Watch: Turnbull implies he complained to ABC about “failed” NBN coverage

79

news Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appears to have implied that he made the same complaint to ABC management that he has previously made in public before the 2013 Federal Election, stating that the broadcaster had “failed” to provide balanced coverage of the competing National Broadband Network policies.

In Federal Parliament today, Shadow Communications Minister Jason Clare asked Turnbull whether he, or any members of his current or former office, had had any contact with ABC management, in relation to stories critical of the Coalition’s NBN policy.

The question came in the context of an ongoing national discussion over former ABC technology editor Nick Ross.

Ross served as the broadcaster’s editor of its Technology & Games sub-site from 2010 before resigning his position several weeks ago. The journalist came under fire from other media outlets and political figures such as then-Shadow Communications Minister Turnbull in 2013, after he published a number of articles heavily critical of Turnbull’s rival NBN policy. He has published little on the subject since.

However, the ABC has denied it gagged Ross, telling BuzzFeed news that the journalist had been warned to take the role of a “reporter”, rather than an “advocate” and highlighting the ABC’s editorial policies. A spokesperson for the broadcaster added that Ross had been invited to contribute to the ABC’s business coverage, including on NBN issues, after the Technology & Games sub-site was scheduled to be shut down, but that Ross had declined.

In response (see the full draft transcript online here), Turnbull said that he had, on several occasions, complained “very publicly and openly about the ABC’s coverage about the NBN issue, in particular and most notably in the lead up to the last election where I felt the ABC’s coverage of the issue was very poor and lacked balance”.

The Prime Minister said that in his view, the ABC failed in its coverage of the issue of the competing technologies being pitched for the NBN by the various political parties, because it did not use its international resources to examine how Turnbull’s preferred Fibre to the Node technology was being used in a number of other countries, such as the United States, the UK, Germany, Switzerland and others.

“In my view – and I was very public about this – in my view, the ABC failed in its coverage of the issue because what it failed to do was to use its rather extensive international resources to at least go and interview people at British telecom or Deutsche telecom or Swiss com and test whether the arguments I was putting as Shadow Minister for Communications were correct,” said Turnbull.

“They declined to do that and as a consequence I feel in that regard the national broadcaster, which I hold in high regard as I’m sure Honourable Members do, in that regard it failed to put enough – it should have done a better job in putting more information about the competing alternatives before the public.

Turnbull added: “… have I complained, did I complain about this to the ABC? The answer is yes, I did complain but I complained publicly. I was very public about it and made this point. I’ve said nothing in any of my discussions with the chief executive at any time. I’ve said exactly the same things privately as I’ve said publicly because it is important, in my view, that the national broadcaster, whenever it can, seeks to inform the public debate so to ensure that, right or wrong, the contending arguments are well exposed in light of the facts.”

Turnbull’s answer — while a little unclear — appears to imply that he made the same arguments to ABC management privately regarding its coverage of the NBN issue that he had made publicly, although the Prime Minister’s words can also be interpreted as meaning that he did not raise the issue with ABC managing director Mark Scott privately.

Following Clare’s question, the Member for Blaxland followed up with a second question on the issue, asking whether an independent inquiry would be conducted into the matter, similar to the inquiry that has recently been conducted into the ABC’s Q&A program. Watch the second question and answer here:

In response, Turnbull said he did not want to comment on specific journalists at the ABC, such as Ross, or Lateline host Emma Alberici, who Delimiter has reported had an article on the NBN delayed until after the 2013 Federal Election.

“As for the rights and wrongs of Nick Ross — I think’s the journalist the Honourable Member mentioned — or indeed Emma Alberici, those are matters between the ABC management and the journalists in question and matters for them to resolve through the normal industrial processes,” said Turnbull.

“… in the free and open debate we have, all of us are entitled to express our views about the coverage of issues in the media and all of us should continue to do so … the ABC’s coverage is entitled to be as subject to criticism as the people on whom it seeks to report.”

79 COMMENTS

  1. So TurnBull is complaining that the ABC didnt analyse his cherry picked OS examples… I wish they had too.

    Hey MT hows that NZ FTTN example going for you that you were so fond of?

      • Chorus did roll out fttn for awhile, then found out wasn’t fit for purpose and switched to ftth. Nz now has a huge amount of ftth . Mr Turnbull really should keep up to date with technology.

        • While many are waiting for the FTTP connection the business or residence has the option of connecting up with VDSL2 for the interim period.

