Abbott "no Bill Gates" on broadband policy

By Ry Crozier on Aug 11, 2010 7:33 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Leaves the technical stuff to his Comms Minister.

Prime Ministerial hopeful Tony Abbott was last night unable to explain how the Coalition's broadband policy was technically possible, deferring questions on the subject because he was "no Bill Gates" and would lose a technical argument.

The Coalition policy was described as a "patchwork" by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam yesterday after it was revealed a Liberal-National Government would can the NBN and replace it with "optimised" DSL, some wireless, satellite and a backhaul network for which only $150 million was committed in the first four years of the project.

Appearing on the ABC's 7:30 Report last night, Abbott faced a well-prepared presenter Kerry O'Brien, who repeatedly sought basic information on how the Coalition would make good on its broadband promise of 12 Mbps peak speeds to most Australians.

"Just as the Prime Minister says, I say as well that I'm no Bill Gates here and I don't claim to be any kind of tech head in all of this," Abbott said.

"But we are going to have broadband running past 97 percent of households and, yes, we're not guaranteeing 100 megabits, but we are guaranteeing upwards to 100 megabits."

O'Brien grilled Abbott on his promise of "peak speeds", even explaining what they were to try and elicit a response from Abbott.

"Again, if you're gonna get me into a technical argument, I'm going to lose it, Kerry, because I'm not a tech head. But we are offering 12 and up and we think in the vast ...," Abbott began.

"Well... can you really give that guarantee when you don't seem to know what peak speed is," O'Brien responded.

"Well, Kerry, I take your point: that if you want to drag me into a technical discussion here, I'm not gonna be very successful at it," Abbott said.

O'Brien put to Abbott that, because he wasn't a "tech head, you can't explain your policy to us and how you will use [mobile] towers, how much fibre you would need and what spectrum you would use when we're told there is none to actually deliver your wireless technology."

"Unforgivable" performance

Telco analyst Paul Budde said Abbott's lack of basic knowledge on the Coalition's own broadband policy was "unforgivable".

"While his great stumble during the interview with Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report was very embarrassing, even more critical is his total lack of understanding of the transformative nature of broadband for government innovation in healthcare, education, transport and energy," Budde said.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann also tweeted: "Libs don't get it. A decent national broadband isn't about nerds. It's about better schools and hospitals."

Abbott "no Bill Gates" on broadband policy

49 comments in this discussion

"@muzza2009 and @deteego At last some voices of reason. :)"

