“Political indecision” leaving Australia a broadband backwater: ex-NBN CTO

158

news The NBN company’s first chief technology officer this week said that the protracted disagreement between Australia’s two major political parties on how to best upgrade broadband networks was leaving Australia languishing in global broadband rankings, despite several obvious ways forward.

Experienced technology executive and engineer Gary McLaren served as the NBN company’s first chief technology officer, spearheading the company’s development of a strategy which has seen Fibre to the Premises technology deployed to more than a million premises throughout Australia, as well as complementary Fixed Wireless and satellite technology.

However, McLaren was made redundant by the NBN company, along with its chief financial officer and head of its commercial operations, shortly after Malcolm Turnbull became Communications Minister.

In a post on his personal site this week (we recommend you click here for the full article), McLaren pointed out that global broadband rankings such as that compiled by Akamai showed that Australia was languishing in global broadband rankings.

“The following economies in our region rank better – South Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. Globally our other major trading partners such as Canada, United States and most of Europe including Poland, Hungary, Russia, Slovakia and Romania rank higher than Australia,” he wrote.

At the heart of the issue, McLaren wrote, was a historic disagreement between the two major sides of politics about how broadband upgrades should be undertaken.

Both sides of politics ultimately agreed that fibre-optic infrastructure would be needed in the future, McLaren wrote.

However, the political left (Labor) preferred to take an approach where a government entity (the NBN company) would take charge of the upgrade, while the right (the Coalition) preferred to let the private sector undertake the upgrade.

McLaren noted that either approach could work — private sector investment having proved successful in countries such as Hong Kong (where McLaren is involved in the telco sector) and Canada, and countries such as New Zealand and Singapore taking a government-controlled model.

“Australia just needs to choose one or the other and stick to it,” the executive wrote.

“Just imagine if a country was as in-decisive in choosing which side of the road to drive on. It would be carnage on the roads.”

“Unless one side of the political debate caves in, Australia can expect to see its global broadband rankings continue to decline for years to come. The result will be Australians continuing to “wait” for their 21st century broadband.”

“… Australia sits uncomfortably between left and right ideologies and drifts further down the global rankings.”

opinion/analysis
I wholeheartedly agree with McLaren’s comments here.

It has been clear for many years that an approach of separating Telstra from its retail and wholesale operations and incentivising the company to upgrade its copper network would be a viable approach to upgrading Australia’s broadband infrastructure.

This is the approach that the UK Government took with BT in the UK … and voila — most of the country already has a Fibre to the Node network already. The Government is directly funding broadband upgrades in rural areas where the incumbent telco, BT, is not willing to fund the upgrades itself. And there is a competitive broadband market, with some ISPs selling services on BT’s infrastructure and others, such as Virgin, operating and upgrading their own HFC cable networks.

It has also been clear that Labor’s NBN approach — setting up a new telco to roll out a new, national fibre network, would also work. Almost all of the current progress that the NBN company has made in deploying its infrastructure to a million and a half premises has been based on this model.

And yet, what we are seeing at the moment is a bastardised monster of a policy — halfway between Labor’s approach and halfway between the Coalition’s — a distorted, convoluted, crazy mix where we are going to end up with a number of complex, overlapping networks, still dominated by our major incumbent telco, Telstra.

The Multi-Technology Mix which represents the bastard child of Labor and the Coalition is a catastrophe and is holding Australia back. It represents a crappy solution to a major infrastructure problem.

At the heart of the issue is, as McLaren correctly notes, an inability for Australia’s policymakers to agree on the next several decades of telecommunications policy. And yet — despite this indecision — the sheer fact of the matter remains that you cannot change the nature of a massive, $40-odd billion infrastructure project every three years as the electoral cycle waxes and wanes.

Ultimately it is both Labor and the Coalition which will hold responsibility for this mess. Neither has been willing to compromise — and thus both have delivered up Australia to the bottom of the broadband ranking table. I wish it were otherwise, but that is how things are.

As a side note, many here will believe that it is purely the Coalition’s fault that we got into this mess, with Malcolm Turnbull having imposed the MTM model on an already established NBN company.

And yet, as I am currently exploring in my forthcoming policy book The Frustrated State, it was Labor’s failure to consult the Coalition in this policy area, and its failure to examine global events, that led to much of this situation in the first place. Labor went its own way on a decade-long infrastructure project, without taking the Coalition along for the journey. It then reaped the consequences of this error when the Coalition took power only a few years later.

Neither side can claim it has not contributed to the mess — and both sides continue to cause further chaos.

158 COMMENTS

  1. “Labor went its own way on a decade-long infrastructure project, without taking the Coalition along for the journey.”

    I recall at one point the Nationals advocating for a National Fibre Network (perhaps when the Labor plan was FTTN)
    Unless my recollection is off, I’d argue that the Coalition jumped off the ride when they realised someone else was behind the wheel.

    EDIT:
    Aside from that, I agree entirely. The NBN becoming politicized has severly hurt Australia’s chance at becoming a properly 21st century country.

    • as far as i can see the Liberal party didnt WANT to go along for the journey. under Abbotts opposition it was pretty much all “no, no, no” and very few bipartisan issues were ever convened.

      i accept on some issues Labor is not guilt free on this either; but WRT NBN the liberal viewpoint has always been to rubbish it and talk it down, even when it was at the point of the open tender for a FTTN rollout with Terria/G9 and the other players getting ready to field bids. they called that Fraudband! and have stuck to opposing ever since, even though the policy underwent a major change following the reporting of the PoE. i dont see a consultation would have made material difference….

      i completely agree with the conclusion though – we cant keep faffing around changing things every three years, and its clear the policy as it stands now is untenable. we went from a well ordered and stable landscape to a hellish mishmash – the very definition of policy made on the run, thinking particularly of MT quickly writing new carrier terms when TPG decided to get into the FTTB game. it is sapping productivity and wasting time, with our rankings steadily falling away as the carping about whose fault it is continues. im well and truly over that… lets see some work on actually fixing the situation instead.

      • It wasn’t just the NBN Abbott consistently took the approach of simply saying ‘no’ carte blanche. He took being in opposition literally! As opposed to keeping the government in check making sure the appropriate backyard rules were applied he basically took his bat and ball and went home instead.

        Now with the NBN due to IMHO either his extreme leanings or those of his backers the internet was viewed as unfriendly and full of nothing but pure evil so it should not only not be supported but destroyed as well.

          • I have to agree here, Abbott as Opposition Leader takes complete blame for the entire mess.

        • Considering Abbott ordered Turnbull to “Demolish the NBN” & said NO to & rubbished everything Labor proposed how on Earth could they be expected to come to any realistic arrangement when dealing with a lying, self-centered, compulsively negative, tantrum throwing brat like Tony whose only goal was to become PM by any means fair or foul?

