news Free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs has published an article strongly attacking Labor’s NBN project as “the worst conceived infrastructure project in Federal history”, but has included a number of popular misconceptions and outright errors regarding the project in its article.
The IPA is an independent, non-profit public policy think tank established in 1943. Since that time, the organisation has consistently supported key liberal concepts such as the free market, the free flow of capital, a limited govrnment, the rule of law, individual rights and freedoms, and representative democracy.
This role usually sees it allied with the Coalition in terms of the Federal political spectrum, although it sometimes — as in the case of the 2015 Data Retention legislation — finds itself aligned with other parties such as the Greens.
This morning the IPA published an article strongly attacking Labor’s Fibre to the Premises NBN policy. The article was published in The Australian newspaper and is also available on the IPA’s website.
In general, the article’s author Evan Mulholland attempts to make the argument that Labor’s FTTP version of the NBN was a mistake in terms of public policy, labelling it “the worst conceived infrastructure project in Federal history”.
However, the article contains a number of grievous errors which appear to largely invalidate Mulholland’s argument.
For example, the article states that the NBN project was “effectively accountable to no one”, despite the fact that, like any private sector company, the project has its own board drawn from senior private and public sector figures. It also has two shareholder Ministers (the Communications and Finance Ministers of the Government of the day).
The NBN is also subject to audits by the Australian National Audit Office, Freedom of Information requests, and ongoing scrutiny by parliamentary committees including the Senate Environment and Communications Committee (including the Estimates process) and the Senate Select Committee into the NBN.
The article also falsely claims that Labor’s previous Fibre to the Node policy, which Labor took to the 2007 Federal Election, was a “far superior” policy to the FTTP policy Labor adopted in 2009, but that this FTTN option was ditched by the Government on the advice of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
In fact, the Government of the day abandoned that policy because an independent panel of experts (as well as the ACCC) noted that none of the bids the Government received from the private sector were capable of delivering the policy.
The only company realistically capable of enacting the policy at the time was Telstra, which took an extremely hostile attitude to the Government under its then-CEO, Sol Trujillo, and effectively ruled itself out of contention by filing a non-compliant bid to build a FTTN network.
Mulholland also wrote that the better path would have been for the Government to have granted a “regulatory holiday” to Telstra and allowed it to build its own FTTN network, before opening that network up to access by other ISPs later on.
However, the IPA author ignored the fact that this would have stranded hundreds of millions of dollars in ADSL infrastructure which had already been deployed by other telcos such as Optus, iiNet, Internode and TPG in Telstra’s telephone exchanges.
Such a move may have also opened up the Government to a massive, multi-billion dollar lawsuit from Telstra on the constitutional grounds that it was not being fairly recompensed for what would have been, in effect, compulsory government acquisition of its property. This was an outcome which Telstra management sought to avoid at the time.
Mulholland also argued that claims that Fibre to the Premises was being deployed globally were “false”.
However, there have been a large spate of recent FTTP deployments announced around the globe over the past several months alone.
In the US, companies such as Google, AT&T and Verizon are deploying large FTTP networks offering gigabit broadband speeds, while in the UK it’s companies such as BT and Virgin Media.
“Ultimately, we plan to reach more than 14 million residential and commercial locations with fiber”, said AT&T upon announcing a massive expansion of its FTTP program several weeks ago. Neighbouring countries to Australia such as New Zealand and Singapore have focused on FTTP for their own NBN programs.
The IPA author is correct that FTTN and HFC cable options are also popular. However, even now, telcos such as AT&T are already focusing on upgrading these style of networks to full FTTP rollouts.
Mulholland’s arguments regarding the ‘cost’ of the NBN also ignore the fact that most analyses conducted of the NBN project’s finances have historically shown that the project would, in fact, make a long-term positive return on the Government’s investment; effectively making a profit for the taxpayer and additionally leaving the government owning a huge infrastructure monopoly which could be privatised in future for further profit, as Telstra itself was.
opinion/analysis
As many readers would know, I am personally open to the IPA’s arguments on any given subject.
I’m a libertarian and a business owner personally, and thus my own personal philosophy shares a great deal with the IPA’s policies on many topics. I, too, am very much in favour of concepts such as personal freedom, freedom of speech, small government, the rule of law, open markets, the free flow of capital and so on.
(Of course, I am also in favour of topics such dealing with climate change and incentivising people to stop smoking, which I gather are things the IPA is not interested in. There is much we don’t see eye to eye on.)
I know a lot of readers don’t like the IPA and see it as some kind of evil conspiracy group trying to destroy society as we know it, but that’s honestly not what it is. It is just one think tank among many that each promote a particular political philosophy. In a diverse society such as we enjoy in Australia, the IPA has a valid place, as do left-wing think tanks on the other side of the spectrum, such as the Centre for Policy Development and the Chifley Research Centre (affiliated with Labor).
It is because of these reasons that I am quite disappointed by the anti-NBN article published by the IPA today.
It is certainly possible to make a coherent argument against Labor’s original FTTP NBN policy. You can do so on regulatory, competition policy or practical construction grounds, to say the least, although it’s a lot harder to argue against it on technical grounds.
But the IPA’s article today merely repeats the same old tired misconceptions about the NBN that we’ve seen a billion times already, with a handful of outright inaccuracies thrown in for good measure. It’s almost as if the IPA merely reprinted an article on this topic from the 2013 Federal Election … or even the 2010 poll.
It’s quite disappointing. If I’m going to smack down anti-NBN attack pieces, I’d at least like it to be a bit of a challenge. Don’t make it too easy for me, people.
Can I request that someone else from the IPA take another, more solid look at the NBN issue, incorporating context and history? That way we may actually get a reasonable policy debate going, instead of the unintelligent muck which was laid this morning.
I stopped reading when he talked about giving a regulatory holiday to Telstra and allowing them to build the network. Telstra was the reason we were in that mess in the first place. We all know how Telstra behaves to its competitors – a take it or leave it approach, uncompetitive and illegal pricing, lack of separation of wholesale and retail arms.
Also the crap about how it has stifled investment. TPG FTTB seem to be doing just the opposite, by rolling out new fibre to compete with MTM’s rubbish network (they would not have done so if everyone was getting FTTP).
> We all know how Telstra behaves to its competitors – a take it or leave it approach, uncompetitive and illegal pricing, lack of separation of wholesale and retail arms.
I have every expectation that we will see the same behaviour from NBNCo because Labor established the company as a monopoly. Worse than Telstra there is no option for other companies to install their own hardware in exchanges like there was with copper.
An alternative model for NBN would have been to divide the country into regions (121?) and have companies tender to build & run each portion of the network, with a minimum level of service delivery. In some areas (e.g. Inner suburbs and new estates) the government would have received payment for the concession whereas in other areas (e.g. regional areas) the government would have paid a subsidy. Open and accountable with minimum government involvement and plenty of opportunity for innovation (e.g. Internode’s flat rate plan).
> Also the crap about how it has stifled investment. TPG FTTB seem to be doing just the opposite, by rolling out new fibre to compete with MTM’s rubbish network (they would not have done so if everyone was getting FTTP).
It is very clear that Labor’s monopoly approach stifled investment. New estates were being cabled by independent providers (Opticomm & OPENetworks were delivering FTTP years before NBNCo was established).
Secondly, TPG are very likely to have continued building out FTTB because cabling an apartment building is arguably the cheapest installation.
… and now NBN are overbuilding those Opticomm and OPENetworks rollouts. Can you explain that one Matthew?
Build it once,.. Build it once,… Build it once,… Build it once,… Build it once,… Build it once,…
Labor policy!
No, it wasn’t Labor’s policy to overbuild them. There were restrictions on charges, that they could not be higher than those charge by NBNCo and they had to be open to all RSPs, but never was it the policy to overbuild them. That started under the Coalition’s watch.
Contrary to popular believe but the NBN USES back-haul from other companies rather than over building their networks… Feel free to do a little fact checking yourself.
Labor never had a policy to overbuild FTTP networks with lesser technologies… what an odd thing to say.
“I have every expectation that we will see the same behaviour from NBNCo because Labor established the company as a monopoly…”
You’re ignoring the pertinent difference between a non-structurally separated Telstra and the NBN Co – Telstra has both a retail and a network/wholesale arm, so when forced to open its network as a wholesaler it was effectively being forced to open its networks to its own retail competitors. It had a commercial imperative to be an arsehole about it.
As a wholesaler only, the NBN Co has no such motivation.
“I have every expectation that we will see the same behaviour from NBNCo because Labor established the company as a monopoly”
That would be quite the achievement, give that nbn has no retail arm.
“Open and accountable with minimum government involvement”
Oh yeah, you mean like the NBNCo sub-contractor model? On a nation-wide scale with even less control over misbehaving contractors given larger regions? Can’t see a problem with that.
“Secondly, TPG are very likely to have continued building out FTTB because cabling an apartment building is arguably the cheapest installation.”
TPG didn’t START contemplating FTTB until the MTMess fucked everything up.
You want to look at messes have a look at how Labor originally wanted to roll out FTTB.
It will be very interesting to see what the ‘keep it vague/more fibre’ Labor NBN 2016 policy has to say about the Coalition FTTB model.
What are you on about?
Labor didn’t roll-out FTTB.
So what did they roll out to multi level apartment buildings?
FRAUDBAND…?
Oh no that’s the others eh alain?
Please continue your waffle.
You’re welcome
“You want to look at messes have a look at how Labor originally wanted to roll out FTTB.”
You mean not at all? A hideous mess no one can see because it literally didn’t exist?
How embarrassing for you, Alain.
@-alternate “So what did they roll out to multi level apartment buildings?”
FTTP…
So you expect Labor NBN policy 2016 to drop back to that model for apartment buildings?
“So you expect Labor NBN policy 2016 to drop back to that model for apartment buildings?”
No…I expect that they will continue to learn from any mistakes (unlike the LNP). I imagine that they will go with FTTB on multi-unit buildings, they will continue to reduce the cost of FTTP (just as NZ and the rest of the world have), and they will hopefully get us on Gb connections by 2020-2023
“So you expect Labor NBN policy 2016 to drop back to that model for apartment buildings?”
It’s more likely that the new FTTdp tech that has developed has become the most enticing option and they’ll use that, unlike the Coalition who have decidedly said no to it altogether. Despite running ‘trials’.
It’s more likely that the new FTTdp tech that has developed has become the most enticing option and they’ll use that,
No they won’t, there is one thing Labor will have learned (hopefully) from the current FTTB rollout, deployment is fast, they won’t want to slow it down with more costly FTTdp, assuming it is feasible on a large scale after they do their own SR 2016-17.
Why do you think that anyone would install FTTdp into premises which are slated to receive FTTB?
That and you wouldn’t do Fttdp in an MDU anyway.