By RDEFCON1

Tags

abbott, tony, broadband, policy, coalition, bill, gates, abc, election10

NBN bills proceed to final vote

Coalition argues against NBN bill consideration

Costings: Only $150m on backhaul in Coalition's first term

Coalition hedges fast broadband bet on IT evolution

Breaking Stories

Hackett steps down from Internode

ACCC approves Optus NBN deal

Australia shares $2bn Square Kilometre Array

RIM to cut 2000 jobs

NSW retains right to veto data centre co-tenants

Comments: 49

johnpro2 Aug 11, 2010 8:12 AM	I agree at present the average home user possibly does not require 100mb/s ..however Bill Gates once argued to his embarrassment that more than 640KB of RAM was not necessary. Optimizing DSL has a limited future.
Digger11 Aug 11, 2010 8:27 AM	I'd say about a 15 year future for ADSL2+ - then Optic Fibre will probably be redundant anyway. Let's stop this horrible waste of $47,000,000,000 and spend it on the elderly, sick and disadvantaged - who all probalby do not give a sh@%$ about the internet. There are far more important things that Australia should be spending it's money on.
D99 Aug 11, 2010 8:54 AM	@Digger11 You are dreaming. Telstra owns the copper network that ADSL2+ relies on and not even Telstra envisions a 15 year future for ADSL2+. It is actively planning its own fibre replacement so the only real question here is whether the government will build a fibre network that all ISPs can access (and resell) at reasonable prices or whether we will face a generation of more Telstra price gouging because it owns all the fibre and has let the copper network fall apart in the meantime. Is that really the telecoms future you want?
Digger11 Aug 11, 2010 9:07 AM	@D99, Look, I despise Telstra and their price-gouging as much as everyone else. But I don't see the solution being to effectively waste $47,000,000,000 of tax payers money when there are far more important "big ticket" items that as a society we should be concerned about. The Internet is only a bit of fun - many confused people take it far too seriously. The sick, elderly and disadvantaged people are never targetted for assistance in Govt. policy because they haven't enough voter influence. We are going to take in about 15 million immigrants over the next 20 odd years, but we are not spending money on roads,hospitals,public transport, water etc. Wouldn't we be better off spending money on essential services rather than the ability to download Porn a little bit faster ???
Daveh Aug 11, 2010 9:35 AM	@Digger11. Damn Good points. However, as a New-South-Welshman i know the pain of this all too well. For the past 30 years NSW government has invested little in key infrastructure (roads, transport, hospitals) - with the aim of cost-cutting and 'she'll be right for now'. NSW is now so far behind on these areas of key infrastructure and social policy that it isn't funny. Simply using the logic that has prevented the implementation of same "big-ticket" items you speak about is beyond ironic. The long and short is that in the NBN the government is taking a longer view of infrastructure, rather than waiting for the internet to be actively broken (and Australia looses all the international business and revenue that it grants) they want to future proof it now. I guess the question is, with larger world and entire economy becoming almost fully digital and integrated with the internet, can we really afford to wait until it becomes a 'priority' (and by that i mean hemorrhaging capital through lost investment in our economy).
Mabelode Aug 11, 2010 10:15 AM	Why spend any taxpayers money on roads, hospitals, public transport, water OR broadband. Let the "Market" sort it out.
advocate Aug 11, 2010 10:27 AM	D99: Your comments about 'Telstra price gouging' is tired rhetoric, Telstra Wholesale pricing on the copper link is overseen by the ACCC, that is ADSL1 pricing, ULL and LSS pricing and access. The NBN if it ever gets built will also be overseen by that very same ACCC, if for example Telstra built a fibre network under the Coalition plan it would also be overseen by the ACCC.
Daveh Aug 11, 2010 11:01 AM	@advocate - the ACCC is a great watchdog in this regard! Telstra has not blocked competition from accessing the backhaul networks at all. Nor has Telstra's retail arm used information about wholesale contracts to undercut competitors in retail bids. The ACCC is only bound to FAIR price. Not COMPETITIVE price. In real world terms, if providers can choose another backhaul BESIDES Telstra, they would. Which would cause pick one - {lower price point, greater service, better speeds} from Telstra in response. For a great example of competition and collusion just look at what happened when Virgin Blue entered the Aviation market. Qantas and Anset had been at (high) fixed prices for a long time and the ACCC saw no reason to intervene. Virgin Blue enters and offers a lower price point as an alternative. All of a sudden, consumers found that they could pay significantly less for flights than they had before. Just because we HAVE a consumer competition body does not mean we are getting the best value from retailers. Especially given that the ACCC has lost a significant amount of its power in the last 20 years - with the move to a 'free market' model of regulation.
