would link the senate hearing to your second question as its part of the new agreement but it would have too many pages for you to read.”

            Obviously it has too many for you to read also, so are you going to link or not, or is just saying you would link sufficient argument?

          • Alain
            The figures are redacted as NBN won’t release the cost becuase of commercial in confidence (big words for you I know).

            As to your second comment no I won’t link the senenate because you complained about how many pages the last one was (must not be enough pictures for you). And Don’t know how to use a word finder in a pdf document.

          • “when you cannot answer shove in a big word”

            Sorry, but you consider “redacted” to be a big word?
            It seems shorter than “the amounts have been inked over in black so that they cannot be known by anyone outside the legal teams of either company”…

          • Jason K,

            So we got there in the end, so the conclusion is you don’t have a clue what the FOXTEL agreement with the NBN Co is, how much they are paying and under what current and future conditions the payment is under.

            The back pedal has well and truly come off the bicycle for that Senate link eh?

          • Lol Alain
            Senator CONROY: At the last hearing of the committee, Mr Rousselot made the point that these rental payments are indexed to CPI. Is that correct?
            Mr Gallagher: Yes, correct.
            Senator CONROY: Any particular CPI, or just CPI?
            Mr Gallagher: Just CPI.
            Senator CONROY: Do these payments to Telstra increase over time in excess of CPI, to reflect the ageing nature of the infrastructure, for instance?
            Mr Penn: No, they do not. They increase with CPI.
            Senator CONROY: Even as the network runs down over the course of its life and requires more maintenance,
            as all things do, you do not pay more?
            Dr Warren: No. The way the licence payment works is it is CPI.
            Mr Penn: Costs plus CPI.
            Senator CONROY: It is fixed. If they have an increasing cost because it is an ageing asset that requires more work, it is incurred by them.
            Mr Penn: Correct.
            http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/2356143b-b3c8-48af-bca2-fdeb05f6e39c/toc_pdf/National%20Broadband%20Network%20Select%20Committee_2015_04_17_3395_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/2356143b-b3c8-48af-bca2-fdeb05f6e39c/0000%22

            Now can I still have that link where you claimed the pre election toon policy use HFC lol.

          • Jason K,

            This is what you said.

            ‘Foxtel pays a set amount as NBN can’t charge them more’

            Your copy & paste Q&A senate session shows it is not a set amount it increases with the CPI, thank you for that.

            Also as you are aware Foxtel is not the sole source of revenue on HFC infrastructure and therefore not the sole source of revenue that goes toward helping to maintain the HFC.

            The major source of revenue on HFC is BB, ISP’s pay the NBN Co tiered wholesale rates for use of the HFC for their customers.

          • Alain
            Lol you don’t know what cpi is lol

            So what your saying the customers on HFC will have to pay more to cover the cost that Foxtel won’t be paying when maintence cost rises great value for money right there.

          • How can you argue about this topic if you don’t understand the meaning of the word redacted? Or even understand a basic economic principle like CPI? This is outrageous.

          • That is what these people do Dylan, it’s known as spreading FUD in relation to the previous superior FttP roll out and sugar coating FttN/MTM/FRAUDBAND…

            There is really only one reason why they must do so..

          • Jason K, Rizz, Derek O (all the same person),

            “So what your saying the customers on HFC will have to pay more to cover the cost that Foxtel won’t be paying when maintence cost rises great value for money right there.”

            I know what the Consumer Price Index is, so when the CPI goes up which it does every year the HFC cost will rise accordingly, so it is not A SET AMOUNT.

            How do you know HFC maintenance costs will be higher than what the Foxtel agreement price is plus CPI, and it will have to be offset by increases to BB customers?

            It’s simple, you wouldn’t have a clue.

          • Alian / Reality / Resident_Delimiter_LibTroll_#1

            Just because I dont bother replying to most of your poor excuses for reasoning doesn’t mean I’m Rizz. Besides he puts a lot more effort into his posts than I usually put into mine, mainly because I cant be assed refuting most of your posts in detail or at all.

          • Alian
            Lol maintence cost rising with CPI lol that’s almost as good as your joke about the pre election policy using HFC.

            But Alain it’s simple that you really have no clue now like you did before when you claim they where using HFC in the pre election policy and the docu you links aid no such thing lol

          • Jason K, Rizz, Derek O, Hotcakes etc etc (the same person different tags),

            Keep on providing links that end up as own goals, it’s quite amusing, as if your arguments were not shallow enough, relying in the main on personal attacks and repetitive ranting.

          • Alain
            Lol it’s good to see your arguing with your self providing docs that support home goals lol Just don’t lose the argument. Much like you comment maintenance cost rises with CPI. Lol. If that was the case when then between the SR and CP16 has gone up by $4B by 2020. Will CPI go up by $4B more than it will by then.

            Lol and repeating back at you your own personal attacks is personal attacks on you lol

          • Hang on a minute. Telstra agreed to just hand over their copper and HFC networks and start paying to rent them back for not an extra cent?

            That seems really hinky, like fishy and stinky on behalf of Telstra. Exactly what was the business case for giving away your infrastructure to someone for free then agreeing to rent it back? Beggars belief.