          • At a staggering average speed of 13Mbps! Welcome to the FTTN folks…… Of course, since deploying FTTP, average speeds across all users has risen to 20Mbps

    • NZ FTTP rollout is to about 75% of the population of Melbourne in about the area size of Victoria.

      Yep same as the obsolete Labor FTTP model here.

      • Australia Gov budget revenue is more than 6 x NZ: $504.70 billion vs $69.92 billion
        Gov Budget surplus is better -3.4% of GDP > -3.8% of GDP
        Public Government debt 29.3% of GDP vs NZ 41.8% of GDP

        NZ started with FTTN then switched to FTTP after realising the benefits.
        Why did we spend billions to buy a crappy copper network to implement FTTN?

        • So we compare selected budget revenue and debt figures, and simplistically state yep we can afford FTTP to 93% of residences, we have other burdens on revenue such as social services, health care, education, etc because of our higher population, we don’t have to waste it on expensive FTTP to 93% of residences.

          Parliamentary Budget Office figures released this week show our national fiscal debt has worsened, since all state and the federal budgets were delivered last year it has gone from $88 billion to $122.1 billion, it is expected to deteriorate by $34.1 billion more than expected in the next four years.

          Also we didn’t spend billions to buy a ‘crappy copper network’, Labor and Conroy negotiated the $11B NBN/Telstra deal and the $800M deal for Optus, the Coalition just added NBN Co ownership of the respective HFC and the copper for the same price.

      • LOL…

        Yet you’ll argue fair comparison when you desperately try to make obsolete FTTN sound great, by using the UK as your comparison.

        You know the UK, about the size of VIC, but 3 x Australia’s population.

        Nice work… professor cherry pick

        • Thanks for the FTTN endorsement, UK has 3 times the population and FTTN is selected in their MtM mix by BT.

          The reason BT chose FTTN and are actively trialing G.Fast is it is faster and cheaper to rollout than FTTP, the same reason it is being used here, especially as we got the Telstra copper for the same price Labor were going to pay them to shut it down.

          The main reason NZ is a poor example of comparing FTTP to here is that the rollout is to only 75% of the population, and therefore quite a low total CAPEX figure compared to Australia’s 93% of residence CAPEX to a much larger population base spread out all over the continent.

          Also because the population and area size is much larger in Australia the time to FTTP completion estimated at 2026-2028 is much longer, another reason to use copper and existing HFC infrastructure.

          BTW FTTN is not obsolete by any means but the Labor FTTP plan definitely is, it was booted out in the 2013 election.

          • Lol reality so you can compare the uk to Australia but we can’t even though your messiah Turnbull compared us to NZ when they where rolling out FTTN before they switched to FTTP. But there last CPP was around $3k and expect to come down even more.

          • But that CPP is based on a Chorus rollout to about 75% of the residences of Melbourne by 2019, which is less labor cost and less fibre and associated FTTP support gear.

            How does that compare in any way to a Labor FTTP CPP rollout to 93% of residences here by 2021?

          • Lol Reality your are almost as good as Richard with numbers the CPP is the Cost Per Premises. peak funding which would be cheaper than ours is which your trying to say lol.

          • Spoon feeding time again…

            Selected by the UK copper owner/incumbent … wow what a glowing endorsement alain. With the advent of FTTP the incumbent decided rather than renew everything with fibre they’d cut corners and reuse their copper to keep the multi-billion profits going for as long as they can?

            Seriously no one is that dumb (disingenuous I’d say) to not understand this.

            But of course looking globally, no government on earth is stupid enough to privatise the incumbent (i.e. sell the decaying copper network), let it dilapidate further in the hands of private enterprise and then buy it back, just so to roll out obsolete infrastructure…and especially, after FTTP was planned and underway…

            Oh wait there is one government and it’s faithfull lackey’s stupid enough…

            And wow look, you can actually reply to me… well, when like here, you are able to weave your own special brand of backwards FUD that is. I.e. when you aren’t completely humiliated and there can’t do anything but run… by your own endless procession of contradictions and hypocritical double standards, I kindly bring to everyone’s attention.

            I wonder what you’ll do here? Go MIA again, cough up more FUD again or go plan C something completely childish again.

            Why don’t you surprise us all and try being factual and honest even only once, I promise it won’t hurt.

            You’re welcome.