Give poor alain a break guys…
It’s not easy being the messenger from God…
For quite a while there poor alain was in limbo, having to tread water cautiously in regards to FTTdp, as he wasn’t sure whether his “superiors” were perhaps going to adopt it or those hate ’em with a passion socialists were/are going to adopt it…
It was actually pretty funny seeing him squirm, avoid, umm and ah the specifics about FTTdp, whilst not knowing whether he should treat it as the plague or perform fellatio upon it…
I guess he opted for plague.
So instead of one wholesale monopoly, have 121 mini-monopolies like the US did with the Baby Bells?
What a bizarre idea.
NBNCo (i prefer that name) should be kept as a government agency/organisation with any lack of upkeep or advancement being grounds to throw a government out (i mean the public just having the right to vote in the election) I see no reason why they couldn’t wholesale to ISPs and in time a system be developed like you said where new speeds are available through ISPs installing modules in select regions and being required to also chip in for additional backhaul if they are doing so.
Actually TPG might have still built FTTB if everyone was getting FTTP. If TPG has subscribers on it’s own fibre, it doesn’t need to pay access charges. Maintaining fibre is cheap, which is why it’s being rolled out by companies like AT&T, which isn’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, it’s because it’s a little more costly for the hardware and fibre itself, but cheaper to deploy and maintain, and it’s also more future proof. Pay now, and keep costs low.
They probably wouldn’t have as the legislation was changed by the LPA which opened a loophole TPG chose to exploit. After the LPA shut that down they simply stopped for a month to establish B2B/wholesale and then started cherry picking the profitable FttB area’s again.
The loop hole was there whan coney did it. Existing networks could explain upto 1K. Mainly design for business applications.
But why would you rollout FTTB when they where getting FTTP
I am more interested in what the varies parties are putting up in terms of next generation broadband for the 2016 federal election (that and opportunity, cost of living, education, healthcare, human rights, infrastructure, even (homeland) security.)
Having said that …
Ruddstra FTTP mk2 of 2009 was an uncool billion dollars more as an initiative than the market cap of Telstra at the time.
More than 2M passed premises and less than half that activated over three electoral terms from 2007 to 2016 certainly didn’t help with Australia’s score on international benchmarks, or Mbps/ $ or GB/ $.
Or see carriers upgrade HFC once sold: sovereign risk.
And let’s see how much SingTel Optus will get to sort the cancellation of Opel Networks.
Across the ditch has shown, kinda like the blackspots tendering over here, how it could have been done, in terms of next generation broadband. Let’s see if the fed gov/ Ruddstra resists overbuilding of nbn equivalent networks.
I was certainly pleased when TPG offered an alternative to sticking with DSL or Ruddstra for my apartment (50 to 100/ 20 Mbps, an unlimited bundle $20 to $30 per month cheaper than nbn based, and similar in dollars to the SingTel Optus wireless example below).
Besides, with three quarters of nbn active premises on 25/ 5 Mbps or below, let’s see what 5G looks like for the 2018 Commonwealth Games, and I would not be at all surprised if newer satellite constellations result in a commoditisation too.
I regularly use Netflix (even if SD/ 1.5 Mbps, rather than HD/ 3.5 to 5 Mbps) over mobile terrestrial wireless or Wi-Fi when travelling, and noted a while ago SingTel Optus does a 50 GB plan for $70 per month or so.
If the privatisation of Telecom/ OTC had been used to set up copper/ fibre vs HFC competition, “a natural hedge”, this would have looked different. Blame HoWARd for that one.
Let’s see if Ruddstra goes the way of Aussat, offloaded with more than three times debt over equity to a start-up Optus. Blame Hawke for that one. Of course, a monopolistic approach with usage charge (CVC) that is sky high … And like for water, power, transport what’ll happen is that above CPI increases will be approved for costs, with whoopsies excusing ones on top of that twice a decade.
Instead of the speed/ $ or quota/ $ curves we’ve gotten used to.
“More than 2M passed premises and less than half that activated over three electoral terms from 2007 to 2016”
FYI in terms of actual build/deployment time on the ground NBN Co were only actually running for ~18 months prior to the 2013 election.
They suffered ~2+ years of political delays due to LPA delaying things and 9-12 months of waiting on Telstra to re-mediate the asbestos in their ducts.
> In fact, the Government of the day abandoned that policy because an independent panel of experts (as well as the ACCC) noted that none of the bids the Government received from the private sector were capable of delivering the policy.
If Telstra had delivered a complying bid it is highly likely that Labor would have built FTTN.
Could have, should have.
Didn’t.
(In reference to Telstra delivering a complying bid)
Mathew do you know the difference between a vertical monopoly and a natural one?
Tpg investment looks more like they though Turnbull would buy there network off them. Either way it’s a win win for them
With what money?
Considering Turnbull an endless money pit depends on who you talk to $56B-$70B
$56B-$70B
Incorrect, but you know that, that’s why you keep repeating it and try to deliberately mislead.
The endless money pit is a FTTP rollout requiring peak funding of $74-84B with a finish date 2026-2028.
$29M to give FTTP to three small rural towns in West Tassie and help win the seat for Labor at the election is a good money pit also, and a good 2016 CPP indicator that brownfields FTTP is very expensive to rollout.
Devoid, Your Comment is Invalid!
Devoid
Not misleading can you point to the CP16 where it won’t cost $56B
“The FTTP rollout requiring peak funding of $74-84B with a finish date 2026-2028.”
Is a lie. What the cost of FTTP if they had continued devoid. You may closing I am misleading but at least I don’t outright lie
@alain
“$56B-$70B
Incorrect, but you know that, that’s why you keep repeating it and try to deliberately mislead”.
Well… prove him wrong.
GO….waiting
Speaking of misleading, let’s revist the facts…
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/03/09/nz-brings-fttp-costs-fttn-levels/
But…
“Apparently Australia has this unique world wide infrastructure deployment and costing model that is the opposite to overseas experience”….
You’re welcome
“Incorrect, but you know that”
$71.6b according to the most recent figure (given by Hockey).
“The endless money pit is a FTTP rollout requiring peak funding of $74-84B with a finish date 2026-2028.”
The full cost of the MTM? Agreed. A shame the Liberals fucked us into that position, isn’t it?
The FTTP peak funding requirement range from CP 16 is not the full cost of MtM.
The peak funding requirement for MtM is $46-$56B.
But you know that, so misquoting again.
No reality FTTP funding requirement range from CP 16 is not the full cost of MtM no it adds the cost from MTM to FTTP
But you already know that
Deliberately jumbled grammar when backed into a corner, par for the course.
On no devoid back on the personal attacks because he has been caught in a lie
“The FTTP peak funding requirement range from CP 16 is not the full cost of MtM.”
As you are fully aware, Turnbull, Morrow, the criminally paid-for SR13 as well as every knowledgeable expert around the globe have stated FTTP is the end goal and needed 5-10 years after completion of the MTMess. Since the original completion date when SR13 was drafted was 2016, that means FTTP is required by 2026 at the latest. Ergo, the CP16 figures showing how much MTM + FTTP costs is the cost to Australia to achieve the end goal.
But you know that, so misquoting again.
How embarrassing for you, Alain.
So you say, but they aren’t even halfway through the project yet, are they? Plenty of time for more blow-outs, though unless they can find private equity dumb enough to invest in copper, they’ll actually be on budget blow-outs in the future.
Private equity won’t be investing in copper or even fibre for that matter, it will be just a loan debt backed by a Government guarantee.
I don’t think the Government will have a problem sourcing external funding, the latest Federal Budget estimates it will be sometime midway through 2017.
Why not? There’s lot’s of investment in fibre overseas, as many recent Delimiter articles have shown.
So you say, but it seems the government doesn’t have the same (blind?) faith in themselves as you do.
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/05/05/govt-doesnt-yet-know-fix-nbn-funding-blackhole/
And as Renai said: You would have thought that the Government and the NBN company would have seen this multi-billion dollar black hole coming and would have done more work on this issue by now … or at least kicked Lazard into gear over the past six months that they’ve been contracted to examine the situation. The fact that they appear not to have done so is quite concerning, to say the least.
It is very concerning…it make’s you really start to wonder about those “gold plated” LPA economic credentials they always pull out at elections…
Well I presume we can take Alains silence over my last reply as tacit admission that that’s where the figures actually stand as of today.
“There’s lot’s of investment in fibre overseas”
Hell, even Turnbull has… overseas…
And if they were able to stick to the timeframe the Coalition claimed for the 2013 election, it would have been completed in 2011 and we wouldn’t have to have discussed this matter again for another 5 years.
2011?
A three year rollout with a 2008 start date.
Considering the IPA author’s history, it’s not really a surprise that this hit piece came out ….
Club President – La Trobe University Liberal Club – La Trobe University
Electoral Officer for Matthew Guy – Liberal Party Leader Victoria
Electorate Officer for Mitch Fifield
Entertainment Consultant for Foxtel/Telstra
Assistant Adviser – Mitch Fifield
Adviser – Mitch Fifield
And now Media and Communications Manager for the IPA … starting only this month.
From what I can see … he’s had his opinions given to him by the party since he was at Uni.
Rhetorical question … but I simply can’t fathom how educated people can be so blinkered by ideology.
I cannot fathom how people can actively support Labor’s NBN plans which predicted 50% on 12Mbps and currently 79% on fibre have opted for 25Mbps, while significantly less than predicted by Labor are on 100Mbps.
I can only conclude that it is pure selfishness as they assume that they will be in the group that purchase 100Mbps plans, and are dreaming about being in the elite 1% that Labor predicted would have 1Gbps services by 2026.
I’m sure you’ve been told this many a times…
Because it’s a network for now and the future.
As stats show (New Zealand, Europe) take-up rates are always slow at the start of a roll-out.
Now eat your waffle.
“I cannot fathom how people can actively support Labor’s NBN plans which predicted 50% on 12Mbps and currently 79% on fibre have opted for 25Mbps, while significantly less than predicted by Labor are on 100Mbps.”
No really Mathew? Your lack of understanding has been certainly humorous to watch over the years. Particularly considering that you keep throwing previous and existing numbers into the soup to continually try to prove yourself correct.
Shall I narrow it down for you?
1. The previous FTTH rollout was for 93% of the premises in Australia.
2. It provided the technology to scale for 50 years.
3. Your figures that you continually use are not for a 50 year period.
4. Some figures you do use are for the previous FTTH rollout, and cannot be transferred to the FTTN rollout, but you do it anyway.
5. You’re still only talking about 79% of 20% of premises at rollout end … which would make it just under 16% of premises choosing 25%.
6. A percentage of a percentage giving a total of 16% is not indicative of what the FTTH would have been. You can’t make this call.
Thanks for the chuckles though.
“I can only conclude that it is pure selfishness”
You really don’t understand anything outside of those terms do you?
Thanks for demonstrating my previous point about ideology so well.
4. Some figures you do use are for the previous FTTH rollout, and cannot be transferred to the FTTN rollout, but you do it anyway.