          • Seriously…

            The best you have, to try to counter the FACTS in relation to the absolutely ABYSMAL FRAUDBAND (yes I’m shouting – you’re welcome) roll out and the associated massive cost and timeframe blow outs, to present to the Delimeter table alain is… Rizz, Jason, Derek (are the same person)… I think you missed someone? Darren maybe and what about R0nin and HC, they’ll (whoops I mean I’ll) feel left out?

            Jesus, how fucking old are you? 12… Sorry 12 and a half?

            :/unbelievable.. but again demonstrating why you were are and always will be the king of Delimiter bannings.

            You’re welcome again.

  6. Renai,

    Can you find any direct corroboration of the minister’s statement that Redcliffe HFC users are already receiving upload speeds of 40 Mbps?

  7. “The FTTP rollout took NBN about 15 months to get the first 1,000 premises connected. In the FTTN areas, it has taken just 51 working days to get 1,000 premises connected. ”

    I’m getting really tired of the LNP/their supporters claiming the first 2 years of the Labor rollout was even close to the same of the first 2 years of the LNP rollout… When did the LNP have to build an entire fiber backbone to support the NBN?

      • Longest FttN was in Valentine, Croudace Bay took 393 days(~13 months).
        Quickest activations were FttP (Welshpool, St James) at around 221 days(~7 months).

        Strange. Can’t work out how he got 51 days, unless he forgot to include things like planning and prep?

        • i think Labor and LNP live on different planets, where they length of the day is longer for LNP 51 days is 393 days on earth and making up numbers for the Strategic Review gets you a $165000 bonus when proved to be way off. i bet the upto $15billion is just for mates bonuses for this year

      • The same way they try and hide a $650m increase? Or a $15b blowout in the NBN? Or like how they spin the $33.7 billion deficit blowout as “Good economic management” on a “road trip”?

        Who knows with this mob, they couldn’t manage a chook raffle in a pub :/

        • Tinman_au,

          “The same way they try and hide a $650m increase?”

          It was incorporated in the CP 16, released in August, I and others found it ok , in what way was it hidden?

          “Or a $15b blowout in the NBN?”

          There isn’t a $15B blowout in the NBN.

          “Who knows with this mob, they couldn’t manage a chook raffle in a pub”

          But you deliberately misquoting figures and saying increases are hidden when they have been readily available in the public domain for four months is ok?

          • “There isn’t a $15B blowout in the NBN.”

            Right, it was an “up to” $15Bn blowout.

            Jeez Tinman, how dare you leave out the “up to” part, you’re such a deceptive guy!

          • It’s so easy to get it right, makes you wonder what the motivation is to get it wrong, of course it is to make it sound worse than it is because you have a FTTP agenda to push, the facts don’t get in the way.

          • Yes reality like that HFC claim of yours comes to mind lol how wrong where you there lol

          • @Reality, I will be incredibly surprised if this is the last blowout we will hear about….

          • Right, it was an “up to” $15Bn blowout.

            Jeez Tinman, how dare you leave out the “up to” part, you’re such a deceptive guy!

            True, my bad. How about I use “possibly $15b”…that allows for more room either was…based on past performance, I don’t think they are finished blowing out yet ;o)

          • @Reality

            It’s so easy to get it right

            Not for the LNP.

            Got the NBN wrong.
            Got the budget wrong.

            In fact, they just seem generally really bad at numbers…

        • But you deliberately misquoting figures and saying increases are hidden when they have been readily available in the public domain for four months is ok?

          Have they been honest about how much it will cost? No.
          Have they been honest about how long it will take? No.
          Did they do due diligence on the copper before they bought it? No.
          Did they do due diligence before they bought the HFC? No.
          Can they be trusted running the NBN? Not on past performance.
          Can they organise a chook raffle in a pub? No, I doubt it.
          Can they organise a root in a brothel….ok, I’ll give you that one, they could probably manage that one, they seem to be good a f@&king things…

  8. If you’re so angry Fifield, get Turnbull to initiate a ROYAL COMMISSION and let them decide who’s right and who’s you.

  9. They are all just a bunch of weak [censored] with no skills, no experience, and just sitting around lining up their next board of directors roll once they leave politics.

  10. Clearly all versions of the NBN have experienced cost and time blowouts. The policy is a disaster. Posting this from regional NSW, NBN was taken to the 2007 election yet poor Internet and 3G everywhere (private investment frozen out). Tens of billions suck into this dog.

    About the seventh article covering exactly the same leaked items (several mths old), all disclosed months ago in CP16 CPP. Forget the copper remediation costs (negligible) ask why a $70k node costs $190k to deploy and provision?

    Fairfax ran a few days ago yet another article with comments from fanboys Tucker, Budde and Gregory. Seriously thousands of FTTN customers, hundreds of HFC customers. Perhaps someone from the press gallery will actually get out of Canberra and speak to a few, alternatively request the NOC sync rates. Add an update of deployment v schedule.

    Thankfully someone is finally taking on the $800b for Optus HFC rubbish. My complaint to the ABC over their $11b to buy Telstra’s HFC network claim rejected after 2 months. NBN debate is for the financially innumerate.

    • So, because the figures were included in CP16 they don’t have to explain why they were so wrong in the SR?

      If those figures were so wrong in the SR, how can we trust the conclusions of the SR? How can we trust any of the other figures in the SR? How can the decision to go with the MTM be trusted?