advocate Aug 11, 2010 11:08 AM	Daveh: I take it you have no faith in the ACCC's ability to keep a reign on future NBN pricing then, it is worrying that we are spending $43 billion on a network that may end up costing us more in terms of resold NBN plans from ISP's than the best value ADSL2+ plans we have today. Edited by advocate: 11/8/2010 11:17:14 AM
Daveh Aug 11, 2010 11:16 AM	@advocate - I had faith in the ACCC, however they have had their 'teeth' removed. A move towards competition through multiple competitors rather than regulation is the best move. If the NBN is not selling good service at a competitive price. I am SURE that Telstra could move to capitalize on this flaw. We have seen in the past few weeks (see iiNets 240GB and Telstras 200GB) that free market competition can indeed work. What would be best however is a competitive market with a watchdog that could tear large chunks from operator(s) found behaving in an anti-competitive way. As a final note. What is to stop the costs of copper access from wholesale going up 'in response to significant investment in new back-haul technologies'?
johnpro2 Aug 11, 2010 11:39 AM	ADSL2 ..I wish & I am only 50km North of the Brisbane CBD :(
Bazwalt Aug 11, 2010 12:57 PM	See, this is the problem with a large majority of people. Especially Digger11. You're looking at Broadband as if its a toy that we all mess around with and download our porn on. It's more than that now. It's an economical asset. It is a key system in our society, in our country, and we need technology that is resilient, that is sustainable, but also fast. So you can sit there if you want, and say that we don't need to upgrade the infrastructure...but lets see how you feel 15 years or more from now when DSL completely dies in it's rear end, Telstra throw in some new technology and wrangle us into expensive plans that leave our wallets empty. Pull your head out of the sand and realise that it isn't all about speed - its about a stable and reliable economical asset that will be valuable for many years to come. There are businesses out there (big and small) that rely on internet. Hell, ask any helpdesk worker at an ISP how many people call up and say that they've lost thousands or that their business is going to go critical because of loss of internet. There are private surgerys out there that still run off DSL (perhaps fibre is difficult to get out there) and when the internet goes dead ..they have no means to transfer medical reports to other centers. Are you going to sit there and tell them that there are more important things? Wake up mate.
advocate Aug 11, 2010 2:00 PM	"ask any helpdesk worker at an ISP how many people call up and say that they've lost thousands or that their business is going to go critical because of loss of internet." .... and that's ALL because we are on copper ADSL? - loss of internet is due to a multitude of reasons from the ISP's server/s going down to the loss and saturation of international and domestic links after the exchange? "There are private surgerys out there that still run off DSL (perhaps fibre is difficult to get out there) and when the internet goes dead ..they have no means to transfer medical reports to other centers." So just because they are on the NBN FTTH you are going to guarantee their internet will never ever go 'dead'?
Digger11 Aug 11, 2010 2:01 PM	@Telstraadvocate, "D99: Your comments about 'Telstra price gouging' is tired rhetoric," Not rhetoric at all - Telstra gouging is real and alive even today - read the other threads about the drop in Telstra'a Broadband Retail price with no drop in Wholesale pricing. The circus continues as Telstra abuses its market power, and leaves all of it's competitors in its wake, pleading to the ACCC for a free go. Ridiculous really.
Digger11 Aug 11, 2010 2:03 PM	@Bazwalt, "There are private surgerys out there that still run off DSL (perhaps fibre is difficult to get out there) and when the internet goes dead ..they have no means to transfer medical reports to other centers." What did they do 10 years ago ????? and The NBN will still have downtime you realise. I would rather have my $47.000,000,000 spent on building more surgeries, not faster means to email stuff around.
Bazwalt Aug 11, 2010 2:16 PM	".... and that's ALL because we are on copper ADSL? - loss of internet is due to a multitude of reasons from the ISP's server/s going down to the loss and saturation of international and domestic links after the exchange?" True - there are multiple reasons as to why their service can go down. But I'm not talking about saturated links or ISP server failures. I'm talking about complete lack of connection (Telstra ripping codes away, Copper degradation resulting in month long repairs, ect). This is all issues to do with Telstra's management and the copper we have in the ground. "So just because they are on the NBN FTTH you are going to guarantee their internet will never ever go 'dead'?" No, not at all. But Fibre is proven to be a far more resilient technology and is capable of sustaining loger life. It's not fool-proof but it's certainly far more reliable. "What did they do 10 years ago ????? " For the most part- people dealt with it. Technology was far different 10 years ago in comparison to today. You're right - Money does need to be spent in other sectors but Broadband has been abandoned for quite some time and now it's time to revisit the assets we have so we can ensure that 15-20 years from now we're not still 10 years behind the rest of the world.