Which figures? I’ve been very careful to use on the FTTP percentages when comparing to Labor’s plan.
> 5. You’re still only talking about 79% of 20% of premises at rollout end … which would make it just under 16% of premises choosing 25%.
WTF? You expect that everyone else who connects is going to connect at speeds faster than 25Mbps? This directly contradicts established understanding that the early adopters will connect at faster speeds and that as the roll out progresses those people who connect later will select slower speeds. If you look at the historical figures for the NBN we see exactly that story. On fibre the percentage of 100Mbps connections dropped from 19% to 16% in 2015.
> 6. A percentage of a percentage giving a total of 16% is not indicative of what the FTTH would have been. You can’t make this call.
16% would be considered a very large sample size by statisticians.
We can use a few facts to make a judgement call:
a. Labor’s predictions on speed tier take up (<1% on 1Gbps in 2026)
b. Zero RSPs offering 1Gbps plans (6 years after Labor promised 1Gbps just prior to the 2010 election & 3 years after NBNCo made 1Gbps available to RSPs.
c. Less people on fibre connecting at 50Mbps & 100Mbps than Labor predicted and the percentage dropping (On Fibre 100Mbps dropped from 19% to 16% last year).
d. More people connecting at 25Mbps than Labor predicted (influenced by Telstra not offering a 12Mbps plan)
e. 79% opting for 25Mbps or slower a speed that can be delivered on FTTN, FTTB, FTTP & HFC.
Against this you and other have only provided wishful thinking, not one number from either Labor’s NBNCo Corporate Plan or the NBN that supports your argument that people are going to be willing to spend significantly more on their internet connection. NBNCo require ARPU to rise above $100 to cover costs which means the for RSPs ARPU needs to approach $200/month to cover their costs.
“Against this you and other have only provided wishful thinking”
Ha ha, another chuckle.
Here’s the thing Mathew … and you still haven’t understood this …
Your conclusions about whether something is failing or succeeding are based on changing numbers. i.e. You cannot make a conclusion. That’s why I don’t bother even challenging them. They’re irrelevant to your conclusions until a rollout completes. You cannot argue whether the FTTH was unsuccessful … because it was never completed. Likewise, you can’t argue that FTTN is successful, because it hasn’t been completed.
Your opinions, even backed up with data, are useless. You’re trying to predict an outcome that’s a moving target. And for arguments sake .. even if they turned out to be true … you can’t claim them either. Why? Because you didn’t know for sure in the first place.
That, more than anything else, is what I have found consistently humorous over the years.
What makes me incredulous is your blind faith against all the evidence that Labor’s failed FTTP plan would succeed.
> You cannot argue whether the FTTH was unsuccessful … because it was never completed. Likewise, you can’t argue that FTTN is successful, because it hasn’t been completed.
If we look at election polling, Ray Morgan Research use a sample size of 10,000 to deliver a margin of error of 0.4%. The number of activated NBN Connections is 988,198 as of 12-May-2016. I’d suggest this is more than enough to give a reliable indication of take-up.
I suggest there is a reasonable case to be made that based on Labor artificial financial model and prediction for the NBN that more than 79% of Australians would see the same performance on FTTN, FTTB, FTTP & HFC.
“What makes me incredulous is your blind faith against all the evidence that Labor’s failed FTTP plan would succeed.”
Ha ha … the chuckles keep coming.
I don’t know whether the FTTP plan would succeed. I liked the direction it was heading in, but for the same reasons I outlined above … I couldn’t call it a success until after the fact. The FTTH to 93% was never completed, so the call could never be made.
You call that “blind faith” ? *laugh*
That’s the difference between my opinion and yours Mathew. I realised that the call couldn’t be made. You keep bashing away at it though, as if by repetition you can make it so. By trying to paint speculation as fact … renders your points without substance.
“If we look at election polling, Ray Morgan Research use a sample size of 10,000 to deliver a margin of error of 0.4%. The number of activated NBN Connections is 988,198 as of 12-May-2016. I’d suggest this is more than enough to give a reliable indication of take-up.”
And here’s another prime example of you attempting to make it so. An “indication” is not fact Mathew.
“I suggest there is a reasonable case to be made that based on Labor artificial financial model and prediction for the NBN that more than 79% of Australians would see the same performance on FTTN, FTTB, FTTP & HFC.”
Ha ha, and again.
You can “suggest” all you like … but it doesn’t make it so.
“d. More people connecting at 25Mbps than Labor predicted (influenced by Telstra not offering a 12Mbps plan)
e. 79% opting for 25Mbps or slower a speed that can be delivered on FTTN, FTTB, FTTP & HFC.”
Explain why it’s valid to use the excuse that Telstra don’t offer a 12Mbps plan to ignore the 25Mbps take-up yet ignore the fact that it’s next to impossible to identify the 50 and 100Mbps plans (Telstra don’t give any speed data on their main plan site) which impacts on the take-up of these speed levels?
The reason we are seeing the drop in higher speed plan take-up is that as Telstra’s marketing machine ramps up we move from people deliberately looking for nbn connections to believing they are tied in to Telstra and taking up what is offered.
Murdoch,
Your opinions, even backed up with data, are useless.
But your ‘opinions’ with no back data up are not useless because….?
MeRodent,
The reason we are seeing the drop in higher speed plan take-up is that as Telstra’s marketing machine ramps up we move from people deliberately looking for nbn connections to believing they are tied in to Telstra and taking up what is offered.
Conjecture, so it is just not possible that ‘gasp’ customers are more than happy with 12/1 and 25/5 speeds, quotas and the pricing.
Reality …
“But your ‘opinions’ with no back data up are not useless because….?”
… I’m not attempting to base conclusions on something that hasn’t been completed yet.
“This directly contradicts established understanding that the early adopters will connect at faster speeds and that as the roll out progresses those people who connect later will select slower speeds.”
WTF? Are you suggesting that in a few years from now everyone will be back below dialup speeds?!?
Murdoch,
I’m not attempting to base conclusions on something that hasn’t been completed yet.
So we can ignore your no data ‘opinion’ then?
Reality …
Oh I know you’ll ignore it. I have no illusions about you. You aren’t listening to anyone but yourself.
Others however … might find something in it.
@ alain.
I see you are keeping the old contradiction percentage at a nice neat 100, well done.
The same person who a few years back, after deriding NBNCo for not having a biz/corporate plan, then totally dismissed it because it was, full of nothing but unproven estimations, as it hadn’t been completed (or similar)…
Now expects others to give full data (of a roll out incomplete/estimations) or otherwise they can be ignored…?
*sigh*
You’re welcome…
Murdoch,
Reality …
Oh I know you’ll ignore it. I have no illusions about you. You aren’t listening to anyone but yourself.
You put forward conjecture and dress it up as fact, I and some others quote direct from NBN Co published reports on speed tier selections and the decreasing trend on 100/40 selection and it doesn’t fit the ‘need for FTTP’ agenda you are trying to push.
You and others prefer not to see what is actually happening with the fixed line NBN on a overwhelming majority FTTP user base.
“You put forward conjecture and dress it up as fact”
Errr no … I put forward conjecture and dressed it up as … conjecture. All the numbers that Mathew (and now you) attempt to use are useless … because they can’t be used as a measure of success or failure. It’s a futile enterprise. I care little on whether you keep using them … but it serves no point.
“You and others prefer not to see what is actually happening”
Oh I see what’s happening. And y’know what? Tomorrow something happens too. And the next day … and the next. That’s my point.
Murdoch,
attempt to use are useless … because they can’t be used as a measure of success or failure.
Why because you say so? if the figures were reversed and 80% were on 100/40 you and others would be crowing about how accurate they are and how they are true predictor of future demand for high speed broadband.
Current actual speed tier NBN connect figures you prefer to ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda, and that’s just not acceptable and is shut out.
“Why because you say so?”
Hey, if you’d like to try to predict the future, be my guest. Can I have the next Gold Lotto Jackpot numbers?
@ alain,
Using your logic…
I repeat, “I would have had FTTP by now” as per the (trend) estimations and of course as you also say, the NBNCo published reports at that time, which clearly stated I would!
This is a comment I made previously, which you hotly refuted to suit the line toeing narrative at that time, saying me “receiving FTTP by now, was conjecture, which cannot be proven, as it never occurred…”
Yet now to suit today’s line toeing narrative, you argue the complete opposite, that NBNCo published reports, trends and estimations are in fact an accurate gauge and not conjecture… GOLD
So go on now re-contradict everything you’ve been saying above, to Murdoch (who by the way is making you look even sillier than usual – which I thought impossible) to argue with me… and say “conjecture re: my FTTP… as you have done before, just to put the extra layers of icing on the already well iced, contradiction & BS cake…
You’re welcome.
WTF? indeed.
https://delimiter.com.au/2012/10/18/huge-100mbps-demand-44-of-nbn-users-take-top-speed/
I guess numbers are hard. The reason it is dropping is because FttP is no longer built to scale, so the number of people actually physically able to get 100Mbps is dropping.
What’s ‘built to scale’ mean?
so the number of people actually physically able to get 100Mbps is dropping.
We are talking only FTTP active residences here, so why are the 12/1 and 25/5 figures rising then, there are three sets of fibre types a residence elects to have run into the house at build time?
12/1, 25/5 and 100/40.
Wtf are you on devoid
the fibre supplies 100Mbps the customer devvides with the ISP what speed they want
@ JK,
I dunno what he’s on, but I want some… as it obviously dulls the pressures of actual reality and one can enter the safety bubble…
The figures for the higher tier is low due to the natural initial high cost of “new” technology, and slow “integration”.
– cost
– demand for speed
Are the main factors here.
(As it happened with POTS, ISDN, ADSL1/2+)
Once completion of the nbn nears, there will be a large customer base and retail companies will then start competing with each other even more so.
This competition will drive prices down for all tiers.
– A reduction of cost will encourage uptake of the higher tiers.
Ever increase of Internet usage will demand higher throughput for various applications. Not only for personal but for commercial needs.
– Increase demand for throughput will require higher Tier plans.
FTTP is a longer term solution in comparison to MTM, with less maintenance required as less equipment is required and the lesser durability of copper.
Not to mention that, MTM will most likely need to be replaced with FTTP in the future. It will be another cost venture to come. This should also be considered in the grand total of the MTM “grand” scheme.
Those stats are diluted by the fact that people don’t bother with the higher speed tiers given you can’t actually obtain those higher speeds on FTTN.
The stats are for FTTP only connections and not diluted by FTTN.
No Mathew they are not
FTTP 12 33% 25 46% 50 4% 100 15%
FTTB 12 20% 25 62% 50 3% 100 14%
FTTN 12 15% 25 71% 50 4% 100 7%
FTTP: 33% + 46% = 79%, although the 15% at 100Mbps is 1% lower than I was quoting.
You haven’t provided a source for the numbers but if correct, it is more evidence that demand for 100Mbps service on fibre continue to follow trend and fall.