    • To the contrary, Sir, I believe he may well be telling the truth. Our problem might well be that we never heard him, or more accurately, took absolutely no notice at the time because, let’s face it, EVERY pollie complains bitterly about Aunty’s Total Lack of Fair Coverage, ALL THE TIME.

    • He did complain. He just complained that the coverage of the mtm want positive enough, which is why nick Ross was told to start ragging on the alp plan before he would be allowed to write anything more about the MTM

    • “The Luddite hasn’t the faintest idea what any of this means!”

      If he were a Luddite, he wouldn’t invest his own money in companies rolling out FTTP. He knows that FTTP is technically superior, he knows that FTTP is the future.

      Only true luddites and bean counters deny this.

      • *That* is only an investment in bonds and that is where it ends. There is no technology based decision whatsoever nor does he have any say within the enterprises involved.

        He has invested in investment bonds with Telefónica, which is a large international telco based in Spain who are rolling out FTTP pedal to the metal.

        His interest statement also mentions a bond investment with France Télécom which spun off from government control in 1988, which no longer exists. LoL They were branded as Orange in 2013, which was once France Télécom subsidary acquired in 1999. Orange is now another multinational telecommunications company with 230 million customers worldwide. Orange are rolling out FTTP internationally including France and Spain.

        Furthermore Turnbull has no respect for technology at all.
        Trumpet Software Pty Ltd & Anor v OzEmail Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 560 (10 July 1996)
        http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1996/560.html

        Abbott and Turnbull are fear mongering Luddites with no technology background whatsoever!

        Once a Luddite…. always a Luddite

      • Those private Euro companies whose aim is to make profits for shareholders make revenue from FTTN and mobiles as well, to isolate out the FTTP rollout bit and state that’s what the Coalition should do here with a government backed national communications infrastructure rollout is ludicrous.

  2. This isn’t about balance. Its very clear that Turnbull has a bug in his arse about the ABC not being more supportive of his FTTN plan. Nick Ross did some excellent research and came to the only logical conclusion and it pissed Turnbull off that the truth was out there. Turnbull never spoke civilly to him again.
    Its the same as Abbott throwing his toys out of the cot because the ABC wouldn’t say what he wanted them to say on Q & A. The big concern in all this is the Liberal government forcing the ABC to pander to their whim, e.g. Abbott blackmailing the ABC to get Q & A moved to a different section of the ABC, Turnbull’s staff affecting editorial decisions in the ABC.
    The way the Libs treat the national broadcaster is truly appalling. The fact that they get away with it is even worse.

  3. Well, Mr Turnbull had been on the ABC umpteen times and so he had his chance to put his argument to fore, but any discussions on Nbn were shutdown at his request.

  4. Read through the lawyer language

    “The honourable member’s question is, have I complained? Did I complain about this to the ABC? The answer is yes, I did complain but I complained publicly. I was very public about it and made this point. I’ve said nothing in any of my discussions with the chief executive at any time.”
    – So he didn’t complain to Mark Scott, ok

    “I’ve said exactly the same things privately as I’ve said publicly because it is important”
    – Which does suggest though he did complain privately, just not to Mark Scott. Wonder what other links Turnbull may have had to the ABC, I’m sure people can think of a few

    • If he complained privately, then he should hand over his emails.. Like everybody else has had to. Ie slipper and Thompson cases.

      • He called him I believe. I am pretty sure it was known at the time he called and complained. I think he mentioned it on twitter.

    • “Wonder what other links Turnbull may have had to the ABC, I’m sure people can think of a few”

      ABC head of corporate affairs Sally Cray is now Malcoms Principal Secretary. She worked with him for 5 years until 2011.

      Mark Scott who previously worked at Fairfax, will be replaced by Michelle Guthrie this May.

      Nick Leys replaces Sally Cray at ABC, poached from The Australian.

      Michelle previously worked for News Corp for 13 years.

      Aunty is dead. Has been for a while by the looks of things. Just puppet masters pulling an Aunty Bernie from now on. Why are they getting my money?

  5. So, the ABC has stated it wants its people to act only as reporters now, rather than being journalists (there is a big difference between reporting and journalism). That should not come as much of a surprise to us I suppose, the days of hard hitting investigative journalism are gone.

  6. The ABC went on a massive pro-FTTP coverage rant at the 2013 federal election it was incredibly obvious, there was no balance in the coverage and there was no in depth investigation of the alternative technologies. It was a complete failure of their editorial standards and it was censorship of the alternative view. It deprived the public of a fair and balanced coverage of the issue being debated.