          • The ‘Demolish the NBN’ FTTP fans love to quote is complete rubbish and never happened.

            The Coalition went into the 2013 election with a well known released in April that year alternative MTM based policy, they won that election with a clear majority.

            They stated before the election all carry over FTTP build contracts would be fulfilled, and they were.

          • http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/turnbull-back-to-demolish-nbn-20100914-15aj3.html

            “”The national broadband network will be to this term of government what pink batts and school halls were in the last term of government.

            “Who better to hold the government to account here than Malcolm Turnbull … who has the technical expertise and business experience to entirely demolish the government on this issue.” – Abbott

            Guess it depends on how you want to look at that quote?

            “They stated before the election all carry over FTTP build contracts would be fulfilled, and they were.”

            HAH! I’m not even going to bother on that one =P

          • My apologies @ Reality,
            Apparently Tony was absolutely correct when he also stated:
            “The Government is going to invest $43 billion worth of hard-earned money in what I believe is going to turn out to be a white elephant on a massive scale,” Mr Abbott said”
            Unfortunately it seems he was referring to his own intentions.

          • “They stated before the election all carry over FTTP build contracts would be fulfilled, and they were.”

            Oh, is that why Tasmania is full FTTP then?

          • @ Reality

            “The ‘Demolish the NBN’ FTTP fans love to quote is complete rubbish and never happened.”

            So clearly you are saying they have demolished the NBN completely, due to their own complete incompetence not belligerence…

            Yes indeed.

          • Alternative NBN policy is not ‘demolishing the NBN’ neither is a National Broadband Network uniquely defined by the now obsolete Labor policy.

          • Says who, you?

            The same person who just said – MTM copper has made Fibre obsolete?

            That’s GOLD even for you alain.

            You’re welcome

          • It’s not possible for MtM to make copper obsolete, a large component of FTTN is fibre, the ‘who said’ bit you just made up.

          • Oh good oh…

            So you FINALLY admit the part which ISN’T fibre is obsolete…

            Great…

            Now we are finally banging some sense into those we thought beyond sense.

            There’s is hope for you yet alain, albeit minimal for such an apple polishing yes man.

            You’re welcome

          • If you accept that “Broadband” is now considered to mean over 25mb/s, and then aknowledge that under this definition only about a third of the nation will get broadband, then it would be fair to say that the MTM can be either a “National Network” or a “Rich suburb Broadband Network” but it can no longer be called a “National Broadband Network”

            So yes, I’d say that the Coalition’s MTM has destroyed the NBN.

      • > with our rankings steadily falling away as the carping about whose fault it is continues. im well and truly over that… lets see some work on actually fixing the situation instead.

        Can you explain how Labor’s plan for 50% to connect at 12Mbps and less than 1% connected at 1Gbps would have helped our rankings on a global scale?

        Building a FTTP network with 1Gbps headlines speeds, but 79% of connections at 25Mbps or slower 16% at 100Mbps (down 3% in 12 months) and zero 1Gbps connections is supposed to help how? The reality is that most people who can afford faster than 100Mbps will be able to stretch the budget for fibre on demand or choose to move.

        • Can you explain how the LNP are deliberately holding back residential and business customers from accessing 100 mbps+ speeds thru sheer stupidity?

          Based on 16% ordering 100/40 mbps, you and your idiot mates are ignoring ~1 million high value customers!!!

        • It would seem prudent for 79% to connect at 12 or perhaps 25Mbps to avoid wasting money?
          Until (if ever) we actually manage to achieve Turnbull’s promised National ‘Superfast MTM’ there’s presently minimal benefit in paying extra for those high speed plans unless there are regular multiple simultaneous users in the household.
          We’re currently on the maximum NBN FW tier (50/20) & regularly achieving up to 47/18Mb/s on speed tests but most downloads are lucky to even maintain 1Mb/s at any time day or night.

    • C’mon Renai, as if the liberals would ever agree to the NBN concept, it’s totally against their ideology for gov to build and own major public infrastructure that could be being milked by their corporate rent seeking mates!

      And let’s not forget who was opposition leader for around 4 of the 6 years labor was in power, Tony “wrecking ball” Abbott! A man with no constructive bone in his body!

  2. Any attempt to engage any politicians on either side for bipartisanship is met with the usual political narrative response. Politics consistently trumps policy.

    At this point I’d settle for a gov fibre utility model only on budget. Leave it to the private industry to determine final tech whether it be FTTN, FTTdp, FTTP etc. But it still doesn’t address the Telstra elephant in the room completely.

  3. Commercial solution for FTTP would be good it it were possible. NBNco was susceptible to political interference. Setting up NBN should have been a national infrastructure project.

    The commercial solution. Problems are Telstra, Foxtel, Murdoch & Liberals are all buddies and then damage is not limited to communications as they tighten their grip on Australia. Even with NBNco it’s still happening since 2013. It’s not really about political parties, it’s about corruption disguised as ideology.

  4. “Ultimately it is both Labor and the Coalition which will hold responsibility for this mess. Neither has been willing to compromise — and thus both have delivered up Australia to the bottom of the broadband ranking table.”

    And why would either side compromise? You don’t compromise in battle, and when you’re fighting a war you’re NOT responsible. The problem with wars is that the country slides down the ranking table.

    We will get a useful comms infrastructure as soon as–and not before–WE train OUR elected representatives to PLAY NICELY. If WE are not prepared to ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for our own APATHY we don’t deserve decent comms.

    A suggestion: youse don’t HAVE to do it… At the coming election, Make Sure Youse All Put Libor and Laberal and Nationals and Greens LAST on the Ballot Sheets, ALL FOUR OF THEM. And put the most horrible perverted smelly little party FIRST. It’s very simple. Be a Dalek. And youse KEEP DOING THAT at EVERY ELECTION. Believe me, it works for children, it will work for pollies.

  5. “it was Labor’s failure to consult the Coalition in this policy area”

    I look forward to the forthcoming revelations in The Frustrated State in which it will be shown how one negotiates with Tony I’m-no-Bill-Gates Abbott on any issue involving technologies which have come into use in the last 50 years.

      • “I look forward to the forthcoming revelations in The Frustrated State in which it will be shown how one negotiates with Tony I’m-no-Bill-Gates Abbott on any issue involving technologies which have come into use in the last 50 years.”

        Actually, during the period we’re discussing here, it was mainly Howard, Nelson and then Turnbull who were leading the Liberals — Abbott didn’t come around until more than six months into the FTTP NBN plan.