Lol Mathew
http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-fttn-users-increasingly-opting-for-slower-speeds/
Why would FTTP continue to fall when they are not rolling it out anymore
The average speed on FTTP will continue to fall as the late adopters connect and opt for cheaper slower plans.
Lol Mathew so you have a crystal ball now.
Remember when 50% was on 100Mbps of FTTP for early adopters.
Early adopters on FTTN 7% lol
Mathew,
You seem to ignore that FTTP is unavailable for many people.
What is convenient to ignore is the falling trend of 100/40 users on FTTP between December 2014 19% and March 2016 15%.
FTTN only released September 2015 has minimal impact on on the latest 2016 figure because FTTP has the overwhelming majority of active end-users, it has been rolling out since 2010.
If the speed tier trend continues it looks like the December 2014 19% will be the 100/40 fixed line all time high, and 25/5 increasingly the most popular.
“You haven’t provided a source for the numbers but if correct, it is more evidence that demand for 100Mbps service on fibre continue to follow trend and fall.”
Uhh, last I checked the 14% you quoted is lower than the actual figure he quoted.
> You seem to ignore that FTTP is unavailable for many people.
By many you mean a maximum of 16% and falling?
Alternatively, are you suggesting that many of the people on 25Mbps or slower are only on those speeds due to the cost of higher speeds?
Lol Mathew let’s used one of your other failed excuses.
Eg Telstra doesn’t offer 12mbps is you excuse why 25Mbps is higher than what labor predicted and 12Mbps is lower than what Lanier predicted.
So in using that same twisted logic since Telstra makes it quite difficult of find the faster speed option we can claim that is why there is less on 100Mbps.
Telstra is not the only ISP in Australia offering NBN 100/40.
Mathew,
Is that you “pondering42”? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/pyne-defends-coalitions-nbn-plans-after-afp-raids/7438732
Thankyou devoid for agreeing with us once again and shorting Mathews excuse in the foot +1 for your help lol
For 50% on the NBN, they may as well be ;o)
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/13/telstra-says-it-has-50-percent-nbn-market-share-wants-more/
Bump
Mathew,
Is that you “pondering42”? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/pyne-defends-coalitions-nbn-plans-after-afp-raids/7438732
Tinman_au,
For 50% on the NBN, they may as well be ;o)
That’s for all NBN products not just FTTP.
BTW I had no problem finding the 100/40 option from the Telstra website, it’s called ‘super speed boost’ and adds $30 to your chosen NBN plan.
And that is a meaningful distinction how?
Mathew,
Are you also mathew42a? http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/05/internet-speed-test-high-speed-wireless-versus-cable/
It’s called an *ESTIMATE*
Why is the concept of an *estimate* and the fact an *estimate* can *change* as a plan progresses seriously such a damn hard concept for you to understand Matthew?
It is an estimate which has shown to be overly optimistic in that less people are connecting at 100Mbps than Labor predicted.
I’m supposed to somehow believe that some amazing event is going to occur and people will suddenly open their wallets to spend more? Labor’s financial model is based on ARPU quickly rising above $100/month.
This can’t happen now due to the change to FttN.
This number was based on additional services like Foxtel using the NBN infrastructure. This will not happen now as we do not have enough people on FttP to justify investment in this technology.
Or you could look at it as a conservative estimate, by allowing for the costs to be covered when 50% of the users are on the minimum plan.
Hey Mathew, what is the ARPU at the moment? Being that we are STILL operating with majority of the network being Labor’s design?
So is that higher or lower than the original estimate? Hmmmm
Oh and is it anywhere near $100? Hmmmmm
For those interested, the last time we had figures for the Labor plan and the Actuals was FY2015. Actuals were $40, Labor plan Forecast was $36. Those figures have changed. Actuals for 2016 (Half yearly) show $43, I don’t have the assumed Labor plan figures exact. But the graph shows it as roughly $38/39.
Which means based on a network that is primarily still the Labor plan (though heavily abridged) we are getting an ARPU(AVERAGE revenue per user) of $4 greater in fy2015, and $5 greater in 2016(roughly). Being that the whole build was done on an assumption that the return on Investment would allow them to complete the build and pay for it at a future point. So in other words that with a rollout ARPU of $36 they would be earning enough to pay to continue the rollout. If we are now getting an ARPU greater than that, then the assumption is that the ARPU should have easily covered the additional rollout. Now it is not as simple as that, but it shows that the Labor plan was not only accurate in how it would pay for itself, but it also shows that the Coalition numbers ($29 ARPU estimate for 2015) were vastly incorrect.
> So in other words that with a rollout ARPU of $36 they would be earning enough to pay to continue the rollout.
Wrong. The ARPU during the early years is deeply discounted. To reach the required ROI, Labor’s plan required that NBN wholesale ARPU quickly grow to greater than $100/month mainly from increased CVC revenue.
There is little evidence to support the willingness of Australians to pay close to $200/month ARPU to RSPs for an internet connection which is what would be required to see an ROI under Labor’s scheme.
How can that be wrong?
Where is your evidence?
I’ve not seen a single NBN document yet that suggests Woolfe is wrong!
If he was why would NBN Co have been saying they were planning to discount the CVC charges lol! You don’t discount stuff unless your making more than expected … sigh.
Ah I see you’re touting your whimsical $100 figure again the one that is plucked from thin air and has no real evidence to back it up.
I probably should just join the ‘your comment is invalid’ as it most certainly is in this case!
They also got the estimate wrong to begin with too, (they undershot it by a considerable margin when they thought 52% would connect at 12Mbps), they actually had 44% on 100/40 with the original FttP rollout.
https://delimiter.com.au/2012/10/18/huge-100mbps-demand-44-of-nbn-users-take-top-speed/
Can you explain why your favourite teams plan (the MtM) has such an impact on this, when it was the most popular choice with the original plan?
they actually had 44% on 100/40 with the original FttP rollout.
Heavily subsidised by the NBN Co for the initial rollout, “hey what the heck it’s about the same price as 12/1”, when NBN commercial rates were implemented the 100/40’s disappeared.
devoid where does it say it’s the same price
That article mentions nothing about subsidies, did you just make that up?
I would argue that you need only look to how data consumption has increased ridiculously the past 10 years as technology has improved – surely it’s obvious that this trend isn’t going to level out rather continue almost unabated for the next 10?
I cannot fathom how people can actively support Coalition NBN plans which predicted 27% on 25Mbps and currently 79% have opted for 25Mbps, while significantly less than predicted by coalition are on 100Mbps.
There fixed it for you.
So are you suggesting that even the Liberal plan is overkill for the demand in the community?
Going by your logic yes.
1% on 1Gbps by 2020
Mathew…. Those figures of 50% on 12mbps were what was required to pay for the rollout.
You are correct that the percentages for 100 and above are lower. But what you are not accounting for is that the mass that have moved from 12 to 25 is much greater. Greater numbers now paying a greater share than was expected.
Hence your point is invalid. Despite the drop in the higher cost users, the increase in the middle range covers the losses, and then some.
Oh and you continue to forget that the goal was long term, not simply short term. The potential to grow the 100mb and above is there, and that improves the value significantly. Indeed the greater value should allow the CVC etc to start dropping, which would then allow the 100mb plans to become cheaper, and hence more popular.
So reversing the current speed tier trend data, in what year will 80% be on 100/40?
Devoid, the maths do not support your LibTroll ideology!
The schoolboy maths error that underpins Turnbull’s ‘nbn’
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/600371/schoolboy-maths-error-underpins-turnbull-nbn/
Localised to Australia the headlines are:
In Australia, IP traffic will grow 2-fold from 2012 to 2017, a compound annual growth rate of 17%.
In Australia, IP traffic will reach 755 Petabytes per month in 2017, up from 343 Petabytes per month in 2012.
Australia’s IP networks will carry 25 Petabytes per day in 2017, up from 11 Petabytes per day in 2012.
In Australia, IP traffic will reach an annual run rate of 9.1 Exabytes in 2017, up from an annual run rate of 4.1 Exabytes in 2012.
Australia’s IP traffic in 2017 will be equivalent to 2 billion DVDs per year, 189 million DVDs per month, or 258,430 DVDs per hour.
In 2017, the gigabyte equivalent of all movies ever made will cross Australia’s IP networks every 8 hours.
In Australia, IP traffic will reach 30 Gigabytes per capita in 2017, up from 14 Gigabytes per capita in 2012.
As such, you need to ask yourself, why has Turnbull told everyone that growth is slowing when it clearly is doing anything but?
who knows… the guys you worship have right royally fucked it.
What’s increasing IP traffic got to do with fixed line speed tier selection?
You devoid we can do multi video confrrencing on dialup?
Woolfe’s point is that on FTTP, subscribers would in the long term move up to 100/40 if they could get it, in light of the explosion in IP traffic. Reality is that on FTTN this simply isn’t possible, so no, 80% will not see 100/40 as justified. A sad outcome with consequences for the economy.
@ alain
“So reversing the current speed tier trend data, in what year will 80% be on 100/40?”
A. Never on antiquated, obsolete, retrograde FRAUDBAND…
You’re welcome.
Wrong question, it’s more “What doesn’t increasing IP traffic have to do with fixed line speed tier selection?”.
You do know how networks work, don’t you?
So I download 200 gig a month then the six months later I download 500 gig month because I subscribed to a streaming TV service causing increasing IP traffic, one residence does it using FTTN another using FTTP, another using fixed wireless, another using HFC, same increased IP traffic on all infrastructures, your point is what?
SD, HD or 4k?
Multiple account logins like Netflix, or single like Foxtel Go?
@ Woolfe +1
Very interesting point…
“Mathew…. Those figures of 50% on 12mbps were what was required to pay for the rollout.”
It seems our friend has put his own special twist on the data before trying to sell his little 50/12 spiel for the last 1/2 decade? And because he said it enough, he believed it and we even forgot or overlooked the bleedin’ obvious you just highlighted…
So over all these years while our friend has been desperately trying to deride the FTTP NBN daily (and still doing so… *sigh*) by quoting 50/12, he has in fact inadvertently been admitting FTTP would have bat least paid for itself, as MQ said, by reaching this figure?
But even better, Mathew has been for sometime and again now telling us (as you allude to) that this 50/12 estimation, is actually being surpassed, which would have made FTTP profitable…
Oh dear 5 years of 50/12 derision just fell in a factual heap and how’s MTM going?
> But even better, Mathew has been for sometime and again now telling us (as you allude to) that this 50/12 estimation, is actually being surpassed, which would have made FTTP profitable
The small wholesale price difference between 12 & 25Mbps is insufficient to make FTTP profitable. This also has to balanced with the fact that the percentage on 100Mbps is well below Labor’s estimates and as for the higher speeds, RSPs aren’t even offering them.
The real money stream for NBN profitability is CVC, but the LIberals have reduced that by dropping CVC pricing early.
A. This is not a “small wholesale difference” $4 ARPU is actually a fairly significant. Its roughly 10% increase on the estimated value.