      Sure, read whatever you want Richard, you always do, but the question is asked “WHY were the figures in the SR so wrong?” that is the point…

      • @r0 the figures in SR13 were wrong. CP16 used the experiences from trials. The Conroy’s expert panel figures were wrong, as were Quigley’s CPs. All of the above have been revised, re trust look to the actuals and compare to forecasts. Call out discrepancies.

        Sadly for the fanboys FTTN /HFC CPP will never be the same as FTTH. Give it up.

        Surprising though is the company continues to pay out millions in bonuses for these under-performers (with borrowed money underwritten by taxpayers.

        • Richard
          Wow SR13 figures were wrong who would have guess it lol. But every chance you got was to quote from then as gospel. Let’s look at how much FTTN was under estimated by $1000 FTTP over estimated by $1000.

          Quigley figures are only $500 difference from the CP16. Not like the $26B difference from the pre election policy to the CP16.

          Sadly the fanboys are still sticking to there MTM as the figures continually are wrong on price and roll out.

          Yes the same under performers rolling out the MTM lol. Considering the previous board wasn’t in it for the money. Eg Quigley donate his salary to medical research

          • @jk you’ve been making the false donation claim on a few sites. Quigley donated his first years salary to charity (better if he gave it back to taxpayers). Despite their failure to achieve any KPI management awarded themselves millions in bonuses (every year under his management).

          • So Richard is that like Turnbull false claim of 29B 2016 target or the SR false claim of $41B or like your false claim of the FTTP numbers in the CP16 are figure you wouldn’t use?

          • @ Richard..

            “Quigley donated his first years salary to charity (better if he gave it back to taxpayers).”

            And there it is, for all to see….

            That typical “fuck you leaner dogma” of the…I pay my taxes, lunatic fringe, greed driven, extreme right.

            NEWSFLASH – I pay my taxes too Richard…and when I see billionaires paying SFA it pisses me off…

            But whereas you’d prefer you the taxpayer get’s his money back (how about a nice juicy refund for Richard)… myself as an actual “human being with a conscience” isn’t pissed off at all, and happy to see my taxes (and/or Quigley’s kind donation) can go to a child with terminal cancer to make the most of their extremely sad short lives or to a person with a disability…

            Of course kids with cancer or people who are blind, in wheelchairs etc, are of no consequence to a high flying CIO, who ended up with all these qualifications… I’d guess… riding on the back of free (taxpayer funded) education supplied by?

            And I have no issue with you doing so, just show some respect and compassion.

            Anyhoo, thanks for making your grubby, selfish motives even clearer, Richard…

        • Yes, the whole point is they were wrong and have been revised, by a huge amount. Glad you can admit it, because the point of the article is the government wont.

        • Yes Richard, again you missed the point….

          “WHY” were they so wrong? And why, if they were so wrong, should we trust their decision based on figures that were so wrong?

          I don’t care so much that they have revised the figures, I realise that happens, it would be incredibly irresponsible not to do that, it is more that a decision to go with the MTM was made because of the false data presented in the SR.

          It just gives even more weight to the argument they should have gone with Scenario 4, given it is only a few billion more than the current cost of the MTM.

          • “It just gives even more weight to the argument they should have gone with Scenario 4, given it is only a few billion more than the current cost of the MTM.”

            Sorry what is scenario 4 and and explain how is it a few billion more than MtM? (this will be good).

          • @Alain, I have been through this with you multiple times before, I’m not going through it again.

            Strategic Review, Scenario 4, HFC + FTTP, a few billion more than the current projected cost of MTM due to false data used in the SR for the MTM.

          • You’ve read the SR/CP16, R; you quote it all the time.

            *edit: quoteD. You’ve stopped referencing anything since the entire estimated budget has been proven to be completely falsified since pre-election.

          • R0ninX3ph

            ‘Strategic Review, Scenario 4, HFC + FTTP, a few billion more than the current projected cost of MTM due to false data used in the SR for the MTM.’

            But as you know, the SR13 has been updated by CP 16 where not only are the MtM figures updated the greenfields and brownfields figures FTTP figures contained within the MtM are updated as well.

            We can no longer refer to any scenarios from the SR 2013 as being valid in 2015, just because you and others prefer it that way to cook up a case for FTTP.

            The first Labor NBN CP was in 2010, two more followed that, a major national infrastructure rollout like the NBN requires changes to targets and funding as the rollout progresses, and as far as the FTTP targets 2010 are concerned they were drastically downgraded, as you are aware.

          • As you know, the CP16 specifically stated the SR13 were the most recent figures and referred directly to them; the other figures you refer to as being ‘updated’ is for if FTTP were to start from scratch, today, after Malcolm Turnbulls Mess was introduced.

            Caught lying through your teeth again? How unusual.

          • @Alain, you are so frigging dense.

            The strategic review figures were used to justify the MTM rollout method. Scenario 4 in the SR was only $10bn more than the MTM in the SR, and with the current data about the ARPU for FTTP being higher than expected, the revenue of Scenario 4 would be higher than MTM.

            What I stated in regards to Scenario 4, is not about the current situation, the MTM was barely a better option than Scenario 4 in the SR even when they had their fudged pull out of thin air numbers to make the greasy-wheels of the MTM cart sound good.

            Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it mate?

            Also, as you have been told multiple frigging times, the costs for FTTP in the CP16 was not for simply rolling out FTTP in the remaining fixed line areas not yet rolled out, it is to go back and roll FTTP for the WHOLE fixed line area, not rolling FTTP to areas not already serviced by FTTN/FTTB/FTTdp/HFC.