        • And then he was Liberal leader and then PM during the following 6 years, where you must have an understanding of the policy and economic implications of technology that is being implemented globally. The admin ladies in the office of a high school didn’t need training on how a telephone works inside, to staff the banks of buttons that manage school communications in support of school operations. Prime ministers have responsibilities to fulfil (not that you’re unaware of that, Renai).

  6. What we had prior to Labor’s NBN was the private sector solution: multiple service options at the cherry-picked exchanges that offered the greatest profit for the least expenditure. And a consolation-prize lottery for the rest.

    The MTM is definitively better than that, but the LNP are only doing the MTM begrudgingly because they still believe in the private sector solution. Even the our progressive champion of innovation Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull vocally supported the pre-NBN status quo: “It’s a big, risky project. Which is why the government shouldn’t have done it in the first place. But it is too late to cry over that.” That’s a pretty big indicator as to how any negotiations may have gone if Labor did consult with the LNP, not to mention the “demolish the NBN” goal.

    If it wasn’t done by the government, it wouldn’t get done. And it’s only being done by the government because Labor started the ball rolling (at least with actions rather than words).

    • “The MTM is definitively better than that”
      Can’t agree. Sadly, I believe the country would be better off if things were left untouched by both parties, our communications infrastructure left crumbling. The country would at least be $56b richer.

    • > What we had prior to Labor’s NBN was the private sector solution: multiple service options at the cherry-picked exchanges that offered the greatest profit for the least expenditure. And a consolation-prize lottery for the rest.

      In greenfield estates we had several firms rolling out fibre.

      > If it wasn’t done by the government, it wouldn’t get done. And it’s only being done by the government because Labor started the ball rolling (at least with actions rather than words).

      Don’t forget Labor’s plan was FTTN and it only changed when Telstra were uncooperative.

      • In greenfield estates we had several firms rolling out fibre.

        Rubbish, Opticomm etc only rolled fibre if the developer paid for it and if they did roll FTTP to an estate Telstra did not provide PSTN services too so there was ZERO infrastructure competition – what we had were mini-geographical infrastructure monopolies surrounded by 1 giant infrastructure monopoly!!

        Don’t forget Labor’s plan was FTTN and it only changed when Telstra were uncooperative.

        Exactly, then they went to the industry and academic experts and got advice on a real solution… unlike the corrupt liberals who have set us back decades thru their vested interest mates and sheer stupidity!!!

  7. “And yet, as I am currently exploring in my forthcoming policy book The Frustrated State, it was Labor’s failure to consult the Coalition in this policy area, and its failure to examine global events, that led to much of this situation in the first place.”

    There you go again Renai, hedging bets and having it both ways.

    • I don’t understand the ‘global events’ call at all. What difference would the GFC have made to the correctness of deciding to invest in the future? Let’s wait 12 months to see what happens. No, it’s still difficult to see. The mining boom’s over so we’d better not spend any money on comms infrastructure now. So we reach 2016 and still there would be no action and the outlook for the economy still isn’t bright enough to spend that amount of money. So, with a shrunken mining economy and without the infrastructure to support an advanced information economy, Australia’s talent increasingly moves to more fertile ground. In light of this brain drain we’d better not commit any public monies to comms infrastructure – those who would use it are leaving anyway.

      Like investing money for the long term, the best time to do it was yesterday.

      Or am I missing a global event where aging copper became the best option for communications?

    • What exactly do you have against Renai? He IS allowed an opinion you know? If he supports FTTP, that doesnt mean he has to blindly then think everything Labor did was correct.

      How on earth do you live with such a black or white attitude?

      • To be fair, I think there’s a couple of other usual suspects here who deserve that derision (your closing sentence) even more…

        As I’m sure we all think that to ourselves, at each and every one of their comments.

        Especially when they completely contradict what they were saying or deny what they said, back when FTTP was policy.

        • “To be fair, I think there’s a couple of other usual suspects here who deserve that derision (your closing sentence) even more…”

          That is true when it comes to the NBN, but FibreZealot seems to have the opposite issue, where if you support FTTP you must also support everything Labor has done, which is equally ridiculous.

          • +1 whatever happened to voting for the party with the best policies? The current political tribalism is pure BS.

          • “if you support FTTP you must also support everything Labor has done, which is equally ridiculous.”

            +1

          • Derek, I think we have American Red vs Blue, Left vs Right ridiculousness to thank for lot of our current political climate.

            The weird Rep vs Dems thing has morphed into Labs vs Libs here and it’s equally ridiculous as in the US.

            Though, short of banning political parties and only allowing independents and banning career politicians by only allowing politicians to serve a limited number of terms, I don’t really know what can be done to fix the current black and white system we have.

      • FibreZealot is, and I hope the rest of are, also allowed an opinion.

        As to the question of black and white, I leave that to Messrs Abbott and and his acolyte, Turnbull. If Abbott had not mandated the death of a fibre NBN, what would Turnbull have done?

        I am sure the question has been asked before, namely, was Turnbull handed a poisoned chalice and has he not drunk from it?

        • “FibreZealot is, and I hope the rest of are, also allowed an opinion.”

          Of course he is allowed an opinion, but over the past few days, a large amount of comments I have seen from him, have been incredibly derisive of Renai, while all of us don’t always agree with what Renai might write, it doesn’t at all deserve the attacks that FZ has been levelling on Renai recently.

    • “There you go again Renai, hedging bets and having it both ways.”

      Yes — you’re right, I shouldn’t bother being all independent and telling the truth as I see it, based on the available evidence, I should just post things you agree with.

      How could I possibly have gotten that wrong??!

      • I hope your book goes back to 1996 when the decision was made to privatise Telstra. Then we can discuss how the Howard government made sincere and concerted efforts to find common ground with Labor on the privatisation.

        The NBN was Labor’s effort to undo the mess created by selling off Telstra. Since the sale Telstra has been the boat anchor attached to Australian broadband, stopping any forward motion.

        The Liberals are quite happy with that mess and the MTM is their best effort to return to the status quo. There was no compromise to be had, because the LNP has protected interests that needed shoring up through the crippling of the most important aspects of the MTM.

        There is plenty of blame to be spread around, but in no way should it be shared 50/50. Labor tried to do the right thing by the country. What the Liberals think they are doing I leave to your imagination.

        • They’re happy with propagating that mess as long as Telstra keeps filling their election warchest.

          We need to get money out of politics and move to completely publicly funded elections while we still can. Using America’s experience is a guide to Australia’s future, we can expect politics to get ever more dysfunctional and irrelevant. and the corruption to get ever more entrenched in both parties, until we wean our politicians and Media off its addiction to corporate money.

        • > There is plenty of blame to be spread around, but in no way should it be shared 50/50. Labor tried to do the right thing by the country. What the Liberals think they are doing I leave to your imagination.