So we have a million or so premises activated at the moment.
That is literally $4 million extra each month.
B. You second point is incorrect as well. The whole system was built on the concept of being able to pay for itself over time. They required the ARPU to be able to do that. Unless you can show where the Math of the ARPU paying for the investment, AND the continued rollout, is incorrect, then you are simply lying.
Woolfe,
Where is your math that a 93% to residences original Labor FTTP rollout which has a higher CPP in the first place would have reached cash flow positive before MtM reached cash flow positive?
@ alain,
And… where’s your info to even question him, let alone prove him wrong…?
We await it…
GO
You’re welcome
Math? WTF?
This is Australia, not the USA.
“I cannot fathom how people can actively support Labor’s NBN plans which predicted 50% on 12Mbps and currently 79% on fibre have opted for 25Mbps, while significantly less than predicted by Labor are on 100Mbps.”
Apparently 15% of expected lower tier plans purchasing higher tier plans is significantly less than the 4% expected higher tier plans purchasing higher tier plans. Go figure.
“I can only conclude that it is pure selfishness as they assume that they will be in the group that purchase 100Mbps plans, and are dreaming about being in the elite 1% that Labor predicted would have 1Gbps services by 2026.”
And rightfully so.
@ Mathew…
“I cannot fathom…” yes we clearly have witnessed this! So you could have finished your comment right there and not made it so obvious, but alas.
So to address the rest of the groundhog day spiel, since you obviously missed my answers to your questions last night, let me copy/paste for you again… “you’re welcome”…
You asked about your comments and the Delimiter posting policy…
>Comments which display a lack of rationality or reasonableness.
“Please provide evidence of this. Offering a differing opinion does not mean the comment is wrong.”
I’d suggest anyone who relies upon “two estimations (whilst refuting or ignoring all other estimations in the same doc – a doc from circa 2010) at each and every thread and having done so with one estimation alone for about 5 years (and then inadvertently admitting it was wrong after all) but still continuing with such estimations as so called proof.. is displaying extreme irrationality and extreme unreasonableness.
> Comments which inject demonstrably false information into the debate
“Please provide evidence where I’ve quoted knowingly false information”
I’d again suggest anyone who says Labor (his politicisation, not mine) got it completely wrong but then relies upon “two Labor estimations” (think about it) as his proof… then currently cherry-picking that 79% of consumers are choosing 25Mbps or less, whilst bluntly refusing to acknowledge how many are choosing 25Mbps or above and also refusing to accept that with the slower speeds available from FTTN compared to FTTP that of course people do not have the same choice of higher speeds, because they simply are not available… is indeed knowingly quoting false information.
> Comments which constantly change the subject to off-topic subjects
“Possibly, but this harder demonstrate”
Harder to demonstrate? ROFL not at all…
I’d again suggest anyone who hijacks and deflects every article why… take this very article for example (actually last night;s article.. but ROFL, this one now will do too) in relation to 2 NBN employees being sacked due to AFP raids and once again goes off on the typical “estimations spiel from circa 2010, cherry-picking that 79% of consumers are choosing 25Mbps and talking speed tiers, is indeed… constantly changing the subject to off topic subjects.
Got the answers “you asked for” this time?
You’re welcome A G A I N.
> I’d suggest anyone who relies upon “two estimations (whilst refuting or ignoring all other estimations in the same doc – a doc from circa 2010)
Labor published 3 editions of the NBNco Corporate Plan (2010, 2011, 2012) and prepared a draft of the 2013 plan but refused to release it prior to the 2013 election. In each of those editions the 12Mbps speed tier profile remained reasonably consistent although the plans overly optimistic on the uptake of faster speeds (especially 100Mbps and higher).
Which other estimates would you like to discuss? The number of premises passed? Budget expenditure (especially operating expenses).
Why ask if you can’t handle the truth Mathew?
You’ve tried to excuse one of the points (lamely) only, but the others, you simply had no excuse for? Clearly an admission of guilt…
Anyhoo, we all (except one) knew that…
So since you asked…
“Which other estimates would you like to discuss?”
I’d like you to stop deflecting and discuss the current estimations regarding the current roll out…
Wow what a novel and new concept for you, eh? Fancy anyone wanting to talk about now and not the past…?
So start with the MTM promise (estimations) of $29.5B to all Aussies by 2016…and if it makes you feel cosy tell us the speed the current NBN promised by the mid 20’s, via MTM?
And here’s one, as both the PM and CEO of NBN have said FTTP is the “end goal”, estimate when FTTP will be needed (feel free to visit the past for this one, only, if that will help).
GO
You’re welcome.
Yep, AND those estimates were at the levels required to get a conservative 7% return on investment.
As in. If they met those levels, then they would be able to achieve the 7% ROI that would allow them to both continue the rollout without dipping into more investment funds, and would repay the 4% investment already made.
The estimates have been wrong at the upper levels (although in all fairness that is probably due to the rollout locations), but they have also been wrong at the lower levels.
The lower 12mb levels are down what 17% or something similar. The upper levels are down around 6% I think, I don’t have the figures in front of me to check
Woolfe,
As in. If they met those levels, then they would be able to achieve the 7% ROI that would allow them to both continue the rollout without dipping into more investment funds, and would repay the 4% investment already made.
So why did the Labor CP’s have a plan to go to the external market for investment funds from the very first CP if there was no requirement to use them?
@ alain
So why did the Labor CP’s have a plan to go to the external market for investment funds from the very first CP if there was no requirement to use them?
Why do private companies list on the ASX, if there is no requirement for them to do so?
Why do governments sell bonds?
1 + 1 = ?
&
1 + 1 = ?
Go on, give both of these previously waaay too difficult for you to answer questions a shot.
What’s the worst that can happen?
You’ll get it/them wrong (again).
You’re welcome
Reality. Because. The initial government investment was to cover build to a certain point (30.5 billion I believe it was), then the rest would be direct private investment.
So the government investment that provides the 4% is on the initial $30 billion, the other $13 billion then comes from private investment and excess ROI(estimated at 3%) after having covered the 4%. This is then repaid over the next X number of years.
(Rhetorical question … but I simply can’t fathom how educated people can be so blinkered by ideology.)
One word ‘FEAR’
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
You might also notice that conservatives slash public spending, they think more money will secure them. One place they never slash spending is on defence, as a matter of fact they usually increase it, again thinking it will secure them, fear overrides all logic and reasoning.
It’s not their fear though, they’re trying to manufacture fear in the people. Easier to control them that way.
“And now Media and Communications Manager for the IPA … starting only this month.”
Renai probably should have researched this before publishing his article. This authors’ history is damning and the article just stinks of further Liberal corruption warranting a Royal Inquisition.
former adviser to Communications Minister Mitch Fifield.
I’m surprised his job history wasn’t highlighted. You know, given that the writing he is doing at an independent think tank mimics that which he no doubt authored while advising the communications minister (or to be honest, vice-versa).
That is what we’re all for though!
Your friendly reminder the IPA is as representative of libertarians as the Australian Christian Lobby is of christians, or the Liberal Party of liberals.
Unfortunately Renai has a blind spot a mile wide when it comes to this little confirmation bias of his (Claimed ‘Libertarian’ always equals good, regardless of the fact it’s pretty much always used as a front for entrenched capital to further monopoly positions while crying innovation). The IPA was founded by Liberals and has always represented the hard right wing of that party. They like entrenched interests and only pretend to give a damn about small business.
Even this weekend he was still making excuses for Turnbull in relation to Fifields disingenuousness ignoring all evidence and past behaviour.
Renai, they’re not your friends and they are not going to share the real money with you. It’s a locked in club and you will not be made a member.
Naivety in a journalist is a huge failing.
Stop apologising for Malcolm Turnbull and start treating him as the untrustworthy politician he is and has continually shown himself to be.
“used as a front for entrenched capital to further monopoly positions while crying innovation”
Doesn’t help they also tend to be closet Fascists as well. Go onto any Propertarian forum or news website and just see the insane level of racism, sexism and classism that pours out of their mouths. I’ve noted numerous times how they have cheered when police have been used to smash left wing protesters or black people while they claim they are for “small Government”. /r/Libertarianism even had a live stream of BLM protests where they were all cheering for police to kill all the “******s”. Guess who also showed this classic propertarian hypocrisy, our wonderful IPA Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who cheered for police brutally smashing Occupy.
Go spend 15 minutes reading Briebart (largest Propertarian news website) and tell me these people are anything but closet Fascists/Neo-Nazis.
Remove the word “closet”. I don’t think they’re trying to hide it. Maybe replace it with the word “flamboyant”.
Think of how us REAL Libertarians feel when these Capitalist corporate shills stole our ideology and twisted it into some bizarre free market circlejerk.
Libertarianism for hundreds of years has been a far-left Socialist ideology in opposition to Capitalism, Markets and Authoritarian Socialism (Big C Communism). Then Mises and Rothbard come along and start using our label as they talk about how moral a “flourishing market in child prostitution” would be and that laws to protect children from labour are wrong.
The founders of Libertarianism, Joseph Dejacque, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, The Paris Communards, CNT/FAI, would be horrified at what passes as a modern “Libertarian”. Lets not forget that literally (and I mean literally) every single “Libertarian” (more correct term is Propertarian) Think Tank is tied to big business. Write any of their think tanks you can think of into source watch and see the Koch brothers and Marlboro appear. The idea the IPA or Heritage or whatever is “independent” is so far from the truth it hurts.
But using a properly descriptive name like “Self interest group for big business and money laundry operation for Liberal party donations” sort of puts people off.
Given what Murdoch said:
“Club President – La Trobe University Liberal Club – La Trobe University
Electoral Officer for Matthew Guy – Liberal Party Leader Victoria
Electorate Officer for Mitch Fifield
Entertainment Consultant for Foxtel/Telstra
Assistant Adviser – Mitch Fifield
Adviser – Mitch Fifield”
It’s hard to see the “independent” part of this “independent” think tank, and it explains the wilfully negligent and partisan nature of the published article.
I was going to write a long rant, but (I think wisely) chose to delete it.
Suffice it to say that much of the neo-liberalist ideology espoused by the IPA has failed to deliver any benefit to the world (the pockets of the wealthy have become increasingly well-lined, though, usually at taxpayer expense, either directly or through the imposition of rent taxes, because ‘the private sector do it better’).
That can’t be true, the Heritage freedom index is totally a legit source that shows that Free markets bring freedom /s.
(Just ignore the Heritage freedom index literally twists itself in knots trying to explain why highly regulated markets of Scandinavia, Australia, NZ are “Free” while anarchic free markets that appear in numerous terrible third world countries like Honduras are apparently not. Apparently NZ, the country that doesn’t even allow GM food in any way or organic imported goods into it’s borders is less regulated than the United States, suuuurrreee)
Contrary to your view freer markets, capital decisions in the hands of individuals (capitalism), opening of international trade and greater freedom of expression have lifted billions of people out of abject poverty in the past 25 years.