          • You bring up an interesting point R0ninX3ph.

            The FTTN cost was obviously wrong as it was based off incompetent LNP numbers, but the FTTP costs were probably right, as they were based on what was actually happening.

            That leads me to believe that the actual cost differential between both would have been minimal, if not the same. Well, based on their numbers anyway…it’s become blindingly obvious you cant actually trust anything from that mob…numbers, promises, doing “the right thing” or timing.

          • @Reality

            But as you know, the SR13 has been updated by CP 16 where not only are the MtM figures updated the greenfields and brownfields figures FTTP figures contained within the MtM are updated as well.

            I’m not surprised you want to forget the SR considering how flawed is is. It’s also a shame the current plans are based on those flaws.

            So much for LNP planning…

          • R0ninX3ph,

            “Also, as you have been told multiple frigging times, the costs for FTTP in the CP16 was not for simply rolling out FTTP in the remaining fixed line areas not yet rolled out, it is to go back and roll FTTP for the WHOLE fixed line area, not rolling FTTP to areas not already serviced by FTTN/FTTB/FTTdp/HFC.”

            So how does that change the FTTP CPP cost one way or the other, what is the FTTP CPP cost differential between whole of the fixed line area and just areas not covered with alternative MtM infrastructure?

            You also conveniently overlook the overbuild figures in the modelling scenarios in the Optus HFC leaked PDF.

            The highest cost by a large margin to overbuild the Optus HFC was FTTP, that is no where near at 470k premises to rolling out FTTP to the whole fixed line area is it?

            Your explanation is?

          • Mate, you didn’t even read that, or if you did, you are purposefully misrepresenting what I said.

            CP16 claims going back to FTTP would be between $74bn – $84bn, yes?

            Which is absorbing all the costs of all the FTTN being rolled out now, all the FTTB being rolled out, any costs related to working HFC into the network and then rolling out FTTP to the whole fixed line area.

            Which is NOT what I am talking about, I am talking about comparing the current situation of FTTP(Greenfields)/FTTN(Brownfields)/FTTB/HFC to FTTP(Greenfields/Brownfields)/FTTN(Where it is already rolled out)/FTTB/HFC, which is not explored at all.

            The only place it is explored, is in the SR (or as close as a comparison can get, AKA Scenario 4), where it was so close to the chosen MTM rollout (even with their fudged figures which we now know were complete bollocks thanks to the all hailed CP16), that one has to wonder why on earth the MTM was chosen?

            Can you please stick to the topic at hand in this thread of comments, my topic has been “Why, when we know the figures in the SR for MTM were fudged and bollocks, is it wrong to claim Scenario 4 (with the figures they actually knew were solid because of actually rolling out FTTP) was the better option, given now the MTM is at the point of “up to” $56bn with Scenario 4 in the SR at $51bn in peak funding”.

            Or, you can do as you usually do, and when asked to actually directly answer something instead of dodging and weaving, ignore it and disappear just to repeat the same garbage over and over and over.

            Like “Labor aren’t allowed to complain until they release their policy!” crap you keep spouting and yet ignoring me when I ask why its not hypocritical.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            Your argument is that FTTP brownfields CPP figures are based on the scenario of starting again in effect as per Labor plan FTTP to 93%, not CPP figures for rolling out FTTP to areas not covered by existing MtM.

            So I repeat what is the FTTP CPP difference between the two, also you made no comment on the Optus overbuild figures, which is based on 470K premises, where FTTP is still the highest CPP infrastructure option.

            The unpalatable truth from that PDF is a brownfields FTTP overbuild will cost $500m, compared to the Telstra HFC extension of $150M.

            FTTP fans ignore that.

            Nothing you or anyone else have shown that FTTP CPP has magically fallen to equal or below FTTN CPP costs, which is the final analysis and conclusion you need to reach.

            Do keep plugging away with those out of date SR scenarios from 2013, don’t forget it’s 2015 and it will be 2016 very soon.

          • Alain
            Lol if the figures so out of date why then does your beloved CP16 refer to the SR as have no better estimated than in the SR lol.

            Yes the CCP is cheaper but to build everything else to run it is not hence why the CP16 is more than S4 and only $8B less the S2 a full FTTP rollout lol.

          • @Reality, I am seriously effing done dealing with you. Not once did I say the CPP was lower for FTTP than it was for anything else, not once have I said anything akin to what you are ranting about, I am so tired of your bullshit.

            There are no comparisons in the CP detailing how much the rollout would be if they simply reverted the areas not currently completed to FTTP, leaving the inprogress FTTN/FTTB/FTTP/HFC in place. The comparisons in the CP are for rolling out Fibre to 93%, which is not what I am saying needs to be compared.

            What I am saying needs to be compared and detailed is a modern take on Scenario 4 from the SR, and compared to the current MTM rollout costs.

            That does not exist, I want it to exist, this is what I am saying. Get… it… into… your… god… damn… head.

          • Ronin, just ignore him he’s only here to troll, even better bring his behavior to Renai’s attention via email as I have done today. His behavior clearly breaches Renai’s code of conduct.

          • “But as you know, SR13 has been updated by CP16″…

            ROFL..

            BUT, BUT, BUT Conjob took a $4.7B network to the 2007 election and changed… so he lied!