          It is questionably that Labor had a vision for truly fast internet that would be a game changer. Labor’s policy was reactive (e.g. FTTN -> FTTP when Telstra wouldn’t cooperate; 1Gbps plans when Google Fibre was announced), poorly implemented and failed to deliver the promised benefits.

          For example one of the promoted benefits was eHealth and to quote Quigley in “Low income users denied NBN benefits”:

          “With the quality of high definition that you’ve got, being able to come across this sort of a network, you could easily have a quick hook-up and actually work out, ‘OK, do I need to take him to hospital, or could we keep him at home?’,” Mr Smith said.

          But when The Australian approached Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley to describe the level of service users could expect at lesser network speeds, they said high-definition video conferencing was not possible on the NBN’s most basic package.

          “You certainly can’t do high-definition video service on a 1 megabits per second upstream — it’s impossible,” Mr Quigley said.

          *Labor at more fault* because their initial set of expectations they sent to NBNCo was political risk mitigation and not visionary. This was compounded by developing a financial model where currently 79% are denied the opportunities provided by the NBN. A couple of changes and instead of speed tiers that are comparable for 79% between FTTP & FTTN we would have had FTTP at 1Gbps.

    • Renai is well within his prerogative to have a more fine-grained view and I welcome more critique of Labor’s approach. We all should, in spite of Labor’s NBN policy being the better overall. There are several major quibbles there, you have to admit.

      • Absolutely, the alp got the core policy right but certainly failed in a number of other areas. E.g. Using the Prime contractor model, allowing the accc poi decision to stand, not fire proofing nbn co from liberal interference, not setting aside some of the old tv spectrum for fixed wireless and there are others too.

        Only a rusted on alp partisan would call the real NBN perfect …. Bit like the rusted on liberals here who think the sun shines out of MtM’s obsolete abyss!

        • Yeah there were a number of issues that I have noted many times besides the ones you mention.

          Rollout areas should have been areas that did not have HFC. HFC areas should be last.

          Not rolling out FttB for MDU’s.

          The problem is that the Lib supporter on this topic never admit the LNP plan is anything but perfection.

  8. New Zealands UFB has its problems, so I won’t pretend its all perfect over in the land of the long white cloud, but their model for deployment is working reasonably well from here: there is a kitty, and they recover the kitty by selling service in a region and then recycle the funds (with topup I guess) to do another region.

    I think if we had a culture which believed in capital investment, we could have got behind a government committed to a national capital investment regime for the long haul. But we have a culture obsessed with saving money in the short term.

    New Zealand has a culture of confronting a small population base and a need for smart things to happen. They are not a well economy in many ways, but they seem to have understood this was a dig-a-benefit outcome, and they decided to get behind digging.

    • “But we have a culture obsessed with saving money in the short term.”

      The problem is it STARTS by costing us more already and the MTM has barely started.

          • Don’t mention the election! We have to ignore the fact we were told of a fully costed, ready to go, all premises to have 25Mbit by the end of 2016. Apparently having only buzzwords to go on is okay because Labor revised their targets during their time in power, so completely lying about their policy before the 2013 election is perfectly fine.

          • Practically doubled what was promised, and don’t forget the double expenditure we have to go through in order to ‘upgrade’ to FTTP by 2030 (according to SR and Turnbull).

          • R0ninX3ph,

            The Coaltion MtM election policy targets and costings have been amended just like the Labor NBN Co did between 2009-2013, and shh don’t mention the total Labor pre election NBN policy backflip in 2007.

            BTW Speaking of policies how is Labor NBN MK2 policy going?

            I and many voters look forward to the NBN package labeling of the MtM that’s not a MtM.

          • “Speaking of policies how is Labor NBN MK2 policy going?”
            Great until an incompetent* government came in and demolished it.

            *read: criminally malificent

          • No that was NBN MK1 policy, a failure, second bite of the NBN cherry will be extremely interesting don’t you think? especially when Labor get to the two ‘curve balls’, HFC and already active FTTN areas.

          • The difference between the Labor policy pre 07 and the Liberals, Labor said they planned to do ~something~ and put out to tender for FTTN and got nothing but rubbish back.

            The Libs claimed they had a fully costed plan for 1/3 the price they claimed the Labor FTTP plan would cost. AKA, pulled it out their arse. (AKA they lied without a doubt. They didn’t have a plan until the SR was complete.)

            Also, Mk1 was when they put out to tender for a FTTN network and nobody came back with a compliant bid.

            FTTP to 93% was Mk2.

            What you refer to is some kind of future Mk3. Or would it be Mk4 because MTM is essentially NBN Mk3 (regardless of the party proposing it).

            Nobody is going to be shocked when Labor announce their policy for the NBN, its going to be HFC in the HFC area, FTTP to Greenfields, FTTdp in Brownfields. Then upgrading those areas that are HFC/FTTN > FTTP once the whole build is complete, with FTTdp a possible upgrade to FTTP after those.

            Why do I say this? Because they have no option anymore than to just continue with the dogs breakfast they will have been given, rather than spending another 2 years dealing with a hostile Telstra.

          • @ alain…

            “No that was NBN MK1 policy, a failure,…”

            Oh you mean MK1 policy – I.e. FTTN/FRAUDBAND…like err, the current prehistoric government, who dubbed FRAUDBAND some 9 years ago, is now rolling out that very same umm, FRAUDBAND…

            Yes thanks for the frank admission…

            You’re welcome.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            Nobody is going to be shocked when Labor announce their policy for the NBN,

            I think Labor might be shocked they actually produced one. :)

            its going to be HFC in the HFC area, FTTP to Greenfields, FTTdp in Brownfields.

            I think they will go for FTTP in brownfields not yet covered by FTTN, they need some NBN policy differentiation, but they better go nuts with that FTTP rollout speed.

            Then upgrading those areas that are HFC/FTTN > FTTP once the whole build is complete,

            Don’t think that will happen in their first term, same for FTTdp, maybe if they win again 2019, they have to be very very careful making rollout/upgrade target promises they cannot keep, Labor have been there done that.

          • Perhaps they’ll embrace FTTN…alain?

            Oh no that’s right, they did that in 2007… when the others (you idolise like a smitten schoolgirl to Beiber) called it FRAUDBAND.

            Yet now they embrace that very same FRAUDBAND, now that it has already come and gone… go the radcons and their hand me down policies , they previously bagged eh…lol :/

            So realistically, I guess what ever the current opposition come up with now… circa 2022 the sit on their hands let the country stagnate conservatives, you so readily pander to, will AGAIN simply adopt it anyway…

            And “OF COURSE” you will AGAIN too, following another umpteen of humiliating pitiful contradictions…

            So who cares eh?

            You”re welcome.