    Lets take an example where a home gets 100 megabits per second downloads via FTTP or FTTN or HFC.

    To that home, there is no difference in service between the three technologies and that is key point the government is trying to make here. If we (the tax payer) can save money by not doing universal FTTP then that has got to happen.

    The bits are not moving any better on FTTP than they are on FTTN or HFC. They are not gold plated bits. They’re ordinary ones or zeroes regardless of how the bits get there.

    Even if the home can only get 75 megabits per second or 50 megabits per second or 25 megabits per second on FTTN, that will be a substantial upgrade from their former ADSL based service which offers only a maximum speed of up to 24 megabits per second.

    Now if that substantial upgrade can be given at a substantial reduction in cost to the tax payer, and a substantial reduction in rollout time then we should be in favour of doing this. FTTN is the next logical upgrade step in the upgrade path from a centralised exchange. The further out into the field you can get the fibre each upgrade; the better.

    The homes on fixed wireless and fixed satellite are basically the same homes that would have gotten these technologies under the former Labor government anyway so any problems with those technologies would have still affected them under a Labor government. You can’t blame a different administration for problems that exist with a technology. Its not like the government can waive a magic wand.

    Now ultimately if you want FTTP you can buy it yourself if you live close enough to a NBN fibre cable or node you can go to the NBN website and get a rough quote and then pay for an upgrade yourself to fibre. When its your own money I suspect you will be more cautious in your cost/benefit analysis of your own FTTP upgrade and that’s no different than how government should operate.

    • Your third paragraph shows your ignorance.

      The difference in technology is stark between 100megabits vdsl2, hfc, and fibre.

      For contention before it hits your isp is 2.4gigabits shared between 16 end users.

      For hfc it is a higher total bandwidth, but shared between more end users (about 100)

      For vdsl the download rate is an estimate, the only way to guarantee 100megabits is to build the node at a house. Everyone else gets a different download rate which literally changes when it rains for some people.

      Second, the upload rate is significantly different across all technologies.
      Hfc docsis 3 is limited to between 2 and 5 megabits.
      Vdsl is again a ballpark figure, perhaps 20megabits again, changes when it rains and how far you are. (It might be quite literally impossible for you to get more than 25 megabits down on turnbulls FTTN, even if you pay for 100/??)

      Fibre is 40 megabits. Always.

      Sure, you can roll out vdsl so that every house is within 100 meters of a node, and then it will perform comparably to fibre. But that is basically a FTTN network. But more expensive.

      In every other situation there is no such thing as “just get a house with 100 megabits on any technology” because it is physically impossible for all the technologies to hit that requirement for every property serviced. Unless it’s fibre.

    • @aaricus
      “Even if the home can only get 75 megabits per second or 50 megabits per second or 25 megabits per second on FTTN, that will be a substantial upgrade from their former ADSL based service which offers only a maximum speed of up to 24 megabits per second.”

      Its an upgrade agreed. Issue is its restricted by a lucky dip system. You’re either close to the node or you are not. You also won’t pay any extra for a higher speed plan because its not possible to get it. If you 100m to far away you can’t get it at all (ie 900m!) so its satellite for you instead!

      ARPU on FttP plans is funnily enough going up yet again (its $43 of late). If a big % of population cannot ever get 100Mbps due to their location then I don’t see how the ARPU is going to get anywhere near as good using FttN.

      ” FTTN is the next logical upgrade step in the upgrade path from a centralised exchange. ”

      Sadly 10 years ago when Labor tried none of the commercial entities wanted to do so.

      “The homes on fixed wireless and fixed satellite are basically the same homes that would have gotten these technologies under the former Labor government anyway”

      Incorrect the LNP have at least doubled this number (it keeps growing due to folk being more than 800m away from node).

      “The bits are not moving any better on FTTP than they are on FTTN or HFC. They are not gold plated bits. They’re ordinary ones or zeroes regardless of how the bits get there.”

      Sigh, if that were true then the range of a bit on FttP would be the same as FttN. Sadly 80km 800m (FttP vs FttN). You try FttN over 1000m and you’ll struggle to tell whether it was a 1 or a 0 when it started out in life! It might not be gold plated but it does need to still be the same!

      *DSL suffers from issues of interference from all sorts of sources. Cu wiring has issues with water ingress and the like. It has severe distance limitations with exponential drop off in stability (and hence speed drops to maintain a stable connection).

      Fibre has none of those issues!