            There’s that word beginning with H and ending with ypocrite again…

            You’re welcome.

        • “the figures in SR13 were wrong. CP16 used the experiences from trials. The Conroy’s expert panel figures were wrong, as were Quigley’s CPs. All of the above have been revised, re trust look to the actuals and compare to forecasts. Call out discrepancies.”

          Such as the discrepancy between a) Labors estimates blowing out ~10-20% in the course of 6 years, and b) Liberals estimates blowing out up to 1000% in the course of 2 years.

          • @hc Alp’s election commitment was $4.9b not a cent more!

            Quigley never fess up to the blowout when in charge. Only in his recent pdf do we have actual cost numbers, confirming SR13 FTTH (some $73b).

            I’m not defending the coalition failure. Try reading what’s written.

          • And not a cent more than $4.9b was spent on the proposed FTTN (dubbed ‘fraudband’) network. As you know, the ALP are approximately $4.9b UNDER BUDGET for that proposal.

            Next!

            “Only in his recent pdf do we have actual cost numbers, confirming SR13 FTTH (some $73b).”

            You of course meant to use the word ‘inflating’ instead of ‘confirming’, I trust.

            “Try reading what’s written.”

            Try lying through your teeth less often.

            “I’m not defending the coalition failure.”
            You said to call out discrepancies. I dutifully did so.

            You on the other hand have been diligent in failing to do so.

          • Such as the discrepancy between a) Labors estimates blowing out ~10-20% in the course of 6 years, and b) Liberals estimates blowing out up to 1000% in the course of 2 years.

            +10

            And they haven’t even really started yet…

            And unlike the FTTP, there wont be a Project Fox along to save them, all the tricks for building FTTN are well known, so it can only blowout more for them.

          • “Alp’s election commitment was $4.9b not a cent more!”

            So it was wrong to alter this pre-election position you infer, but the changes from 2013 pre-election from the then opposition, to SR in gov, to CP13 and each blowout and fuck up since, are all just fine…

            Ooh but you’re not defending the Coalition of course, and their policy….

            …that you could have been commissioned to write… (but even though HC copy/pasted you saying exactly that, you never did say it). Que?

            That’s right, because you’re a (L)libertarian who believes in private enterprise santa’s and easter bunnies supplying for us all…

            Seriously :/

    • Richard
      Where is this private investment you speak of back in 2007. Was it Telstra still rolling out adsl1 connection while other like NZ rolling out FTTN?

      But Richard how can there be a cost blowout of $26B when they had a fully costed plan or a rollout time from 3 years to 7 with hardly building anything? Oh wait you said it was ambitious lol. Still only $8B of a full FTTP rollout lol. But we still have Turnbull claiming the $30B saving and the y26-28 counter factual lol.

      Where are those thousands of customers on FTTN so far there are only 375 active paying connections.

      • @jk there was billions of private Internet infrastructure deployed pre-NBN, including last mile (FTTN, fibre, regional HFC). Your position is bizarre. The competition driving down access pricing dramatically.

        The coalition elections coatings were wrong ,we’ll be paying for this policy for decades. The ALP $4.9b election commitment was wrong. I’m not sure how often repeating the obvious is required.

        A thousand premises in the FTTN trial, more suburbs coming online since sept launch. No one has asked for the data. Turnbull claims $30b saving based in the MTM vs S1.5 numbers in CP16, we’ve covered this as well. The later isn’t numbers I’d use (S1.5 not defined), preferring published CPP. Opex differences discussed (including in leaked document, matching my estimates), destroying the Tucker / Budde / Gregory claim opex fibre savings cancel higher capex.

        • Richard
          Again where is this private investment you speak of. FTTN small pockets in cambera, fibre again small pockets in cambera, what regional HFC one town. But then that’s only one company your speaking of Transact. Where is this competition you speak of.

          So the $4.9B to get investment in to infrastructure was wrong when there was almost no investment.

          1k trial apparently there are about 30K FTTN with only 375 active paying connections.

          Yes the $30B saved is only if they stop rolling out MTM and switch back to FTTP or are you claiming morrow is lying to the senate?

          Lol the later isn’t numbers you would use. But the instant the CP16 you where using those numbers claiming then to be labor continued rollout of FTTP

          Matching your estimates lol. Does that include to $90B price tag claim Turnbull had before the election which the SR had at $20B cheaper.

          • Hey Rizz have Richard claiming CP16 FTTP numbers he wouldn’t use. Sound familiar from another argument you had with him.

          • @jk so no co-located adsl2+ equip in exchanges using unbundled local loop?

            Opex estimates, the opex you were claiming more than capex differential. Comical and called out at the time.

            Provide the rizz link, typically hilarious.

          • Richard
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/08/24/nbn-co-dumps-fttp-plan-for-another-half-a-million-premises/
            “First positive free cash flow is estimated to be achieved between FY26 and FY31 for an all-FTTP fixed line rollout (vs. FY22 for MTM).”

            Oh wait you wouldnt use those figures was the quote wasn’t it. Please let me know if you want me to find your others to for further embarrassment.

            I never mention OPEX in the above post. But it was comical you using the now wrong figures in the SR going from y21 figures to y 28 figures with out having to go over the figures in between where all the OPEX cost was lol.

          • I’m @jk S1.5 in CP16 wasn’t exposed until Oct. Using the best numbers available.