  9. ‘Political indecision’ I don’t remember any indecision, Labor tried to build a future proof comm system and the Coalition are destroying it, no indecision there.

        • And now we have FTTN… err, umm, d’oh…

          Perhaps if you wish to make a point, at least have minimal something to make that point..

          Otherwise you come of looking foolish … oh par for the course, please continue.

          You’re welcome

        • Well they did Richard its called FTTP, it services the bulk of the current NBN users.

  10. Yeah,nah Renai. The problems with Labor’s NBN were mere punctuation errors in Shakespeare compared to how the coalitions of f-wits has cocked it up. You’re confusing politics with facts again. The libs would never have come on board with the NBN because it’s always the politics, always. The NBN was set up with clear goals, competent staff and an adequate budget. We now have a disaster, with no clear goals, incompetent staff and a sky high budget.

    • > The NBN was set up with clear goals, competent staff and an adequate budget.

      The goals were politically compromised (same price as ADSL2+ for basic connections) resulting in only a limited, shrinking number (3% less on 100Mbps plans than 12 months ago) receiving only a tenth of the current 1Gbps standard. The rollout goals were obscenely optimistic and fialed to address areas of need first.

      Competent staff is arguable. Certainly the staffing budget was significantly higher than Labor’s budget. Quigley definitely understood who his political masters were leading to announcements such as 1Gbps and unrealistic rollout maps prior to the 2010 election and more comments prior to the 2013 election. The negotiations with Telstra could hardly be called a stunning success.

      The adequate budget is also arguable. It is questionable that Australians would pay the significantly higher costs required by Labor’s financial model to meet the ROI. Labor promoted price falls, but failed to make it clear how much usage would be required to grow for the unit price to fall. Labor’s financial model required that the CVC revenue increased by 720%. CVC would fall by 2.5 times (from $20Mbps to $8Mbps) but for this to occur data usage had to increase 1800% percent.

      Labor’s NBN Plan would have benefited those who could afford to pay, while the rest would have been left on substandard connections on a global scale. This is pretty much the same as the Liberal NBN plan. Those who can afford it will simply order fibre on demand or move.

      • Mathew can you justify the Libs spending upto $56B to deliver an upto 25Mbps service where ft only $8B more could have delivers an upto 1Gbps service.

  11. “Labor went its own way on a decade-long infrastructure project, without taking the Coalition along for the journey.”

    I don’t have any particular love of Labor but their NBN project was the best way to implement a national broadband project in this country. Of course their execution of said project could have been handled better with the glacial way the original NBNCo was implementing the project.

    The Liberal MTM way of broadband is an absolute mess. And it is not going to save one single cent compared to the original NBN project. I compare it to the awful roof insulation project Labor forced on the public. It’s like everything else in Australia – nothing is planned properly and everything is implemented poorly. We truly are a banana republic.

  12. The “awful insulation project” was not “forced” on anyone. The government financed certain work to be done for those who wanted the work done. If a bank lends money (it can’t be expected to give money) to finance your house renovations, is it responsible if you choose an incompetent builder?

    And isn’t it the responsibility of state governments to regulate trade and protect consumers generally?

    • Indeed and last I checked it was dodgy private opperators not adhering to basic ohs standards that killed people, not the government of the day.

      • Handing out money with almost no strings attached was bad policy which encouraged dodgy operators. Labor should have anticipated the problems.

        • Ha ha. Really ? – the Liberals and their small business buddies are forever bleating about regulation and saying self-regulation is the way to go. So it’s now Labor’s fault that a lot of small business operators are greedy shits ?

          • Roof Insulation, nobody talks about the successful side of it, I had two units insulated, as a matter of fact out of the 104 units in our complex 103 of them were insulated, no fires and no one died. Tens of thousands of places were insulated and they are now reaping the benefits. No disrespect to the young fellers who died or their families but OHS is a state run and these fatalities were due to employer incompetence. The government was trying to keep people employed especially youth who suffer the most during economic down turns.

  13. I havn’t research the australian telecoms history as Renai has – so i may be missing something here, but I really don’t see how the mess we are in now is equally attributed to labor?

    Labor, when they formed the NBN in 2009, recognised after years of indecision from both parties, that they needed to make a decision one way or the other – they chose FTTP. In response, the coalition was arguing that wireless was the future.

    It was the coalition that dragged the NBN into political light. They could have simply let it be – but they didn’t like labors approach, it was fundamentally opposed to their ideals – too left wing and not run by private sector. Despite it being popular – or perhaps because it was popular, they produced all sorts of FUD to try bring it down.

    It was the coalition that changed the NBN from FTTP to MTM in 2013, after 4 years of NBN establishing itself and just starting to get the ball rolling. They used dodgy reasoning, half truths and at times outright lies. They have consistently ignored, denied or attacked prominent figures with expert knowledge in the field (or even first hand knowledge, ie. Quigley) – who made it very clear that changing the NBN now would cause delays and that the MTM would be a poor choice compared to FTTP. They fired the old board etc, got a bunch of yes men to replace them, got an ‘independent’ review with blatant conflicts of interest to prove that the MTM was better and carried on anyway. Now, its looking more and more like their MTM is going to be worse in almost every aspect than what FTTP would have been. They refuse to show any data relating to the original FTTP strategy, but cite the cost of changing it back from the MTM as as proof the MTM is cheaper.

    I think what the coalition have done to the NBN and australias telecom sector is orders of magnitude worse than the mistakes labor made – and they made a few, there’s no doubt. The difference with their mistakes is that:

    – Labors was incompetence, brought about by a complex situation and an uncooperative private sector.
    – The coalitions was the intent to gain political advantage at any cost – to jam something in to replace it, no matter how much it stunk.

    The coalitions was far more destructive – they ruined a good policy, one that was working and pretty much on track to deliver (despite what they may claim). It was an intentional calculated move – they knew what they were doing.

    Lets not pretend, for the sake of neutrality, that both parties are equally responsible – or rather, responsible to the same degree of badness – for the poor broadband performance/ranking in australia.

    • So very true, but Tony needed to Demolish FTTH to retain Murdoch’s blatant anti Labor News coverage at any price to the nation.

    • You’re right — the Coalition was far more destructive.

      But Labor just unilaterally went ahead, both in 2007 and 2009, in announcing new broadband policies — which the Coalition would partially be responsible for implementing, as either would have taken a decade to implement — without actively working with the Coalition on the issue. There wasn’t much of an attempt to seek bipartisan support.

      This was one of the key errors Labor made in developing both the 2007 and 2009 NBN policies. The other was not doing a global survey of the various telecoms markets to see what regulatory — rather than pure “let’s build the fucking thing” measures which could have been taken to stimulate the industry to further develop its own infrastructure.