The poorest people in freer-market economies today enjoy a standard of living greater than experienced by most in the history of the developed world. So devastating has been it’s relative performance vs the centrally planned alternatives all but a few remaining countries have embraced such “ideologies”.
Yet a bewildering number of people continue to ignore all available data for “the vibe”.
Two controlled economies today continue to demonstrate the alternatives’ comparative failure; Venezuela ( I departed the day of the 2013 Presidential election after Charvéz’s passing ) and North Korea ( I attended their 61st anniversary parade in 2014). The people’s suffering is impossible to ignore on the ground; requiring academia and leftoid posturing from a distance.
We could talk of the hundred’s of millions killed in the former communist states (USSR 25m, China 65m, Kazakstan 1/3 of Kazaks, etc ), many from starvation.
Ignorance of history and the repetition of socialist mantras reminds me of a story of a guy badgering me in Hanoi before the country’s 40th Reunification Day celebration last year. A young communist found it necessary to repeatedly defend the communist path and victory. After an hour of politely smiling I took him to the window as asked him to point out his victory, saying “All this commercial activity you could have had 40 years ago, a million not killed by the State”. After backpacking through the neighbouring Cambodia (2m killed) and Laos (300k killed) such tosh was too much to endure. Clearly not others, Australia has a Senator educated in the Soviet Union (Renai worked for her party).
Here’s some terms that debunk your ideology:
1. Global Financial Crisis.
2. Sub-prime lending
3. Derivatives.
4. Credit Default Swaps.
Capitalism out of control is not a good thing. And before you decide to argue the minutiae of that … consider … in a free market … those financial firms should not have been bailed out.
Your “freer markets” cannot be trusted Richard. When the chips are down, they cry for government mandated financial socialism. Amazing how their ideology changes when it’s their necks on the block.
Yes exactly Murdoch.
These Neo-liberals number 1 goal is to privatise profits and socialise their losses.
Privatise the profits.
Socialise the losses
Your argument against freer markets is govt intervention?
The North Atlantic financial crisis (not global) was the latest failure to accurately price risk. Happened many times before, will again (see massive levels of govt borrowings and risk less rate of return). It can’t be legislated against.
Sub-prime mortgages were the direct result of govt intervention. Derivatives sold to idiots that don’t understand them as are CDS, risks always underestimated. Not legislated against either.
Govt should let companies fail, instead their leftoid representatives nationalised their losses (Rudd, Obama, Brown, …). If they had economies would have recovered much faster; massive govt interventions around the world have been universally unsuccessful. Their solution? Govt intervention.
Libertarians and the IPA weren’t calling for such intervention.
So right-wing governments across the world which bailed out co’s were wrong to do that, in your opinion?
“The North Atlantic financial crisis (not global) was the latest failure to accurately price risk.”
Your opinion. I’ll run with the IMF calling it global.
“Sub-prime mortgages were the direct result of govt intervention”
Nope. Sub-prime mortgages were the result of the lack of government intervention, and the deliberate weakening of existing regulation thanks to financial sector lobbying. Packaging of sub-primes by financial firms into derivatives (an unregulated market) is what led to the GFC.
“Govt should let companies fail, instead their leftoid representatives nationalised their losses ”
OK .. I lolled when you just called Hank Paulson (the former chief of Goldman Sachs) a leftoid. He most certainly is not. I’m glad you agree with me that they should have been allowed to fail, but he … one of the great representatives of capitalism … disagreed. I suggest you take that up with him.
“Derivatives sold to idiots that don’t understand them as are CDS, risks always underestimated. Not legislated against either.”
Ummm … that’s right. Your “freer market” problem right there. The lack of legislation was enabled by those lobbyists that campaigned (successfully) against derivatives being regulated (by the CFTC), who recommended that they actually be regulated (Google Brooksley Born)
“If they had economies would have recovered much faster; massive govt interventions around the world have been universally unsuccessful. Their solution? Govt intervention.”
I would suggest you take that up with them. You’re arguing with battalions of finance advisors here. Go to it.
“Libertarians and the IPA weren’t calling for such intervention.”
Leaving Libertarians out of this (because I refuse to believe you speak for an entire ideology), why would the IPA call for intervention? Australia weathered the storm better than most, and the IPA has no say in Wall Street.
@ Murdoch,
Richard certainly doesn’t speak on behalf of all Libertarians or even conservatives… not even minimally or at all…
As high profile Libertarian and former Republican US Presidential nominee x 2 (who is obviously not as intelligent, experienced nor wealthy, at a mere reported 1/2 billion… as Richard is, just ask Richard) clearly states…
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/11/copper-wire-technology-whose-time-has-passed.html
The best part about this is… it’s reported via Fox… and in April 2013… even before our new wonder government came to power spruiking copper based FTTN…
GOLD
“opening of international trade and greater freedom of expression have lifted billions of people out of abject poverty in the past 25 years.”
Absolutely false, increase in technology has lifted people out of poverty with a huge part of that increase in technology (and essentially the entire backbone) coming from the public sector.
Also it’s a complete misnomer that Capitalism has been “lifting people out of poverty” as many claim is actually a complete and utter lie based on very creative accounting which assumes that people living on only $1.08 per day are somehow no longer in poverty (despite the average needed to meet minimum nutritional requirements is $4.50 a day).
How do all these charts show poverty reduction then? By barely increasing the International Poverty Line while not taking into account inflation, so in reality actually reducing the poverty line to basically nothing. Suddenly, hundreds of millions of people starving to death or living in complete slums are suddenly not living in poverty in global statistics.
If you increase the IPL to $4.50, this is the BARE MINIMUM required for an average person to achieve some form of minimum nutrition, then suddenly around 80% of the worlds population are living in abject poverty. 5.1 billion people.
“many from starvation.”
Because hundreds of millions of people haven’t starved to death in Capitalist states, or hundreds of millions been killed in Capitalist wars of Imperialism, or hundreds of millions haven’t died from preventable illness. How about the 70 million Chinese victims of the Opium trade in the 19th-20th century?
Funny that suddenly when Capitalism is involved, Capitalism is nowhere to be seen for the blame when these people were all murdered by the market.
And this is why I love this site, awesome post Zero Cool!
If just technology why have only those with freer markets benefitted? Technology improvements driven almost exclusively by the private sector not public sector.
You believe poverty hasn’t been reduced? basic experience with the topic can be started here:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim
No, hundreds of millions haven’t died in capitalist states. Where are these capitalist wars of imperialism? People passing from preventable illness are capitalists fault? Anglo-Chinese War Was a capitalist conflict?
This is why I love this site, exposing the stupidity is so easy.
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/12/12/2013/donors%E2%80%99-dilemma-aid-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries
Wealth flows from developing nations to wealthy nations amount to almost $2 trillion per year, accounting for (in order from greatest to lowest contributor) tax avoidance by multinationals, compound interest on old debt, tax holidays for multinationals, and TRIPS Intellectual property rights payments.
Additionally, total landmass approximately equaling that of western Europe has been taken from them by the global elite.
By comparison they receive 136 billion in aid.
there’s also this lovely tidbit in the summary I just linked:
“Beginning in the early 1980s, Western governments and financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF changed their development policy from one that was basically Keynesian to one that remains devotedly neoliberal, requiring radical market deregulation, fiscal austerity, and privatization in developing countries as a condition of receiving aid. […] Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang has demonstrated that while developing countries enjoyed per capita income growth of more than 3% prior to the 1980s, structural adjustment cut it in half, down to 1.7%. When it was foisted on Sub-Saharan Africa, per capita income began to decline at a rate of 0.7% per year, and average GNP shrank by around 10%. As a result, the number of Africans living in basic poverty nearly doubled.”
So tell me again how capitalism is lifting them out of poverty. Seems like it’s just making a buck off them, which would be no surprise given that’s the whole point of capitalism as far as the actors within that system are concerned.
No they have not been taken out of extreme poverty, creative accounting has taken people out of “extreme poverty” while their material conditions have stayed exactly the same (or have actually gotten worse as people are funneled from their rural land into urban slums). Again, the PPI has simply been lowered over several decades by refusing to take into account inflation, this means that they have actually lowered the level you need to be in to be considered “out of poverty” to include people who are literally suffering from severe malnutrition.
“No, hundreds of millions haven’t died in capitalist states. ”
Yes they have.
“Where are these capitalist wars of imperialism?”
Have you been living under a rock for the past 15 years? This isn’t even including US foreign policy of “interventions” for 80 or so years for their companies. The US even overthrew a Government and committed what is now recognized as genocide and forced an entire country into serfdom for a Fruit company. How about the huge role markets played in WW1?
“People passing from preventable illness are capitalists fault?”
When the world would rather let the poor die than give them cheap affordable medicine that we have bulk stocks of, then yes, they are at fault for those deaths.
“Anglo-Chinese War Was a capitalist conflict?”
Considering it was literally over markets, then getting Chinese addicted to hard drugs to enrich a giant multinational corporation, yes.
Lets also not include how in the world we produce 2x the amount of food it takes to feed the entire human race, yet we waste and throw away over half of it, while people starve to death or suffer from severe malnutrition by the billions in developing nations.
Also one only needs to glance at the third world to see millions of deaths carried out simply because some Western company wants the resources they are sitting on. Hell, we have literally child slaves in Africa picking the chocolate we eat.
We in the first world live a very privileged position. We are simply blind to the horrific crimes that are carried out in our names in the developing world.
Capitalism only gets away with it because it’s the dominating ideology and everyone will just point their fingers at an individual company rather than see the systematic issue that Capitalism is an incredibly abusive and imperialist system.
“Technology improvements driven almost exclusively by the private sector not public sector.”
This is absolutely false on every regard. Most major private sector corporations work hand in hand with Government research and planning. The backbone for essentially most major technologies comes from publicly backed research. Look at Asia and the massive incestuous relationship between corporations and the Governments where they are near one in the same (especially in places like Japan and South Korea)
Rik’s article rallies against the govt development programs, I agree near useless. True also that Western Africa remains a basket case, however they’re hardly the poster region for free-markets.
However the last 25 years have seen amazing advancements in all post-soviet countries, freer economies of Central & South America and across Asia (billion people alone).
Anyone that has visited these regions during this time would agree. Again it’s bewildering anyone would argue such progress has not happened.
Zero should outline examples of the 100 millions killed by capitalist (as have been for communism).
Anglo-Chinese War understanding is hilarious; nothing to do with free markets nor individual ownership of capital (exactly the opposite).
“If just technology why have only those with freer markets benefitted?”
Because you make up what has a “freer” market or not based on Heritage Foundations bizarre hypocrisy.
The idea Australia or NZ or Sweden or Noway have more “Free markets” than many third world nations where corporations can do literally anything they want is just a joke. Countries like Australia, Sweden, NZ etc work because we have strong stable Government institutions that are subject to independent watchdogs. Go look anywhere in the world and you will find that corruption levels is a far better indicator of success than some joke of an idea of “free markets”.