HubertCumberdale Aug 11, 2010 2:18 PM	That interview was just embarrassing to watch, it's hard to believe in this day an age that anyone could be so clueless about technology and this is the guy that wants to run the country for the next 3 years? Meanwhile over in Labour land you have a a guy who is almost as bad but wants to censor everything. So where is the party that is pro NBN but anti internets filter? you'd think in a market demanding such a product that it would exist, seems not...
advocate Aug 11, 2010 2:19 PM	Digger11: No Telstra price gouging is not real and alive today, their BB plans have never had been as good value as they are in August 2010, what has changed is that BigPond is starting to compete at long last and some competitors don't like it - I emphasise 'some', other ISP's take it on the chin and provide better value than the latest BigPond price cuts anyway. Who says TW has to drop its prices because BigPond does? there is not a monopoly on ADSL wholesaling, if Optus or iiNet drop their retail prices do their ISP resellers complain they want a better wholesale deal otherwise its off to the ACCC they go? ISP's say they love competition as long as it is not BigPond doing the competing, they have had a honeymoon of 13 years where it was very easy to take customers away from BigPond, when BigPond decides to stem the exodus they don't like it one little bit.
Sams Aug 11, 2010 2:23 PM	The more Tony Abbott opens his mouth, the more the coalition looks like a bunch of amateur hacks. Other than the policies he's made up on the fly, I wonder if he even knows what his party's policies are. "we are guaranteeing upwards to 100 megabits" LOL. All too similar to his budget calculations.
Mabelode Aug 11, 2010 2:26 PM	At the risk of causing the naysayers to foam at the mouth, didn't the McKinsey study say that the Government would only need to invest $26b over the first seven years of the project, with NBN Co able to fund the rest from its own earnings? It would return $40b once privatisation was completed, yielding a rate of return comparable to or higher than the Government bond rate. Plenty of money to spend on other stuff.
scan06disk Aug 11, 2010 2:48 PM	All you have to do is visit The Liberals website..., there is nothing positive to say just videos on how to T'bag Labor and more and more videos if it, wtf ? they're a bunch of goats, lead by a syphilitic monkey who loves wearing swimming trunks !
RDEFCON1 Aug 11, 2010 3:02 PM	What I'm getting out of all these comments is that noone seems to have a good grasp on the cost-benefit of this NBN. Anyone got a good cost-benefit analysis?? No? ah well, let's just throw over $40bn at it and hope it all works out ok, shall we? ___ My view is, the proposal is for taxpayers (you and me) to pay $40bn to build a network, which consumers (you and me) will then pay again to use. That's right, we get to pay for it twice! And then, hopefully, the government actually builds the thing on budget and it delivers everything that's promised (which has been admitted to be 'intangible'). Does that about sum it up?
anonymous Aug 11, 2010 3:30 PM	@RDEFCON1: Maybe you haven't got such a good grasp on some things either, with your throwaway lines about paying twice and "intangible" delivery. You've said elsewhere that you know all about this stuff, so how about a quick (and non-political) reality check?
Bazwalt Aug 11, 2010 4:00 PM	@RDEFCON1: Nothing is free ;)
nate.cochrane Aug 11, 2010 4:30 PM	When you spend money on an asset, assuming that asset isn't over-capitalised, you balance the ledger so it's not as if the money goes up in a puff of smoke. If that asset has a greater rate of return that would otherwise be available and enables other businesses or accelerates tax returns then the asset is positively geared. The role of government is to spend money wisely. Who doesn't think faster, more reliable and widely spent broadband is a benefit to society? Australia's competitors do.
RDEFCON1 Aug 11, 2010 4:38 PM	@anonymous: "non-political reality check"? Talk about throw-away lines! How do you be non-political about public policy? How about saying something vaguely coherent? Or perhaps you are implying that I am being politically partisan in my views? Well... I won't deny that I disagree with Labor's NBN and Internet Filter policies. But I'm still a swinging voter who is disillusioned with both the major parties in general. Perhaps you should engage in some actual debate about the substance of the policies rather than casting personal aspersions? Or don't you have anything valuable to add? R-Defence Condition = 1
spawnywhippet Aug 11, 2010 4:44 PM	Australia is a long way behind most of the western world in telecoms and internet pricing and services. I lived in the UK in 2000-2005 and had 10Mbps unlimited broadband for about $25 per month. When I moved to Australia in 2005 (centre of Sydney) the best I could get was 1.5Mb 40GB cap for about $80. When I left in Jan 2010, I was paying $150 per month just for 80GB peak, 80GB off peak (iiNet), plus $75 cap for my mobile with minimal data allowance. Now I live in Singapore, I get unlimited mobile phone data, 500 mins talk time, 500 texts, unlimited home broadband internet and citywide WiFi for about $70 per month.