    • “The ABC went on a massive pro-FTTP coverage rant at the 2013 federal election ”
      You mistyped blackout as rant. This is now well documented. Continuing to produce typos such as these makes you look quite the fool indeed.

      “there was no in depth investigation of the alternative technologies. It was a complete failure of their editorial standards and it was censorship of the alternative view.”

      Nick Ross’ infamous 2013 article that took 2 years to write did all of these things in more detail than any journalist did before, or has done since. The accuracy of the report 3 years on is astounding. And when Turnbull was grilled on The Project about the shortfalls of his MTM plan the media blackout occured almost immediately afterward. This was all prior to the 2013 election.

      Further coverage by the likes of Alberici was delayed, despite being submitted prior to the election, until weeks afterward.

      The result of the election may have been influenced by this complete failure of impartial fact centric journalism.

    • I’ve read Nick Ross’ articles. I think he was aiming to inform us that a copper based NBN in Australia was a waste of time, due to the condition of the copper network. I don’t think the main focus was speed. The the opposition never said anything else, but harped on about the speeds overseas companies were acheiving over copper etc, and yes, some impressive speeds are being achieved over copper, even in Australia, and even in the NBN.

      But it’s tragic how far down a side road the debate has gone. The purpose of the project was to replace most of the copper network with a fibre network. Broadband is an adjective, not a noun! You know, broadband communications network, broadband internet. Labor should have called it the National Fibre Network, and used satellite and fixed wireless as INTERIM services while, beginning in “easier” areas, working tirelessly to cover the whole country with a fibre network.

      Can’t afford it? Our economic growth (collective wealth) depends on a steady stream of these types of infrastructure projects. And money has never been cheaper for government than it is now. Australia has gone backwards since the GFC, which didn’t really affect us. Why didn’t it really affect us? Infrastructure projects were put in place!

      Now, the real difference between FTTP & FTTN:
      FTTP: 4 completely separate (side by side, not over the top) broadband (broadband is not the Internet, remember) services, and 2 dedicated, and also completely separate voice services.

      FTTN: Exactly the same service as today, except variably faster. Whatever broadband service is provisioned captures the whole line (the broadband part of it) and every over the top service shares the same bandwidth, no side by side capability. 1 dedicated voice service ( if not naked).

      Given that economic growth depends on infrastructure projects, there is no doubt in my mind that FTTP is the sensible way forward, and judging by the way that the existing FTTP project is going, ARPU-wise, satellite and fixed wireless may very well have been completely replaced by fibre in 30 years or so. Just my opinion.

      • Just clarifying my last paragraph above:
        Perhaps in 30 years, the possibilities of the FTTP network may have gripped our imagination and fired us up enough to have extended fibre everywhere. You know, dream big!

    • “To that home, there is no difference in service between the three technologies and that is key point the government is trying to make here. ”

      No difference?
      So having up to 4 services via 4 RSPs on your FTTP NTD is no different to the single one available via FTTN copper?
      A service that continues to work when it rains (FTTP) vs one that can degrades or simply stop working (FTTN)?
      A service that costs less to maintain ($1B/yr extra for FTTN I’m hearing), and can deliver faster speeds at greater ARPU? Therefore can deliver better ROI to the investors (that’s us taxpayers)?
      Less service offerings that costs less to integrate in both nbn and RSP systems? Thus allowing cheaper plans to users or better ROI to investors?
      Less complications for end users in what service types they can get?
      Less complications for what developers can install on new estates? Telstra’s installing copper now – rather than FTTP – to more that 400 new developments! Don’t they get paid for every customer both for installing copper then again when they hand over the customer to nbn? This doesn’t happen on FTTP as Telstra is not the sole provider on that infrastructure.

      Sure, you can get similar download bandwidth on copper as fibre on a good day – where you limit the fibre. Are you sure that’s the only metric you want to use to measure a spend of $50B?

      • Jeremy,

        So having up to 4 services via 4 RSPs on your FTTP NTD is no different to the single one available via FTTN copper?

        Yep that’s a definite deal breaker, the majority of residences want that, just like a dual sim mobile eh? everyone wants one.

        A service that continues to work when it rains (FTTP) vs one that can degrades or simply stop working (FTTN)?

        What is your evidence that FTTN degrades or stops working when it rains and that FTTP works in all situations when it rains?