“True also that Western Africa remains a basket case, however they’re hardly the poster region for free-markets.”
Why not? Because Corporations can do whatever they want there. What about Honduras the country propertarians circlejerk over as a Ayn Randian utopia and the Government there is basically controlled by US far-right lobby groups?
Oh wait, because they don’t actually have strong Government institutions and regulations that can actually create a stable environment for development. I forgot, “Free market” = “Government red tape” in Heritage propertarian land.
“However the last 25 years have seen amazing advancements in all post-soviet countries”
If outside of the Baltic and Poland you consider catastrophically crashing life indicators and skyrocketing poverty as a great advancement…sure? I don’t think wiping an average 20-30 years off Eastern Europes life expectancy in just one decade is a great thing personally.
None of this even matters because the USSR was STATE CAPITALIST. Which is just another form Capitalism can take. (inb4 not true scotsman, literally the USSR called itself State-Capitalist, the entire point of Leninism is to reign in Capitalism to try use it to develop society to a point where Socialism can take place)
“Anyone that has visited these regions during this time would agree. Again it’s bewildering anyone would argue such progress has not happened.”
Progress has happened due to massive Government projects in poverty reduction. Venezuela is a basket case now, but it was also a basket case in the 90s, the difference was, under Neo-Liberals, over 40% of the population didn’t even have access to accessible drinking water.
“Anglo-Chinese War understanding is hilarious; nothing to do with free markets nor individual ownership of capital (exactly the opposite).”
Capitalism has literally nothing to do with Free Markets, Capitalism can take many forms. State-Capitalism was an incredibly popular form of Capitalism throughout even the west in the 19th and early 20th century. How you can ignore the Capitalist makeup to Imperialism (especially against Asia) is beyond me.
The Anglo-Chinese war was literally over the Chinese refusing to open up their Markets to the west.
Richard is right, you only have to look at China, hang a minute their strictly controlled by the communist.
Right;-)
When was the last time you visited China. 20yrs ago you saw a country strictly controlled by communists, not today. Further liberalisation will enrich them even more.
Interesting recent articles:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-west-and-the-rest-got-rich-1463754427
Also this; exposing the shallow thinking of public created innovation:
“There’s a huge difference between having an idea and creating a business…”
“This whole political agenda of focusing on the ‘ideas boom’ — it’s easy to come up with ideas, it’s hard to turn prototypes into real things and then get revenue on them.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/iress-chief-andrew-walsh-slams-turnbulls-empty-ideas-boom/news-story/997734871d60066e6571ee1b61e3bf9c
Knowledge and experience!
I have already pointed out that you are incorrect Richard.
The thing that has lifted “Poorer” nations out of abject poverty, has actually been Health care and Education.
It all comes back to child mortality. You can even see it in western society history.
Essentially as child mortality rates drop, so do the number of children per family. As the number of children per family drops, the amount of money spent on survival reduces, allowing families the ability to expend resources on improving their lot. This also means there is less requirement for older children to join the family working, which means they stay in school longer. Which means better education, which means better jobs. etc.
This cycle has been repeated in numerous nations around the world. Bangladesh for example.
Go to gapminder.org if you are interested. There is a fantastic video called “Don’t Panic” that goes into it.
Key things in it. World Literacy levels is 80%, children born per woman is now under 3. Etc.
Now yes the free market has had an effect on this. But being that this is essentially being repeated in the vast majority of nations in the world, whether 1st 2nd or 3rd world (which by the way is no longer a valid way of referring to the world) nations, and no matter the political persuasion, it is most certainly NOT purely due to capitalism and the free market.
Actually Richard,
The evidence is that the main cause of “lifting people out of abject poverty” has in fact been health care.
As health care has improved, child mortality has lessened. As child mortality lessened, families had less children, and hence spent less on associated costs. Less children meant that there was no need to pull children from school to work to keep the family fed, which meant more children in school, which meant education improved, which has further improved the local wealth as they get better jobs etc.
You can read all about it here. http://www.gapminder.org
World’s literacy level is 80% now. Most people still don’t realise that. World wide average children per family is under 3 as well if I recall correctly.
So whilst the free market played some part in the above. It is not the direct cause of it.
Thanks for your input, Richard. Since you oppose them, I now know everything everyone else has stated has merit to it.
Dearest Richard,
As I have been doing for some 5 years and it is still unable to break through the layers of super ego and sink in with you… let me again “educate the uneducated” (like that? Just for old times sake) in relation to the protocol of commenting TOPICALLY.
FFS what has that spiel got to do with comms…? Right or wrong WTF has that got to do with what we are here for?
You just don’t get it do you…? People are here to discuss comms not your political view of the world.
Richie was here and Richie was there says Richie… BFD! Let’s all see if we can find Richie in the red and white striped fucking shirt … WGAF?
Its not about you Richard. I know that’s hard for Richard to comprehend, but no one here cares about Richard’s politically motivated rants and Richard’s unbelievably massive ego.
But to quickly respond.
The problem with any system is IMO, when the extremists, get their snouts in the trough, because Richard, a lunatic is a lunatic. So if you expect us all to believe that right wing lunatics are no more dangerous than any other fucking lunatic, well it just shows you to be one of those lunatics, IMO.
So to the topic of comms, how’s that woeful way over budget, way behind, obsolete, debacle to beat all debacles, MTM plan of your’s going?
Quick squeal reds under the bed as a redneck diversion from the MTM fuck-up…after all there’s a “lection-a-coming”, boy.
Let’s go to the (excellent) article; most of you have heard the same points made here before.
“the NBN is effectively accountable to no one”.
NBNCo isn’t accountable to it’s investors (taxpayers), just two shareholders (politicians). Release of company information is scant given taxpayers equity spent ($20b) and committed (to $59b and beyond). Leaks of internal information subject of AFP raids. The Senate committees a farce; read their transcripts.
Clearly “effectively” unaccountable, failure to meet any of their own CP KPIs was highlighted with every release of actual performance data; shouted down with abuse and bile. Meanwhile NBNCO management paid themselves bonuses every year.
“In this light, Labor’s original policy in 2007 – to tender out a fibre to the node network to the private sector – was a far superior policy.”
Note not claiming the FTTN policy was superior, but the tendering to private sector. Given NBNCO’s actual performance vs (the not to be discussed) international alternatives this argument is a slam dunk.
What isn’t recognise is Conroy couldn’t even run a competent expressions of interest. True Trujillo was an impediment, but he’d announced his retirement months before NBNCo was formed (years before connecting anyone). Conroy and his “experts” believed they could start and run a telco; obviously mistaken (expert advice has never been released; hint Renai).
“The ACCC was hardly an insurmountable hurdle.”
Barely even a hurdle. But Conroy would have had to re-engage; not his style.
“As telecommunications analyst Ian Martin has reflected, “the ACCC knew, or should have known, that its advice in favour of FTTP was both wrong and inappropriate but gave it anyway in order to help bring about a preferred structural outcome for better or worse”.”
ACCC, reflected in most of it’s deliberations, has near zero commercial experience. As pointed out this was called out at the time.
“Anyone who works in the communications sector in Australia will tell you that the minute the Labor government announced it was going it alone in building a nationalised broadband network, private sector investment in telecommunications ground to a halt.”
Obviously:-)
“The claim that Australia’s copper network is “second rate” is proving completely false.”
Quelle surprise> When a technology has performed at scale in many markets it’s not surprising (to the educated few) it will work here. FTTHers were squealing different size copper, 2-3 power stations required, …
“Akamai’s 2015 fourth-quarter data suggests there is basically no correlation between available peak speeds and average speeds.”
Several years a few of us have highlighted contention. Recently analysing the (not discussed here) ACCC wholesale report showing for all the talk RSPs have bought just 1.05mbps / customer CVC (likely provisioned less on their backhaul).
Then most here jumped on FTTN congestion without a basic understanding of node architecture nor their components.
“That people are still using this report to argue Australia should spend billions more on a full fibre rollout is economic lunacy.”
Not lunacy; a sense of entitlement to other people’s money, financial innumeracy and technical ignorance.
“In fact, 80 per cent of users connected to the gold-plated fibre to the premises network are signing up to plans of only 25 Mbps or less.”
Pointed out here several times.
“The sooner the government finishes rolling out – as cheaply as possible – the NBN, the sooner we can try to reform the industry to encourage investment and innovation again.”
Private investment and innovation is Australia telecoms is dead. Tens of billions of (current and future) taxpayers hard-earnt will be destroyed with this policy folly. Labor about to step up with even more.
Great work IPA. Squeal piggies…
Yet now being paired even more still missing there own targets while still claiming to have hit them.
Lol if the tender was a slam dunk. Why was it a failure. Private sector showed no interest in investment before the tender and still showed no interest in investment after.
Blaming Conroy for Telstra lack on investment in a slam dunk policy. Oh only months before NBN started sol resigned lol failed you strike to right there. Just more abuse and bile.
Is NBN supplying a min 25Mbps on the FTTN yes or no. No. Second rate it is then.
Lol considering that the policy you could have been commission to write had min 25Mbps to all by now so yes lunacy. All the NBN has delivered so far is labor FTTP in the 3 years Turnbull in charge.
The fact coalition want 60% on 25Mbps or less they have failed too.
Yes the congestion if FTTN. But are you also aware that NBN doesn’t even test the copper if it meets the speeds requirements unless they are paid a profession install or complaint is made.
Private investment was dead before the NBN started Telstra made sure if that.
Pretty much just abuse and bile all up.
Richard, your comments, as always, are invalid.
But kind of interesting now he’s “outed” how bizarre his world view actually is.
Copper is absolutely second-rate. It rained on Sunday, my maximum DL speed on my Naked ADSL2+ connection was 54kb/s. I get about 138kb/s on a good day. I live in the suburbs, about 30 mins from Adelaide CBD.
It is absolutely second-rate.
They have no case. They blew all the money for faulty crap we already have. Where Telstra customers are now just realising they’ve been cheated into the same faulty ADSL crap.
Time these young Liberal fascists step aside and stop trying to destroy the economy.
Considering Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart are its 2 main private backers and the IPA seems to write most of the Liberal Party policies these days, it’s not surprising most of us think they are pure evil.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/05/31/abbotts-faceless-men-the-ipa/1401458400
It’s one thing to be pro-freedom and capitalism etc (which I am), but it’s quite another to actively campaign against the fair go and policies that are good for our society as a whole (which the IPA do). They are basically welded firmly to the neo-liberal economic doctrines which caused the GFC and continue to do great damage to the shrinking middle classes in western democracies but line their mega wealthy benefactors pockets (RM & GH etc).