      If it had, it might have been able to come up with a regulatory scheme (such as the separation of Telstra, as happened with BT in the UK) which might have appealed to the Coalition.

      Under Rudd, Labor assumed it could do the job itself — and this was a flaw of Rudd’s thinking in general — he assumed Labor would have a long time in office, after Howard’s long reign. Unfortunately, Labor firstly wasted 18 months chasing its failed FTTN policy, then unilaterally announced a massive national FTTP project, without trying to find a compromise solution that the Coalition would accept.

      The result? Shock — Labor’s Governments were not as politically stable or long-lived as Rudd had assumed, and the Coalition took the opportunity to tear down the FTTP NBN plan that it had never approved of, nor been involved with, in the first place.

      There is a lot of Rudd arrogance at play here.

      Sure, the greater fault is the Coalition’s — and Malcolm Turnbull’s in particular. But it is clear, upon a calm examination of the period (as I am doing at the moment), that much of the seeds of the NBN’s issues were sewn by Labor at the start of the policy development process.

      And, of course, much of the original framework for the policy was set by Telstra itself — in the form of Sol Trujillo, who proposed a national FTTN network to start with and then broadly refused to cooperate when Labor tried to implement a national FTTN plan. Telstra also, shares a great deal of blame here.

      • Why blame Telstra? Thanks to Howard they were now in the sole situation of looking after their own interests including their partnership with the Murdoch Foxtel HFC network’s profitability.
        They had Tony on-side & hungry for power.
        Any coincidence this prompted endless deliberate delays in the negotiations & access co-operation plus a massive, often dishonest campaign to discredit & oust labor’s FTTH?
        Perhaps Telstra’s fortunes seem a whole lot brighter now due to the switch to MTM?

      • Don’t leave the Nationals out of the blame game. Labor would have rightly thought that the Nationals would have supported their FTTP plan, given that the National Party came up with a very similar plan to roll out FTTP. The Nationals even claimed Labor had stolen their policy!
        The National’s effectively disappeared from the comms scene when the Coalition got into government. They were silent on their previous FTTP policy. Joyce and Nash pretended they never had an FTTP policy, even though they previously proclaimed loudly that Labor stole it. The Nationals now toe the Liberal party line and the National Party constituents in rural and regional areas are getting screwed over. They have ensured a massive digital divide will exist between rural and regional Australia, and their city counterparts for a very long time
        Why do the National Party no longer support a full FTTP rollout as they once did? Labor must be asking that question.

        Why does anyone seriously think that Abbott could have been conciliatory on broadband policy? He was known as Dr No for a reason. He opposed for he sake of opposing. He didn’t want an NBN at all, so he wasn’t going to side with Labor to make one happen. If it hadn’t been for Turnbull, its hard to imagine what we would have been left with under Abbotts reign. Turnbull dragged Abbott kicking and screaming to accept the second rate mess we have now. Imagine if Abbott got his way!

        The Abbott Liberal government, and the Nationals in coalition with them need to shoulder the lions share of the mess we are in now. There is no reason they could not have just tweaked Labors policy to fix the few things that were wrong with it, and let it roll on, particularly seeing as it was just ramping up. If they were truly interested in a bi-partisan solution, that would have been the sensible course of action. Instead they had to rip it apart, and replace it with an outdated, costly and messy policy, causing a 2 year delay to a project that was already in rollout phase. What Abbott’s government has done truly is ridiculous.

        Australia went from finally getting their broadband woes fixed (and being a world leader) to having them fucked up once again, and sinking further into the broadband backwaters.

        • > The Abbott Liberal government, and the Nationals in coalition with them need to shoulder the lions share of the mess we are in now. There is no reason they could not have just tweaked Labors policy to fix the few things that were wrong with it, and let it roll on, particularly seeing as it was just ramping up.

          First you would have to have some agreement on what was wrong with Labor’s policy and the correct solutions.

          Many people who want FTTP are only focused on a 100Mbps or faster connection for themselves and chose to ignore Labor’s predictions and the actual take up rates (79% on fibre at 25Mbps or slower). Is this an issue or is a growing digital divide acceptable?

          Should the brownfield priorities be refocused to areas without HFC / suburbs build post 1970 as it is well known that these are the areas where the slowest speeds exist?

          Should country town be offered FTTN rather than being forced onto wireless?

          If FTTB appropriate for apartments?

          Is 25Mbps really adequate for wireless in the bush?

          Is the balance between revenue generated from connection fees and data usage correct? Do we want to encourage more people to connect at faster speeds or less people connecting at slower speeds but able to download more data.

          Is the congestion being regularly experienced on the NBN acceptable or not?

          Are the higher than expected overheads of a government monopoly reasonable or not?

          There are lots of questions that could be asked, but too many Labor fanbois are afraid of the answers.

          > Instead they had to rip it apart, and replace it with an outdated, costly and messy policy, causing a 2 year delay to a project that was already in rollout phase.

          Yet that MTM policy delivers the same benefits for 79% of the population as Labor’s FTTP policy.
          Has it really been delayed that much when the FTTP roll out continued? How does that compare with how many years behind Labor was on their conservative build?

          > Australia went from finally getting their broadband woes fixed (and being a world leader) to having them fucked up once again

          I would argue that Australia went from being the laughing stock of the world with 79% connecting at 25Mbps or slower on a 1Gbps network. Compare that with the Google’s 1/1Gbps symmetric fibre which Labor promoted our network as being equal. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry when I consider that if the Liberals removed the speed tiers on FTTN most people (79%) would experience faster speeds than under Labor’s FTTP plan.

          • Lol Mathew so someone that can only get 23Mbps peak speed only nothing better and they remove speed years would still not be faster under labor FTTP lol. If you remote speed teir they would be getting 100Mbps on FTTP but apparently you want inequality and having the slower speeds paying for people that get the faster speeds.

            Your argument only works with FTTP. Or should we just limit everyone to just 25Mbps for $56B price tag when we could have had FTTP for $8B more

      • So when’s Delimiter going to be turned into a political party and Renai for PM?
        (or president dunn dunnn!) :)

        • Because he’s wanting a nice safe Liberal seat after getting Liberal preselection…;)

      • The sale of Telstra as a Vertical Monopoly was the worst possible outcome for Broadband in this country!

        If they had of separated Telstra into independent wholesale and retail arms we would probably not be in this situation.

          • Labor and Conroy bragged about structurally separating Telstra, six years to do it in and it never happened, but I am sure Telstra are more than happy with the $11B he lined up for them in the NBN deal, and Labor didn’t even want the HFC and copper as part of the deal.