            I don’t see the rizz discussions you claimed.

          • No Richard I was talking to Rizz about you claiming that the FTTP figures in the cp16 “isnt the nunbers you would use”.

            When you have just another contradiction of claiming you didn’t when you did lol much like your other statement when you could have written the policy.

            But then you get the cranks when I use the best numbers available as the CP16 said are in the SR so again if Turnbull hadn’t gone down MTM could have done FTTP for only $8B more for $64B

          • @jk reading comprehension difficulties again. Scenario 1.5 in CP16 as the alternative is the figures I wouldn’t use since it was revealed. S1.5 has never been publicly disclosed. As written.

            Your link?

          • Richard
            now first of are you going to deny these comments you have claim like you have dont before?

            1.Peak funding from strategic review MTM ~$39bn blowing out to CP16 $46-56b, peak funding under previous management FTTP CP11-13 $40.9b then CP12-15 $44.1b blowing out to SR (S1) ~$73bn or redesigned (S2) ~$64bn, now CP16 $74-84b. Quigley continued to state publicly “on time and budget” when it was clearly untrue
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/08/24/we-must-determine-how-the-15bn-nbn-cost-blow-out-occurred/

            2.“Management estimates that an all-FTTP fixed line rollout could be completed by 2026 but possibly as late as 2028, with a peak funding range of $74-84 billion (vs. $46-56 billion for MTM) depending on critical sensitivities around peak construction rates, construction and operating cost, and revenue generation.” Same link above

            3.@timman because costs were underestimated. The question (as above) is how much would it have cost with FTTH. Anyone prepared to put a figure (SR13 & CP16 have) or old corporate plans numbers still stand.
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/08/27/turnbull-has-no-clue-what-he-is-doing-says-paul-budde/

            4.The failure of Tucker’s piece (repeated across the Leftoid medias) was he still maintains (as many of the commenters here) that the FTTH costs in pre-SR still stand despite being demolished in both SR and again CP16.

            Perhaps Renai will finally reveal his costings for a FTTH network in his analysis. Others are welcome to in comments, I’m going with CP16 figures as the best available.
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/09/youre-wrong-nbn-co-tells-rod-tucker-turnbulls-mtm-is-a-game-changer/

            5.little different if you believe peak funding range of $74-84b (FTTH) is not much different from $46-56b (MTM). Few would agree.
            Same link above

            6.This piece is a joke. Conroy’s NBN policy blew out from $4.7b to $74-84b, delivered next to nothing in there 6 years, walked around abusing everyone (“red undies”), prepared legislation to shutdown critical media. His only win was wasting taxpayers money on policy follies and public sector broadcasters that agreed with him.
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/14/malcolm-turnbull-was-australias-worst-ever-communications-minister/

            7. FTTH predicted completion CP16 FY26-28! By the time his party left govt they still hadn’t a strategy to connect MDUs, killing NBNCos plea for FTTB. It was a disaster.
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/16/analysts-expect-unchained-turnbull-to-return-nbn-to-fttp-model/

            8.Jason read the documents SR13p17, CP16p39.
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/10/01/will-nbn-co-be-rolling-brand-new-copper-in-some-places-to-deal-with-fttn-yes-it-will/

            So apparently you have never used those numbers in the CP16 quoting the FTTP $74-84b lol
            oh wait you said since it was revealed to be a fictitious s1.5 oh wait you did on business tech . But before then you were happy to through those numbers around claiming it as the original FTTP rollout.

        • @jk learn to read. I’ve never claimed I never used the SR13 or CP16 numbers. I always used the best available figures (challenging others to provide their own). However I wouldn’t use SR13 figures (eg S6) when updated in CP16.

          Perhaps you’re desperate for a gotcha given your errors I’ve corrected. But again argue what’s written not the fanboy imagined position.

          • LOL Richard
            you never said this in a previous post on this page
            “Turnbull claims $30b saving based in the MTM vs S1.5 numbers in CP16, we’ve covered this as well. The later isn’t numbers I’d use (S1.5 not defined), preferring published CPP.”
            I which i have linked every single time you have used the s1.5 figures lol. So which is it you did or didn’t write that?

            Yes you cant use S6 because tit the new CP16 lol and how wrong it was.
            But as the CP16 states
            “Management and the Board have not taken a view on assumptions beyond that time, and no better estimates exist than the assumptions applied in the Strategic Review dated December 2013”
            So if no better estimates exist than whats in the SR i can compare S1 S2 or even S4 to the new fail revised S6 figures in the CP16 lol

            Sadly we have a fanboy that’s that claims one thing then claims another cherry pick figures and when proven incorrect claims to have never said it or use those figures.

          • Jason Derek Rizz,

            “Management and the Board have not taken a view on assumptions beyond that time, and no better estimates exist than the assumptions applied in the Strategic Review dated December 2013”

            This means what as a anti MtM argument, you keep repeating it over and over as if it has some sort of key significance, what is the significance exactly?

          • Lol Alain if you can’t understand what you have posted I will have no chance trying to explaining it to you.

            But the I do explain it in the above post lol

          • Oh I see, it has no meaning, just stocking filler to pad out a argument when you don’t have one.