The problem I have with the IPA is that they aren’t just “pro-business” and “pro-freedom”, they are “pro-big-business” and “pro-rich-people”. Their list of ideas (which corresponds very closely to the LNP current policies) is mind-boggling:
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2080/be-like-gough-75-radical-ideas-to-transform-australia
Of course a large chunk of them are about denying that climate change exists (and letting companies continue polluting), while ideas like 9, 11, 18, 19, 33, 40, 42, 45, 46, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 68 are all about keeping poor people poor and more money for big corporations instead. Not a single one of those ideas is about social justice and making society better for everyone. If you’re poor, disabled, old or unemployed then it’s too bad – it’s all your own fault.
Some of these ideas are just deliberately hurtful.. “defund harmony day”? So reducing racial discrimination is no longer important?
So yes I do consider them pure evil.
The problem with libertarianism, as a philosphy, as that it favours only those who have.
Libertarianism, when boiled down, mean the freedom to live your life to the best of your abilities and means, unfettered by anyone else.
This has two drawbacks, of course. Those who have means, but no morals, are not constrained from acting against the interests of those who have means and morals, or against those with no means at all.
The second drawback is that having the freedom to act according to your means is no benefit to those who have no means.
Libertarianism is no friend to the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged. These are the people that need help from their community, and provided through their government, the government that the IPA, and its ilk, are so against.
Really, when both major parties have done enough wrong things with the NBN while in Government to make supporting either a questionable pursuit (not to dismiss the clear merits interspersed within them), is there any point to building cases that support either? I would like to know.
It would be far better to discuss alternative proposals. In that regard, coverage in the media really is lacking. Especially in light of the result, which is a years-long debacle with no sign of improving! Oh and ditch the partisan political propaganda*, it’s been done to death.
*I very much appreciate the lack of it in the editorial.
“It would be far better to discuss alternative proposals.”
Alternatives to what?
We know what the Libs are offering, and being more of the same, it isn’t pretty. We don’t actually know what Labor are offering, but it seems that, for technical reasons, they won’t be able to offer what they’d like to offer any time soon.
What else would you offer?
Before looking at alternative proposals, you first need to define what constitutes an acceptable network. The simplest way to do this is to look at the requirements (bandwidth & latency) of various services (eHealth, eLearning, etc.). The can then be used to evaluate the proposals to determine if they deliver the required bandwidth & latency.
Sadly I see little interest in doing this because as you have correctly deduced there is way to much partisan political propaganda and too little reliance on evidence. See Murdoch’s post above for a classic example of ignoring evidence:
> Your opinions, even backed up with data, are useless. You’re trying to predict an outcome that’s a moving target. And for arguments sake .. even if they turned out to be true … you can’t claim them either. Why? Because you didn’t know for sure in the first place.
“The simplest way to do this is to look at the requirements (bandwidth & latency) of various services (eHealth, eLearning, etc.). The can then be used to evaluate the proposals to determine if they deliver the required bandwidth & latency.”
Mathew … that’s how you design a solution for a set of solutions. Can you design a solution for what the internet is capable of? Of course not. You (or anyone) can’t even begin to imagine what it will be used for even over the short term.
On a platform of this scale (nationwide broadband), with no clearly defined solutions in mind (because you’d never be able to figure out even a small percentage of what may be demanded of this network over time) you’d simply design the network to be as scalable as possible.
At this point, you take a look at the technology stacks on offer to see which scales the best. Considering we’re pushing the upper limit of copper (because DOCSIS v3.1 and VDSL are relatively recent additions to the copper arsenal of solutions) you’d go on the more mature medium … fibre and it’s standards. They have the ability to scale into the foreseeable future. Copper does not.
“See Murdoch’s post above for a classic example of ignoring evidence”
You should have said … “see Mathew’s post above for a classic example of ignoring evidence.”
> Can you design a solution for what the internet is capable of? Of course not.
I would argue differently. It is possible to estimate the requirements for various applications (e.g. HD video conferencing with 8 participants for eLearning; QHD video conference with 2 participants for eHealth).
> you’d simply design the network to be as scalable as possible
And then put speed tiers on it so that currently only 15% and falling can actually use the applications that were promoted as the reason for building the network.
Estimation of requirements is easy.
Bandwidth usage doubles every 2 years. Hence aim for a product that is going to allow you the best growth for as long as possible, in order to keep up with the future demand.
Easy.
Here’s a great article that Nick Ross wrote back in 2013 that was never published – it totally destroys TurnCoat’s arguments!
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/600371/schoolboy-maths-error-underpins-turnbull-nbn/
it totally destroys TurnCoat’s arguments!
No it doesn’t because IP traffic has nothing to do with speed tier demand, using increasing gigabytes of data has nothing to do with FTTP, FTTN fixed wireless etc, but my plan quota allowance might restrict it if I go over the limit.
As usual Devoid, your comment is invalid!
@Derek O
And one of the most ignorant things I think he’s ever said.
Not wrong, I cant understand why Renai tolerates his presence when almost everything he posts is in clear breach of more than one item of the Delimiter comments policy!
“I would argue differently.”
Of course you would.
“It is possible to estimate the requirements for various applications (e.g. HD video conferencing with 8 participants for eLearning; QHD video conference with 2 participants for eHealth).”
Yes it is. But it is impossible to predict what new applications are going to be invented. That’s why I used the word “set” before. Known applications are easy to plan for. But future applications are unknown.
“And then put speed tiers on it so that currently only 15% and falling can actually use the applications that were promoted as the reason for building the network.”
You can’t speak universally about what applications do and don’t need. Those needs are as individual as the appliications themselves. However you would expect that the market responds accordingly if a new application comes along that requires that sort of speed. Would a FTTN network be able to respond as easily as a FTTH one? Nope.
However you would expect that the market responds accordingly if a new application comes along that requires that sort of speed. Would a FTTN network be able to respond as easily as a FTTH one? Nope.
You have made a conclusion anyway about FTTN when you don’t even know what the so called ‘new application’ is.
Brilliant logic that, can I roll the dice after you and get a totally different conclusion?
“You have made a conclusion anyway about FTTN when you don’t even know what the so called ‘new application’ is.”
You do realise that you just agreed with me, right?
“Brilliant logic that, can I roll the dice after you and get a totally different conclusion?”
That was exactly my logic with regards to future application innovation … you are rolling the dice. The only thing you can count on, is the unexpected. So what do you do? You set the bar as high as practical. Which bar is higher between FTTP and FTTN? FTTH of course.
“You do realise that you just agreed with me, right?”
*High five*
I’m afraid he pointedly does not realise that. He is too blinded by his ideological hatred of anything not of his own party to be able understand.
I’m sure there is a medical term for this.
Murdoch,
You do realise that you just agreed with me, right?
No.
Brilliant logic that, can I roll the dice after you and get a totally different conclusion?
That’s the opposite of agreeing with you.
“No.”
It’s OK, I know you’d never admit publicly to it.
“That’s the opposite of agreeing with you.”
Ha ha, it actually isn’t. It demonstrates perfectly the premise … that is .. you can’t predict the future. Thanks again.
I transited from a 56k dial up modem service to Telstra’s BigPond cable in 1990 or so.
Yes, always on and much faster than 56k. And Telstra repeatedly told me I ought to be happy (if not grateful) for my monthly 100MB allowance (yes, that was 100MB).
It feels like I’m reliving this “be grateful” argument all over again being told 25Mbps is “sufficient”.
Talk about being infantalised by those who think they always know better.
It’s amazing how conservatives are utterly incapable of learning from the past isn’t it. I guess it’s hard to learn from something you are still stuck in. ?
Institute of Public Affairs Founded in 1943 after Robert “Pig Iron Bob” Menzies, then one of the senior leaders of of the United Australia Party(UAP) fled the country in complete disgrace.
Had “Pig Iron Bob” remained in Oz. The public sentiment meant instead of throwing valuable rationed eggs and cream cakes at him. Stones would have been the most popular choice. The local state and commonwealth police forces would have even supplied the female stone throwers with extra ammunition. The younger males were conscripted for front line military. The older WW1 vets were conscripted as prisoner of war camp guards. Both Oz and Canuckistan, were very convenient dumping grounds for the Poms to ship unwanted prisoners of war. As a politician “Pig Iron Bob” Menzies during the war years, was an unelectable candidate for the then full time working female voters.
Shortly after that event, UAP imploded and ceased to exist as a viable political party in 1943. UAP was dissolved in 1945 after a major defeat in the polls the previous year.
Public sentiment had not forgotten the fact UAP was a completely irresponsible bunch of very poor money managers. The parties actions had deepened the 1929 depression through extensive fiscal incompetence extending it all the way to June 1939. In fact the UAP sold off all valuable federal government assets they could lay their hands on at bargain basement prices. Downsized all military arms, virtually disarming the country. The country called Oz, was ill prepared for the outbreak of WW2.
As usual the so called conservatives of the UAP, being incredible poor budget and man power managers had left wartime management , rearmament and mobilization to the ALP to fix and defend the country throughout both world wars.
The polite expression was that all the then UAP members left in the Oz Federal Parliament of that era were basically full time adherents of the “Peter Principle”. At times they were extremely lucky the local Oz female natives didn’t start throwing stones at them at political rallies.
All publications printed by this organization have been highly selective on the numbers and riddled with far too many basic errors and omissions since foundation day. There is no exception to this rule for an IPA publication.
So much for the short history of basically a think tank in complete and absolute denial of the real world since foundation day.
Current chairman long past retirement date Rod Kemp. Former Liberal party senator, in desperate need of a new job when internal infighting, meant he would have been pushed to the impossible to win number three selection in the upcoming 2008 Federal Senate election.
Executive Director John Roskam, attempted numerous times throughout his career to enter federal politics as a peoples representative. He was blackballed at every attempt. Need one say may more about these two adherents to the “Peter Principle”.
Any publication, that puts the name Rod & John on the masthead, is basically incompetently written propaganda. The only suitable use for all IPA publications is as rough barely usable toilet paper.
I think there should be a new media law.
If something is published, that is demonstrably wrong, the apology/correction, should be published in the same space.
So in the newspaper world, if it is published on the front page, then the correction is on the front page(same font).
TV the same, if you publish demonstrably incorrect information, at a 7 pm timeslot, as the first piece in a 3 story show, then the apology must be in a 7pm timeslot and the first piece needs to be the apology.
In the online world, same situation, but the original incorrect document must be stored and linked to in the apology/correction, unchanged.
Demonstrably wrong may require some definition. But I am sure we could get there.
Whenever someone makes a statement like “the worst conceived infrastructure project in Federal history”, ask: “what is the second worst…”
That’s easy its called the MTM … Malcom Turnbull Mess!
Its second only because nobody has been able to get any hard facts out of the buggers and it does sound like they are trying really hard to get the #1 spot too.
The IPA aren’t exactly “independent” though, and they tend to back “Liberal” idea’s and policies more than “liberal” ones.
It’s pretty obvious why (and why The Australian is also aligned with them) when you take a look at it’s board, patrons and how it and the LPA were created:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs
Comments are closed.