            Tough negotiators Labor.

            lol

          • Reality and the new $11B which shift all cost Telsta had to the NBN lol Tough negotiators Turnbull lol

  14. Pointless to buy Renai’s book, because it is being written here on the pages of Delimiter every day. It makes for frustrated reading and the history is extremely well known. Why anyone would buy this book and its depressing story is beyond me, perhaps it is a vanity project for Renai.

    • It was a kickstarter everybody already paid.

      I am sure it contains more than a handful of sentences from Delimiter articles though.

  15. The point I think Renai is getting at is that it shouldn’t have been a case of the LNP opposing a government owned infrastructure monopoly, it should have been a conversation between the two sides about the actual challenge / problem of telecommunications generally and potential long term solutions and negotiating a middle ground.

    The problem with this premise is that you assume Labor just went off on their own in a vacuum. That did not happen. Labor announced a plan to address the problem in a general sense within the context of private industry utterly failing to provide a decent solution, almost entirely because Telstra owned not only most of the copper in the country, but the network of ducts and all the exchanges. Telstra were the cause of hundreds of thousands of people unable to get DSL despite being on activated exchanges and within range due to issues like a lack of space in the exchange (‘no ports’), pair gain lines, poor quality lines, even tying up ISPs in red tape for months to years just to delay them getting access to exchanges. The Telstra problem was a direct result of the LNP’s handling of the Telstra privatisation. The ongoing problem was a direct result of the LNP failing to address the issue at all while they were in power.

    So, in the absence of a market solution, Labor decided to incentivise things. That lead to Telstra thumbing their nose at the ALP and no one else having a workable solution. Throughout all of that the LNP had ample opportunity to work with the ALP, but instead they fought the whole process.

    At that point, maybe additional negotiation and collaboration would have helped. Maybe they tried it? But they probably thought, let’s just fix this.

    But I can imagine what you would have been writing if, instead of following the advice of the expert review panel, Labor had then spent the next three years in a deadlock trying to negotiate a bipartisan way forward with the coalition. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    • *** People seem to forget what happened to Malcolm Turnbull when he tried to negotiate with Labor over the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) his party threw him out and replaced him with Abbott. ***

    • Pleasant conversations like that can not happen when vested interests are funding a party’s re-election campaign.

      Messes like this will continue until we get rid of legalised corruption and move to pure publicly funded elections.

  16. Was nationalising the infrastructure in this modern era of communications where most of the modern networks are built mostly by private enterprise a good idea? I think the problem with nationalising something is that it will inevitably be politicised and when you have lots of instability in both political parties then that can only be bad news for any policies/projects requiring long term government commitments. The ropes are contentiously being pulled in different directions and that’s something you can’t have on a project of this scale. Labors plan would probably have worked if we had political stability for at least 1 more election cycle. Unfortunately Labor had its own issues that it couldn’t sort and Australia elected Tony Abbott. Seriously we elected Tony Abbott!
    I think perhaps for our current political climate is that the focus should have remained on fixing Telstra, getting them separated and then putting out another private tender process in the absence of Sol.

    • An alternative model would have been to establish 121 concessions to provide wholesale NBN services at a minimum standard across the country with appropriate KPIs. Private industry could then have bid on each concession either to pay the government fro the concession or be reimbursed for areas unlikely to be profitable. This could have lead to serious innovation and an efficient network roll-out.

      • Lol well we did have a tender for FTTN that the billions that where going to be invested didn’t jump at the chance

  17. “Either model can work – but Australia just needs to choose one or the other and stick to it.”

    Both sides of politics are in agreement; ubiquitous high speed internet (NBN) will be govt (GBE). Private sector and competition policy has been removed from the equation by both Labor and the Coalition. The spend is just beginning!

    The focus of meaningless broadband rankings is a distortion. As has been discussed in these forums Internet penetration is much more important than speed, and that the majority of economic benefit is captured at relatively low speeds. To compare Australia with Asian mega-cities / states like Singapore or Hong Kong is silly. Developing economies (including former soviet states) don’t have existing infrastructure to reuse so the fibre / wireless being deployed catapults them to the top of the rankings. However where is the promised economic transformation?

    Contrary to the headline, political decisions rather than indecision has produce the present situation. Firstly not preventing the Telstra HFC overbuild of Optus Cable which would have delivered last mile competition whilst also forcing Telsra to be creative with alternative (FTTN for triple play or FTTh). Secondly the acceptance of the three amigos at Telstra (from day one objectionable to govt interference common in economies outside the U.S.). Finally the absurd situation where Conroy/Rudd rejected bipartisan competition policy since Hawke to pander to their inflated egos by setting up a govt run telco to deliver a project well beyond their very limited capabilities.

    Canada is always a classic case study for Australians as our economies and demographics are similar. Private sector delivering there, as in many markets, significantly better (and in many cases at little or no cost to taxpayers) starkly illustrates the relative incompetence of govt driven ventures. Sadly it is a lesson that requires to be relearnt by the socalists every generation.

    • (To compare Australia with Asian mega-cities / states like Singapore or Hong Kong is silly.)
      Rubbish Richard they are direct competitors, we have to compete with everyone regardless of their geographic size or population. Speed is not a good word to use, your better using bandwidth up and down, the greater the bandwidth the greater the speed. Bandwidth Rules.

      • @mk the costs of deployment to countries with the population density of Australia is very different. If you think Australia is in direct competition with HK or Singapore then we’ve already lost. Our competitive advantages (many) lie elsewhere.

        • Indeed, yet you usual suspects always refer to the UK to support your retrograde FTTN…

          Tell us again about the fictional 60m passed?

          Thanks for dropping in.

          • Yes numbers man and his numbers lol

            When using the ofcom report using only 20 premises that get with in 10% of the advertised speed. Lol

          • @r you’re right 16m. Sorry. NBNCo 1m in the same time with much greater taxpayer spend.

        • You might think differently Richard when accounting jobs here in Australia are out sourced to Singapore and else where. The current government is thinking of out sourcing sections of the ATO to overseas companies. And if governments can do it so can the private sector. Stop using BT as an example they are a basket case.
          Most of BT’s profits are generated by its Openreach subsidiary, which controls the UK’s ‘last mile’ copper infrastructure. Since 2005, BT have been accused of abusing their control of Openreach, particularly by UNDERINVESTING in the UK’s broadband infrastructure, charging high prices and providing poor customer service. The UK’s telecoms regulator Ofcom is currently investigating whether to order BT to sell Openreach.

          • What’s the direct relationship between the outsourcing examples you quoted and the type of fixed line infrastructure a country chooses?

          • @mk I’m not threatened by outsourcing, actually outsourced (eg hardware manufacturing) to Asia. Presents some fantastic opportunities.