          • No Alain it just has no meaning to you as it shows how bad MTM is. Just like you trying to rewrite history pretending the pre election policy and the SR never existed

        • “there was billions of private Internet infrastructure deployed pre-NBN”

          BS…

          You’re rewriting oh history is beyond bizarre…

    • What? Captain kiss arse not commenting on any of the claims made, but instead attacking straw men? Who would have thought he’d do that. Do you live to be a joke?

    • FTTP Was not a disaster. It was only slightly delayed. You have provided 0 evidence that this is otherwise.

      Whereas we can show that with on the components made up from the labor plan alone, the original plan would not only have been able to pay itself off, but would likely have done it sooner than expected.

      ARPU $40
      Number of users on 12mb plan down by 15%. Those number having been absorbed by the more expensive 25mb and higher tiers.

      • @w slightly delayed? Rollout a small fraction of the projections, CPP almost double.

        Plenty of evidence including Quigley’s own admission pdf.

        No version of NBN will recover the money spent.

        • Yes slightly delayed. Those delays having been caused by Telstra and by private contractors not meeting there quotas.

          CPP just to confirm we are on the same wavelength. That is Cost Per Premise correct? Double what exactly?

          Quigley’s pdf used the figures from the SR and CP16 to prove his point. He states that the figures in CP16 are higher than the ones they used in CP13.

          You are incorrect. ARPU $40 shows that.

      • Woolfe,

        “FTTP Was not a disaster. It was only slightly delayed. You have provided 0 evidence that this is otherwise.”

        So after six years of being in control of a FTTP rollout at the end in 2013 the Labor NBN Co targets were down HALF of what was originally predicted and you call that ‘slightly delayed’?

        How do you define a major delay then?

        • So Alain the MTM isn’t a disaster so after 3 months of in control of the NBN there 2016 targets got cut by more than half 2 years later half again. Oh wait just 3 months in cost blowout from $29B to $41B 2 years later $56B

        • The LNP had what THEY claimed was a fully costed plan that would roll out 25 Mbps to the entire population in time for the 2016 election. Well, we’re only 9 or so months from that event, and they are just now announcing they’ve passed 50,000 homes with their variation on the plan?

          How big a delay is that?

          You’re using Labor delays to make your point, how about using Liberal delays in the same way. By the original LNP estimates the MTM NBN should have passed something like 6 or 7 million premises by now shouldnt it? Or is it more?

          Go on, go back to the original “fully costed” MTM plan, and tell me how its still on track. All they had to do was spend a couple of weeks chatting with Telstra and they were good to go.

          • He won’t do that, he ignores any posts referring to his hypocrisy.

            Just like when I keep asking him why it isn’t okay for Labor to comment or criticise the MTM Rollout without releasing their NBN Policy for the future, when the LNP spent years complaining and moaning about the NBN when Labor were in power and yet didn’t release their policy until April 2013.

            I have asked him either 3 or 4 times now, and he has ignored it every time, it is starting to become comical.

          • R0in
            Just mention $56B blowout with out the upto. I do to get a bite out of him and he might respond to you then lol.

          • @Jason, I did that when linking to an article re: NZ Fibre rollout costs, deliberately quoted only half of the picture knowing full well he could come back with the “whole number” strutting around like I had missed it, and like he had won.

            The saying works with him… “Arguing with Reality/Alain is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how well you play, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it was victorious”.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            “why it isn’t okay for Labor to comment or criticise the MTM Rollout without releasing their NBN Policy for the future,”

            I never said it wasn’t ok for Labor to criticise the MtM rollout, and I don’t expect they will release a policy until before the 2016 election.

            What is hypocritical of Labor is to say this week the use of the HFC was a mistake but then not go on and actually say they are going to shut it down and overbuild it with FTTP when they gain Government.

            That’s because Labor will wait and see what the HFC activation figures are nearer to the election then mumble oh it’s too costly to overbuild active HFC areas, and keep the HFC rollout going as per Coalition plan.

            Apparently it’s only a mistake because you didn’t think of using HFC for the NBN for the same money you were going to pay Telstra and Optus to shut it down for BB.

          • @ alain…

            “What is hypocritical of Labor is to say this week the use of the HFC was a mistake but then not go on and actually say they are going to shut it down and overbuild it with FTTP when they gain Government.

            That’s because Labor will wait and see what the HFC activation figures are nearer to the election then mumble oh it’s too costly to overbuild active HFC areas, and keep the HFC rollout going as per Coalition plan.”

            NO what is hypocritical is people like you claiming HFC was a complete failure and no one wanted it, only good for the pigeons to perch on across from your place…

            YOU SAID THAT DIDN’T YOU?

            Go on man up even once… you did didn’t you? (feel free to limp off tail between legs AGAIN, about …. now…)

            OR EVEN DENY IT, go on…!!!!!!!!! No you won’t will you because you know Mr Google will embarrass you even more…

            But of course in true toe-the-line form, you now state the complete opposite claiming that HFC is is great.

            *shakes head*

            You’re welcome.

        • Isn’t it funny how FttN is measured as from roll out, 51 days, but FttP is measured by the same people as from the day Rudd was voted in…

          And you have the audacity to accuse others of misquoting figures simply because they omit the UPTO before the $15B blowout or you excuse the $650m increase as it was a post election (waaaay post) revised figure…?

        • “So after six years of being in control of a FTTP rollout at the end in 2013 the Labor NBN Co targets were down HALF of what was originally predicted and you call that ‘slightly delayed’?”
          Are you trying to say that Labor in 2013 was only promising 46.5% of premises to be connected to FTTP?