RDEFCON1 Aug 11, 2010 4:48 PM	@Nate - fair enough, assuming that Government isn't duplicating or destroying value being delivered by other means, and that there isn't a better use of the money. When spending billions of dollars, the least we could expect is a decent business-case. The most likely reason for a politician or party not to provide one to the public is that you can't make the case stack up. I think there's some pretty big assumptions implied in your comment. How much should the government invest in what areas (technology and region) to get faster, more reliable broadband? Labor says "spend the farm, go for the gold standard, to heck with the business case". Libs say, "we'll do just what we need to get by with the minimum standard we think we need". Both approaches are a bit too simplistic for mine.
spawnywhippet Aug 11, 2010 4:50 PM	@Digger11 "But I don't see the solution being to effectively waste $47,000,000,000 of tax payers money when there are far more important "big ticket" items that as a society we should be concerned about. The Internet is only a bit of fun - many confused people take it far too seriously" This shows how out of touch you are. Almost all major companies, including healthcare, banking, DOD, government rely on the internet to conduct customer-facing business, make business-buisness transactions, back-end data processing and backups, mobile services, billing etc. If the internet was taken down, all of these would more or less cease to function. I would say that the internet is now the single most critical piece of infrastructure out there for modern living. Maybe not so important if you are a cattle farmer 200km west of Dubbo, but try running any business that uses electricity without it.
RDEFCON1 Aug 11, 2010 4:55 PM	@spawnywhippet - the NBN is mostly about consumer internet. Most "major companies, including healthcare, banking, DOD, government" etc. already have access to competitive direct fibre-based services speed up to 100 times faster than NBN's 100Mbps.
Desk Aug 11, 2010 5:58 PM	@RDEFCON1 What about small to medium businesses that can't afford to access the fibre?
RDEFCON1 Aug 11, 2010 6:26 PM	@Desk - yeah, there's those and I agree there are very significant benefits possible for SMBs. I would support some government intervention in the market to support affordable SMB access to high-speed internet. This is where the bulk of the benefit of NBN is. However the vast majority of the NBN cost isn't for reaching those businesses... it's for residential access. Spawnywhippet's comment, to which I was responding, was arguing that Digger11 was 'out-of'touch' because 'major companies, including healthcare, banking, DOD, government" will rely on the internet. Fact is that NBN is not about serving these groups, and Spawnywhippet was way off base.
anonymous Aug 11, 2010 6:44 PM	@R-DEFCON=1 ?: Not being politically aligned, it's very easy for me and most others here to be non-political about public policy. The teas is simply what is in the best interests of Australia for, say, the next 50 years. Not what may fit the public platform of one or other of the political parties.
RDEFCON1 Aug 11, 2010 8:11 PM	@anonynous - maybe you need an English lesson? Public policy is by definition political. Being non-partisan doesn't change anything. My views don't align with any of the party policies either. However, at least I'm debating what i see as the strengths and weaknesses of those policies. You're not actually adding anything meaningful to this discussion at all. Why even bother commenting?
dubious Aug 11, 2010 8:25 PM	Let's be clear - big business buys Dedicated high speed VPN infrastructure or it's numerous higher tech successors... So, Essential Services to the normal citizenry - hmmmmmmm * Water (life sustaining) * Medical Treatment (often life sustaining) * Law and Order (sometimes life sustaining) * Electricity * Basic Reliable Telephony * Dependable, workable Road, Ports, Airports & Rail... Is there no one out there over 15 who recalls a world that functioned WITHOUT high bandwidth access for PRIVATE HOMES serving up predominantly facile content?
dubious Aug 11, 2010 8:32 PM	I'm sorry - I forgot to add that reliable telephony would mean a Fax machine would work - (Perhaps that's how a doctor could send a medical report in an emergency advocate?)
RDEFCON1 Aug 11, 2010 8:59 PM	@dubious As someone who is very mildly sympathetic to the point you're trying to make, let me jump in first with the criticism... We also worked well with a postal service before telephony, and with smoke signals and cave paintings before that. We didn't work AS well, though. The investment in technology is about productivity and quality of life gains, and there are SOME gains to be had by having high speed broadband in residential premises. How much INCRMENTAL gain and whether a $40bn risk is worth it - now theres a question that hasn't been defintiely answered.