        A service that costs less to maintain ($1B/yr extra for FTTN I’m hearing),

        Don’t mention the CPP of $4,400 to install brownfileds FTTP in the first place, and where did you get that ‘I’m hearing’ $1B/yr figure from?

        and can deliver faster speeds at greater ARPU?

        FTTP can deliver faster speeds, it’s a pity that 77% of existing NBN FTTP users choose the two lowest 12/1 and 25/5 plans.

        Less complications for what developers can install on new estates? Telstra’s installing copper now – rather than FTTP – to more that 400 new developments!

        Where did you get that 400 figure from and Telstra installs what the developer asks them to install and the developer might not see it as a complication at all.

        Don’t they get paid for every customer both for installing copper then again when they hand over the customer to nbn?

        umm what? when does this hand over take place to the NBN after the estate has a new Telstra copper infrastructure?

        This doesn’t happen on FTTP as Telstra is not the sole provider on that infrastructure.

        But if the NBN Co doesn’t FTTP a greenfields development and the developer wants FTTP and chooses Telstra, Telstra (or any other FTTP provider chosen) is the sole fixed line provider on that estate anyway.

        Sure, you can get similar download bandwidth on copper as fibre on a good day – where you limit the fibre.

        Seeing 77% currently buy the two lowest speed tiers on NBN FTTP plans this is a problem?

        Are you sure that’s the only metric you want to use to measure a spend of $50B?

        No, because it’s not $50B in the first place, another metric you may be interested in (but probably not) is the required peak funding estimate for a FTTP rollout of $78-$84 billion with a completion date between 2026-2028.

    • To that home, there is no difference in service between the three technologies

      Except there are differences between the technologies. To keep this simple for you one of those differences is upload speeds (A dirty word for the coalition clowns btw)

      If we (the tax payer) can save money by not doing universal FTTP then that has got to happen.

      We (the tax payers) don’t save anything by rolling out FttN and then inevitably FttP. We WASTE money.

      • Well it depends how ‘inevitable’ that time period is, you could actually save money if you need to do it later because you are not doing it at 2016 FTTP pricing.

        What we need to do first is convince the majority of existing FTTP users to move off the two lowest FTTP speed tiers.

        • Lol Reality but you will be doing it at what ever labor cost it will the cost of fibre is cheap the labor won’t be.

          • The labour time is less than what? Full FTTP? You mean because instead of doing FTTP we did FTTN for more money than FTTP would have cost? And then we did the fibre bit afterwards, at a cost of some $30bn extra?

            Tell me, how much time is saved by having to replace the FTTN cabinets with fibre GPON boxes? Oh right, that’s not a time saving, that’s extra complexity, time and cost.

            Tell me, how much time is saved through economies of scale neutering the FTTP network 18 months into the project? Will a FTTP upgrade achieve the same efficiencies?

            Time is only ‘saved’ when you disingenuously compare the last mile upgrade with a full rollout, avoiding the fact that a full rollout has already happened and your upgrade is time wasted on top, wasted because it was unnecessary to do FTTN, install pointless and inefficient cabinets all over the country, replace thousands of kms of copper needlessly and join, test, troubleshoot and remediate copper cables instead of the vastly simpler choice of installing fibre in the same way, at the same standard all over the country.

  7. @aaricus

    Lol nice example but the NBN is only require to deliver an upto 25Mbps service compared to the 1Gbps on FTTP. That upto 25Mbps is just 1Mbps faster than ADSL2+ great value for $56B isn’t it. But then the current design rules for FTTN gives an average peak speed of just 5Mbps – 10Mbps even if your paying for 100mbps or 50Mbps not much better than what ADSL delivers now. There rule for FTTN is as long as you get 25Mbps for 1 second in a day you connection is good.

    Substantial reduction in cost Turnbull SR had it only at $2B cheaper when the MTM was at $41B now it’s $56B and that saving is now wiped out.

    Yes FOD why are people on HFC getting a free upgrade to 100+Mbps speeds while people on FTTN that wants better than the 25Mbps they can only has to pay even more to get the same level of service.

    • You’re wrong because I’ve been reading the forums regarding the 1,000 node FTTN rollout and the vast majority of customers (99%) are reporting outstanding results and many are actually getting sync rates above 100 mbps (117 mbps), many are getting full 100 mbps, many are getting 75 mbps and many are getting 50 mbps.

      A few a getting between 25 and 50 mbps and those that ARE getting those speeds are sure as hell not complaining about it compared to their previous 15 megabits per second.

      So in the real world you’re just dead wrong.