          And neglecting to compare that to the Liberals 2 year achievement of 1% of target hit?

        • You do understand that the rollout is not just the last mile.
          There is a fairly significant amount of work that had to go on to get to that point. When you take that into account, the delay is then reduced down to the negotiations with Telstra, an oddly familiar experience I’d say.

          As to the actual numbers after they started rolling out, yep that was a small delay when taken into account under the length of the project.
          Now if that trend had continued without improvement then I would agree. But as everyone has pointed out and you conveniently ignore. The project was ramping up, new processes (project fox) were being looked at to further improve the speed of the rollout. Based on observance of similar rollouts and projects, there is no reason to believe at the early stage that they lost control that they couldn’t reverse those losses.

          If you had any experience with project work you would understand this.

    • poor Internet and 3G everywhere (private investment frozen out)

      Do tell Richard, where is your evidence that private investment has been frozen out of 3/4G?? Last time I checked Telstra/Optus/Vodaphone were sinking billions a year into it.

      • TPG are going head on into the FTTB business as well!

        Only reason no private company chose to build a wholesale australia wide network was because your typical 8% return isn’t enough for them when considering the billions needed in the first place. Far better to pump those into mobile networks where upwards of 14% can be had.

        • Oh and the government would allow such a private entity to be an exclusive monopoly with no wholesale.

      • @tm regional back haul the issue, obviously I had connection. Telcos waiting for NBN’s plans.

        • Simple fact, the NBN has had no impact on the telcos 3g/4g plans or investment in those networks.

    • “NBN debate is for the financially innumerate.”
      You’re right; the only people debating the facts are people such as yourself.

  11. NBN and Fifield just sound like rabid dogs backed into a corner. They either know their plan is terrible but need to fight it at all costs or they are simply delusional.

  12. Is Fifield so blinded by political ideology that he cannot comprehend the financial and technical benefits of FTTP with a standard interface across all AU? Or is he just trying to make the ‘right noises’ as he is stuck with Malcom’s Albatross?

    Looking back, it appears Malcom attempted to do something better than Abbot’s ‘destroy the NBN’ directive, but lacked the vision. Coming from OzEmail, a company that did not progress and was killed by adherance to old tech, you can see the start of the myopia. Add to that his involvement in strip logging in the Solomons, another company with no forsight, and you can see a trend.

    Although I believe he did attempt to do the best he could in the hostile situation, his eye was on the PM role, not doing the best for Australia. In this he has failed in his first responsibility as an elected member, to represent the best interests and the views of his electorate.

    Fifield is either a political zelot or lacking the balls to stand up and admit the errors. It is still not too late to change the rollout in most areas. Existing FTTN (what little there is) is a fine interum technology, but it’s very high maintainence costs mean it will be a drag on nbn very soon.

    • Fifields job is to make the NBN as much as a non-issue as possible politically speaking. If MT wanted NBN to ‘progress’ he would have appointed one of the more tech centric LNP members instead.

      Fifield can be relied upon to do nothing untoward, capable of weathering the storm etc so the portfolio is in safe political hands.

      • A river either grows or it stagnates and dies: the libs are sleep-walking into obliteration!
        You can’t hold a dodgy fort!!

    • “he has failed in his first responsibility as an elected member, to represent the best interests and the views of his electorate.”
      What do you mean? His electorate was the first area to have a completed FTTP rollout post election.

    • No, Malcolm didn’t lack vision. His vision is playing out exactly as he planned it. We know this because he had all the information at his disposal to avoid this situation, and some of us even predicted this playing out in precisely this manner before the last election. So it is only logical, of he knew this would be the outcome from those decisions, why did he choose them anyway? The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is because he wanted this outcome.

      This is not poor governance leading to an accidentally bad outcome like we see with numerous projects, this was a project with very well understood technologies and economics. The outcome was predicable because it is the only logical result of a calculated set of known inputs. Variables are easily accounted for within the equation and subsequent explanation, such as predicted customer demand that can be simplified into the metric ARPU. We know that today ARPU is higher than predicted for this point, so if construction and operational costs had tracked as planned NBN Co should be in a better position than set out in the 2013 business plan. According to NBN Co’s own figures they have met or exceeded planned milestones for the Transit Network, FTTP and fixed wireless, yet costs are blowing out tremendously as has timescale for project completion. The only way this could be the case is if the new parts, if the MTM’s FTTN and HFC components have drastically blown out in cost and complexity, not just above their own predictions but against the projected costs of FTTP.

      In short, Malcolm changed key variables in the equation, variables that had well known and well understood properties, so the outcome was thus changed in a well understood and predicable way.

      So stop thinking that all Malcolm did was make some naive mistakes – he knew what he was doing, because we know he was told by numerous groups, experts and even media. So if he knew what he was doing, and we’re getting the outcome that was predicted, then this is was a plan. And it is executing as desired. And you should be very, very concerned that such a man is now running the whole country.

  13. Unsure why anyone is even bothering, I’m just quietly watching the slow motion train wreck.

    • They are sleepwalking into a bigger nightmare than any of them could have ever imagined!

  14. “Despite paying these companies to stop using their networks, Labor did not negotiate any rights for NBN Co to access or acquire this infrastructure.”

    Why would they, FTTP doesn’t use copper.

Comments are closed.