dubious Aug 11, 2010 10:16 PM	Geez - smoke signals and cave paintings? - how can I argue with that cerebral use of metaphor?... I'm out !
deteego Aug 12, 2010 11:19 AM	It would be handy if people actually understood what the co-lotions policy on broadband was before making stupid judgement about what they think what they stand for (which many people think is no Broadband). For starters, as said announced by the Liberals Shadow Communication Minister at the press club a few days ago, the Liberals plan for broadband is to lay down the broadband backhaul around the country which is the "foundation" for optical fibre internet. Their premise is that installing the backhaul is much cheaper on the tax payer (~6 Billion vs what is now ~43 billion) and that private companies would install their own technology onto the backhaul (instead of a single government which is what Labor's plan is). The backhaul that the libs are proposing will have a 12mb baseline for everyone that it can reach in Australia (which is by far fine for almost every standard internet user). Basically Liberals wan't to lay down the "foundation" and they expect the private sector to capitalize on it Secondly, I would personally accuse Labor of "shooting off to the moon" in regards to prioritizing the internet at such a cost to the tax payer. In the Australian Press Club conference between the 2 Communication ministers, his main argument for such a network was that he expects a major portion of business/health to adopt working by "distance". Realistically speaking, I do not see buisness's (maybe health) adopting such a massive change in "workflow" in such a short amount of time to justify spending what is now ~43 Billion in one term of government You have to realise that countries such as South Kora, Japan and Singapore have such a network because it was a very viable and feasible economic strategy for them. All of the aforementioned countries are very small, densely populated countries, and so the cost relative to the benefit for a single person of setting up a global fiber optic network is much much much lower in those countries then in Australia. The size of Australia is 7,617,930 km2 where as Japan is 377,944 km2, South Kora is 99,392 km2 and Singapore is 710.2 km2. Now Japan has a population of 127 Million, and South Korea is 44 Million and Singapore is 4 Million. So it only takes someone with basic math to understand that if you have such a massive population in a small area, it is much cheaper to have such a plan and it would reach many more people for cost compared to what Australia is doing. Such countries capitalized on the fact they have a lot of people in a small area, we don't :)
dubious Aug 12, 2010 1:31 PM	deteego - An informed voice of reason - Well said! My fervent hope (and I'm not confident) is that the billions saved will be spent on OTHER much needed infrastructure.
Sams Aug 12, 2010 2:50 PM	Heh, a bunch of people who's names all start with 'd' suddenly join and start agreeing with each other.
midspace Aug 12, 2010 3:02 PM	"because I'm not a tech head. But we are offering 12 and up and we think in the vast " Seriously, if he doesn't know anything, he should keep his mouth shut and not say anything. Whatever comes out of his mouth is pure crap as he just doesn't understand. @digger11 "horrible waste of $47,000,000,000" It won't be wasted. The sum of money will be made back by all the geeks and businesses that want to take up the 100Mbps connection. Someone will indeed pay the govenment back for using it. And if Labour isn't happy with an endless suppy of money from people who are making phone calls, use internet, have online business, they'll probably sell the NBN off for the rest of the money. @deteego "So it only takes someone with basic math to understand that if you have such a massive population in a small area" With such a dense popuation, wouldn't you think a wireless strategy would make sense? They have already come to the conclusion that isn't not fessable or economic to use wireless technology for internet. Consistant and reliable is where fixed fibre works. With an aging population in both Japan and Australia (baby boomers), medical services are on the rise, and reliable internet services for communication and medical services beats wireless hands down. "is now ~43 Billion in one term of government" Where did you get this information form? It's 43 Bil for the entrire implmentation which will certainly take more than one term of govenment to finish.
deteego Aug 12, 2010 3:39 PM	@midspace Actually how effective wireless network is depends on how many people you have accessing a single spectrum at a same time, basically if you have too many people using the same wireless spectrum then performance degrades significantly. Therefore wireless would make LESS sense in those countries because they are much more densely populated then ours. Australia is not that densely populated compared to those countries (in fact Australia is one of the least densely populated first world countries) Furthermore Wireless technology is actually significantly increasing in performance and reliability, especially in the past 5 years, where as Optic Fibre cabling has been around for some time now and is the "limit" for generic cable internet. Building infrastructure for a wireless network