            Two web-based software start-ups currently advising will be setup in Singapore. Their advantages in the areas of IT resources, labour flexibility, data centres and international data connections, regional financial hub, tax rate (half Australia) etc won’t be compensated by a wasteful over investing NBNCo. The added cost on the productive economy to pay for it will make outsourcing more attractive and improved internet here will make it easier:-)

            Many things are said about BT deployment, as with everyone else. Knocking what’s been delivered (when others just talk) is not going to get much of a hearing from me. DT another, HFC upgrades in North America, etc. result exactly the same; reusing existing infrastructure cheaper and faster to deploy. What since 2009, tens of billions spent and Australia is at about 15% coverage?

          • (I’m not threatened by outsourcing) well your a fool then Richard, you always have to be one step ahead of the competition or you or your product become history. Our broadband ranking continues to drop along with our compeditiveness.

          • @mk I’m several steps ahead of the competition. The fools should be worried, faster 4k YouTube video isn’t going to help them.

          • Several steps ahead eh? Well since “you” brought it up… let do a quick “top 10” (I’ll limit it to a mere 10, otherwise it’ll slip into TL;DR, territory) to dispel such toxic narcissism. You’re welcome…

            1) Could have been commissioned to write the MTM fuck up… bzzzt

            2) Still calls NBN NBNCo…bzzzt

            3) Claims the market would have delivered defying history, as the market did NOT deliver.. bzzzt

            4) Still claims that markets deliver – but then tells us his first post grad (leaning on the taxpayers ;) was in “market failures”…bzzzt

            5) Claims BT passed 60m premises with FTTN while we did 1m with FTTP…bzzzt

            6) Refuses to admit (like even those who roll out FTTN currently, that FTTP is the end goal)….bzzzt

            7) Says he’s a (L)libertarian and promotes conservative views but opposes all high profile (l)libertarians/conservatives who say copper is obsolete….bzzzt

            8) Says MTM is the way to go because it utilises existing infrastructure (then blames the government, not his plan) because as we told him, the infrastructure is not all suitable for reuse….bzzzt

            9) Says MTM is faster & cheaper (never factoring the later required upgrade to FTTP, because he’s alone with FTTP NOT being the end goal)… but even with roll out blow outs to years and up to $15B blowout (by his/their own dodgy figures) still can’t bring himself to say when the difference is so minimal we may as well just do FTTP and be done with it….bzzzt

            10) Refuses to accept (or bluntly denies) his own comments and 1-9 to desperately attempt to avoid scrutiny….bzzzt

            You perhaps are several steps ahead Richard, several steps ahead of the caveman in regards to your visionless ideologically driven nonsense, in regards to Australia’s comms.

    • Just wondering, how do you reconcile the fact that large chunks of the infrastructure being rolled out by the private sector in Canada are FTTH, with your belief that fiber is hopelessly uneconomic ?

      • Key word here, chunks. It’s not an NBN. At least it’s FTTP tho, bell Canada no longer rolls out FTTN as it’s uneconomic.

        • Nah Derek, they obviously don’t know whats good for them. Magical pixie dust will provide the speeds in the future, they shouldn’t be rolling out FTTP at all.

        • Bell Canada is rolling out FTTP for Bell Canada customers, ask Bell Canada to rollout FTTP for the majority of residences all over Australia and wholesale it to all their RSP competitors and they don’t get to determine what their wholesale margin is at different speed tiers, the ACCC does.

          Let me know what the response to your ‘come on over’ email is?

          • @Reality, this being your go to response is exactly why the Government HAD to do it.

            Private enterprise refuses to build infrastructure to all, and chooses to only cherry pick the areas that generate them the most profit.

            So, your snarky, smartarse comment about how a private company wouldn’t do it explains exactly why we have a national broadband policy in the first place.

          • Yes I know why we have a government backed NBN policy, I don’t think any Telco not even Telstra is interested anymore in bearing the cost of a national fixed line infrastructure rollout, the ROI is abysmal on such a massive CAPEX, especially if you have to let competitors use it.

            The low hanging fruit is mobile data, so you won’t see Singtel Optus or Vodafone rolling out fixed line infrastructure here anytime soon.

            I was just pointing out there are stark differences when it comes to simplistically stating that Bell Canada is rolling out FTTP so therefore we should do it here.

          • Well since private enterprise is so wonderful, why don’t YOU ask Bell Canada to do so…

            See we can all play the childish card, as you do daily… but we normally chose the adult route…

            You ought to try adult even only once…

            You’re welcome

        • @do @d no reconciliation required; there are markets in Australia that can absorb the cost of FTTH as there are in Canada. FTTH is not proposed for 93% of Canadians.

          Interestingly most of these markets are 1) competively serviced by fibre provides today (eg pipe networks) or 2) are under the HFC footprint (cheaper , 1gbps speeds).

        • @do FTTN is complete. Note these areas aren’t all being upgraded to FTTH (majority of revenue already captured, cheaply).

    • Hey Renai, will there be a psychological section in your book dedicated to Australias various oddfellows, such as our own Flude and Alain?

  18. Basically we have the worst of both worlds.
    All the downsides of mass government intervention – Slow, expensive, inflexible, locking out competition.
    All the downsides of private enterprise operating a natural monopoly – focus on the short term, spend the bare minimum on maintenance and upgrades, and generally offer the poorest service you can get away with.

    • David, private enterprise has NEVER in the history of this country built National infrastructure, they cherry pick the profitable bits and ignore the rest.

      The ONLY international example I can think of where a private company built true national infrastructure is in the USA – AT&T in return for getting “regulated monopoly” status, built the US PSTN and Military Phone networks over a period of about 60-80 years.

      • But at least the profitable bits do actually get something. Unlike in Australia today, where the government has decided that no-one will ever want a good internet connection, even if they are willing to pay.

          • “I didn’t stop the company progression at Telecom”
            The problem with your irreverent incompetent incoherence is that while the first two names you produced rolled out national infrastructure (and weren’t private companies so therefore completely irrelevant to what Derek was talking about), the final name did nothing of the sort (and is therefore completely irrelevant to what Derek was talking about).

            Your entire reply was completely irrelevant, yet you reply to me as if somehow I missed the point? There needs to BE a point. Why do you even click Post?

        • Actually in the last year of Telstra before it was fully privatized it earned over one billion dollars in profit it might well have been more but it was the first organization including the private sector in Australia to earn over one billion in profit in a financial year. I thought at the time it was like selling off the goose that laid the golden egg, year after year after year.

          • I think it might have been 4 billion in the last year before full privatization, not sure ????

  19. I think the problem was Tony Abbott with his relentless negativity against anything that Labor did.

    • It’s not just Abbott. The party voted Malcolm out not because Abbott opposed everything Labor did, but because the party opposed everything Labor did.

Comments are closed.