      The vast majority of complaints are regarding installation delays where people aren’t getting connected on time or there has been a delay due to the popularity of the service. It’s very very popular.

      How else do you explain the thousands of customers rushing to sign up already?

      • So the new paper from bundy having people paying for 25Mbps gets around 23Mbps and during peak times 13Mbps is wrong.

        Because it’s better than what we have had due to lack of investment.

          • 93% universal FTTP would not have been $64 BILLION dollars it would have been closer to $100+ BILLION dollars at a time when our country simply cannot afford such extravagance.

            Have you not read the budget lately? Go read the budgets even Labor put out, this country is in financial strife or are you oblivious to that?

            Or do you just think Internet is more important than health, education, defence?

          • Lol aaricus

            Let’s see Turnbull claimed before the election labor FTTP would be $94B. His SR had FTTP s1 at $71B and FTTP s2 at $64B. So please show where you get this $100B price tag from.

            But then we also had Turnbull claim of his FTTN before the election of $29B. His SR MTM s6 at $41B now it’s $56B

            Yes with the current budget speding and taxing more than labor has done. Claiming they have cut spending but are now spending as much as labor was during the GFC lol. Or how about going from 13% of gdp to now 18% of GDP in one year with the current mob.

            So now are you saying Turnbull is lying even though you quote saying he tech agnostic

          • @aaricus

            “Or do you just think Internet is more important than health, education, defence?”

            Please note not a single cent that is ‘saved’ by LNP from MTM will be spent on health, education, defence!

            The money is being raised via debt (selling of govt bonds). The taxpayers via that method is investing $29.5 billion rest via private debt/loans.

            This GBE was intended to make a profit as well (thats on shakey grounds under LNP).

            You cannot borrow money to spend on things with never make a return (or just keep costing more) … well unless you want to bankrupt a country!

          • “You cannot borrow money to spend on things with never make a return (or just keep costing more) … well unless you want to bankrupt a country!”

            Exactly what is happening with the MTM rollout now. Seen the ROI figures lately?

            The only aspect keeping NBN afloat right now are the FTTP profits. Everything else is sinking the ship.

          • Jason K,

            ‘But then we also had Turnbull claim of his FTTN before the election of $29B. His SR MTM s6 at $41B now it’s $56B’

            It’s not $56B, start again.

          • Hotcakes,

            ‘The only aspect keeping NBN afloat right now are the FTTP profits.’

            What profits are they?

          • Simon M,

            Please note not a single cent that is ‘saved’ by LNP from MTM will be spent on health, education, defence!’

            You know this as fact, keeping in mind it is a future saving as well as current how?

            The money is being raised via debt (selling of govt bonds). The taxpayers via that method is investing $29.5 billion rest via private debt/loans.

            Yeah the same fund raising strategy Labor had in place for the failed FTTP rollout, except it required a hell of lot more funds.

            You cannot borrow money to spend on things with never make a return (or just keep costing more) … well unless you want to bankrupt a country!

            Correct, and one of the core reasons the Coalition decided on a MtM solution that uses existing in place infrastructure as distinct from a brand new expensive FTTP which includes a high percentage of overbuild for 93% of residences.

          • Woolfe,

            We are not talking about ARPU.

            The only aspect keeping NBN afloat right now are the FTTP profits.

            Profit and ARPU are different.

          • @Reality “Profit and ARPU are different”

            actually ARPU is probably one of the most important figures if you want to talk about MTM making a return (aka profit)!

            “except it required a hell of lot more funds.”

            If you take worst case scenarios from the LNP CR for both N and P its about $8b difference (over 20 years that’s very small number).

            I use ‘save’ in quotes because for the MTM to actually save the Aussie taxpayer money they need to make a similar projected return ~7% (likely higher given how fibre ARPU is heading) whilst costing less overall to build and maintain.

            MTM currently has their ROI around 3% for the same investment by taxpayers so we’re losing out significantly currently.

          • “I use ‘save’ in quotes because for the MTM to actually save the Aussie taxpayer money they need to make a similar projected return ~7% (likely higher given how fibre ARPU is heading) whilst costing less overall to build and maintain.”

            +1 Simon.

            The conservatives here love to talk CBA comparisons, but always ignore the B, ignore future needs/upgrades and as you say, rarely do they factor the comparative ROI…

            Then they repeat the mantra – FTTN is faster and cheaper.

          • “What profits are they?”
            The FTTP ROI of 11% higher than anticipated, as stated.