now means that (with wireless in general improving) it would improve over time with a reasonable cost And as I said earlier, there is nothing stopping private companies from rolling out Fibre optic networking, liberals are just placing a backhaul and letting private sector do the rest. A lot of people are getting the false impression that under liberal there "will be no Optical Fibre internet", all the government is doing is allowing the private sector to handle such technologies. The approach is different, and it has its upsides and downsides. Optus has already stated they would help, and TPG has recently purchased PIPE networks, there is significant interest in the area already The liberals plan actually allows the Broadband Network to grow at the same pace that the market/society requires it to (assuming they actually do offer the rebates in areas required), instead of the Labor strategy which is forking out a ridiculous amount of money at once and expecting the technology to suddenly pay itself off I would believe that 43 billion if Labor actually gave accurate figures on anything (or even bothered doing a cost analysis). It will most likely go higher then that ;)
advocate Aug 13, 2010 10:08 AM	The problem with the Labor $43 billion network is that it is based on the premise 'build it and they will come'. With the ever increasing move off fixed line telephony as indicated by the continuing trend in the Telstra financial results every year to wireless telephony and BB where Telstra and SingTel Optus are making ever increasing revenue it makes you wonder if a national fibre to the home network smacks of vast technical and taxpayer dollar wasting overkill.
Ace Aug 13, 2010 4:06 PM	You'd have to be mad as a cut snake to want wireless internet for your home and business. (slight Hawke-ism there). I guess if you don't live in a unit, and don't mind sitting in your bathroom because that's where reception is best, you might be happy.
anonymous Aug 13, 2010 6:20 PM	@RDEFCON1: nothing to reply to, since you don't get the difference between political policy (ie, policy by and for the pollies) and public policy, which can be summarised as what is in the national interest. The two concepts MAY coincide, but it is unlikely, particularly at election times. @Ace, I'll borrow another Hawkeism, not because I am under any illusions about B1 & B2 (shudder), but because it's apt: Anyone who thinks that all our future Internet needs could possibly be met by a wireless-only network is a silly old bugger. This would become clear as the bandwidth demands overwhelmed the available capacity, and that's without mentioning latency.
muzza2009 Aug 13, 2010 6:55 PM	Labour is the same the world over - central control over everything with no real clue: just thank your lucky stars in Australia you didn't have Tony Blair/Gordon Brown - it would be quoted at 143 billion, and in the true UK Govt contract history, be hideously late, cost overrun by 10x, and not be fit for purpose, other than get canned. Mandating everyone should have a ridiculously high access speed is pure Government panic-button tub-thumping, and idiot-led corporations thinking it'll double their profits... so exactly where is all the new business from Australia that is supposed to leverage this NBN going to come from? Once the internet speeds reach the stars, most Aussie companies won't get a shoo-in simply because it'll be easier and cheaper to stream cheaper content/services from other countries... the perennial conundrum. deeteego has very valid points... I'm a Solutions Architect, been in the industry since 1982 (network and infrastructure; carrier and enterprise); here's my two cents worth on NBN: Scaleable national backbone network is mandatory and fibre the only option since wireless can't match the aggregate bandwidths and certainly can't match the distance. Access layer should be open to all competition be it FTTx, DSLAM+, or wireless, letting the end-users and market decide. As for service demarcations, end-user suppliers should be default supply equipment that accurately and simply describe the NBN interconnect condition to the end-user. Unfortunately not many do, hence much debate over service resolution problems between multiple suppliers (I've got too much experience at this!).
deteego Aug 15, 2010 8:52 PM	Also another thing to note (I think this was mentioned somewhere else) Most homes still have 100 gigabit Ethernet ports, you wont get 1gig down/up unless you upgrade your hardware to work with those speeds. Furthermore, in home Wireless networks only go up to 54/54 up/down with the best user grade commercial technology (802.11n). Majority of home users will have to upgrade their hardware, and will have to use Wired Cabling within their house if they want multiple computers to use the Fibre Optic cabling to its full potential Furthermore, a lot of content is still overseas, and so the bottleneck is going to be across the countries. You can have Fibre optic cabling as much as you want in Australia, but its not gonna help much if most of the content is overseas (this is more an argument against general internet use, not the whole distance workplace/health).
RDEFCON1 Aug 16, 2010 12:16 PM	@muzza2009 and @deteego At last some voices of reason. :)