            “Yeah the same fund raising strategy Labor had in place for the failed FTTP rollout”
            Failed? How is an unexpected higher ROI a failure?

            “except it required a hell of lot more funds.”
            How is half the funds more funds?

            “one of the core reasons the Coalition decided on a MtM solution that uses existing in place infrastructure as distinct from a brand new expensive FTTP which includes a high percentage of overbuild for 93% of residences.”
            Then why are they spending twice as much money doing exactly both of those things?

          • Hotcakes,

            The FTTP ROI of 11% higher than anticipated, as stated.

            1. ROI is not profit, just like ARPU is not profit.

            2. What is the source of this statement ‘The FTTP ROI of 11% higher than anticipated

            Failed? How is an unexpected higher ROI a failure?

            Once we determine the source of the ROI figure I can respond to that.

            How is half the funds more funds?

            Because FTTP funding estimates of $78B-$84B is not half the funds of MtM.

            Then why are they spending twice as much money doing exactly both of those things?

            Because we are not spending twice as much money as the figures above.

          • @aaricus

            Remember the cost of the original FTTP was some $44.3bn? You k ow how Malcolm, Abbott etc liked to throw unsubstantiated figures around like $100bn? You know how the strategic review came out with some rather wild figures for the cost of FTTP, based on calculations that were since demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed? Which of those figures and their financial basis was thoroughly reviewed by independent financial professionals? Which of those was gone through with a fine tooth comb and found to be comprehensively accurate?

            Why, the original NBN Co had their figures constantly audited (I think it was PWC wasn’t it?). The original NBN Co, all its financials and the decisions made by the original executive management team were put under a microscope in the most comprehensive audit ordered by a government in Australian history, and they found *not one thing* wrong with their decision process, their management or their financials. Guess what that means? The original figure of $44.3bn was soundly based and accurate.

            Show me the professional independent audits of any other figure that has been bandied about as a supposed cost of FTTP. You can’t, because there are none. A figure is not accurate because you say so. The only way we can know if your calculations are accurate is if you show us the evidence. The LNP and the new NBN company have been opaque about their facts, calculations and evidence. They have no evidence, therefore no proof, no facts, and no argument.

            The original figure of $44.3bn still stands, because it’s the only one that was verifiable. Everything else is just heresay.

          • “1. ROI is not profit”
            Evidently not, when there are other components to the same business dragging everything down.

            “2. What is the source of this statement”
            https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/05/nbn-fttn-kills-off-adsl-for-metro-customer-to-be-replaced-with-satellite/#li-comment-711610

            “Once we determine the source of the ROI figure I can respond to that.”
            Old news. It’s the FTTP portion. Get with the program dude.

            “Because FTTP funding estimates of $78B-$84B is not half the funds of MtM.”
            No, it’s less than the funds of MTM (ie cost of MTM + cost of FTTP). Of course the actual figure is around the $50b mark and you are purposely using inflated figures from CP15 of what the FTTP would cost after this MTMess has been introduced – which, somewhat hilariously, is probably the closest estimation to a real cost of the MTM we have today – the cost of building FTTP over the existing MTM.

            Shot yourself a bit there.

            “Because we are not spending twice as much money as the figures above.”
            According to Turnbull, Morrow, the paid-for SR and other reviews and experts the world over, FTTP will be necessary 5-10 years after MTM completion – as you are well aware.

            Given the last estimated cost of FTTP before the opposition made their Mess was ~$45b, MTM indeed looking to be almost twice the cost given your figures above.

      • “How else do you explain the thousands of customers rushing to sign up already?”
        The thousands of customers you are referring to are already on FTTP. Those connected to FTTN are still in double digits.

  8. reality does the CP16 state the MTM can cost $56B yes or no. Or did they pull that figure out of thin air lol

  9. But you didn’t say can cost $56B did you?

    You said now it’s $56B

    The same back pedal stunt you have pulled before.

    • Lol Reality that’s not a yes or no.

      But you don’t want to say it. But then that would mean I am not misquoting not would it lol. Or are they still pulling figures out of thin air and going to cost more than $56B since you don’t believe there figures

    • And alain… aaricus said FTTP would cost $100B, yet you don’t chastise him?

      Why not… rhetorical, we all know why.

      • You need me to do the FTTP fans job as well?

        You didn’t chastise Jason K, Simon M, Woolfe or Hotcakes either, but that’s ok eh?

Comments are closed.