Barnaby: Aussies promised broadband "Maserati"

Aug 16, 2010 7:01 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

But they're getting a donkey.

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has compared the Government's National Broadband Network project with promising 93 percent of Australians a Maserati but delivering them not even a bridled donkey.

Joyce also said the NBN plan "could have been authored by a poor pretender to Hans Christian Anderson."

He continued the Coalition line of attack on the NBN, claiming it would cost "every man, woman and child" $2,000 for a connection before "operational costs".

He said the promise to build the NBN was "like the Labor Party telling us that they will develop, build, and deliver a Maserati to 93 percent of Australians next year when so far they haven’t been able to get a bridle on a donkey."

Joyce touted the Coalition's "affordable" and "prudent" broadband network that consisted of a patchwork of wired, wireless and satellite services.

Barnaby: Aussies promised broadband "Maserati"

34 comments in this discussion

"@Tom, as for income, the first subscribers are already paying in Tasmania, and will keep growing in proportion as the number of premises are provisioned. The environmental benefit of fibre ..."

By umbria

Tags

barnaby, joyce, maserati, broadband, donkey

ACMA eyes Telstra microwave spectrum for broadband

TPG pays fines over misleading bundles

Telcos seek shorter NBN framework

NBN Co negotiator appointed CFO

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: 34

Sams Aug 16, 2010 7:42 PM	When Barnaby can tell the difference between a million and a billion I might be interested in his opinion.
djzort Aug 16, 2010 9:12 PM	'patchwork' is just a slander term labor has brought out to sensationalize a complex technology that is poorly understood by many of these supposed 'experts' (it seems every many who has worked out how to plug in a second pc is a network expert) A mixture of technologies is like the 'patchwork' of transportation systems that make up australia. one size doesnt fit all, thats just life. the internet has always been about providing a common layer 3 protocol over a range of layer 2 protocols to suit the requirements of the end solution. lets be realistic - labor cant deliver it any time soon, and people just want faster speeds so they can pirate high def movies.
markjuliansmith Aug 16, 2010 9:23 PM	All I can say is the Australian Labor Party have managed to convince some Australians with their incredibly advanced computers and broadband Labor can replace Teachers in class rooms and Doctors in Australia’s remote areas. Who would believe such a thing was possible? Certainly not Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce which must prove knowing the difference between a million and a billion may not be as much of a handicap as first thought.
Paul Grenfell Aug 16, 2010 10:32 PM	Not surprised some Technically illiterate Donkeys would attack the NBN without any real expertise.. No understanding of Future Proofing, no understanding of providing open access Networking. No policy to deal with last mile access or separation of Telstra. No Idea of the lack of Spectrum to enable their Alternative, nor the Huge Numbers of Towers required to provide their Wireless.. Spectrum which wont be available until 2014 , so their Wireless BB wont be operational until about 2017.. just one year before the completion of the NBN. No understanding of the Limitations of Wireless.. with regards to Latency, Distance, bandwidth, speed, and shared contention. etc. Not to mention , they will be building a duplicate network in competition with current 3 and 4G Telcos, who also need that Spectrum for Future Growth. No understanding of the economic benefits the NBN will bring. Not to mention No details have been provided on how their Plan will implemented. Just a Policy Statement, no details.. Not Good enough.. In fact their whole Policy requires the Private market to do their work for them Voluntarily.. have ANY discussions been made with participating Telcos? Who will get the Bulk of their "stimulus" package ? Telstra? There not even be any "NBN" FTTN let alone FTTH. The plan is fraught with holes.. And in a few years all that work will have to be upgraded again.. Fibre is the only real future proofing available. Do it once, do it right.. Put the Politics aside, and get on with it.
Sams Aug 16, 2010 10:32 PM	"which must prove knowing the difference between a million and a billion may not be as much of a handicap as first thought" I think most Australians would like the people running the economy to know the difference. On the other hand, there are the 3% that vote Nats, who I suspect are doing well to find their own teeth, let alone count them.
Tailgator Aug 16, 2010 11:23 PM	A 'bridled donkey'???? What an ass. Enough said. Edited by BrettWinterford: 17/8/2010 09:51:46 AM
Tailgator Aug 16, 2010 11:28 PM	One more thing. Look at his photo and ask yourself, 'Is this the image of someone who is switched on, who knows what is happening in the digital world?, that you would trust the future of the nation with?'. Lol
scan06disk Aug 16, 2010 11:29 PM	@djzort u do know "patchwork" was a term invented & used buy the coalition not Labor...,besides your fandango Layer knowledge is irrelevant to everyday Network users, dnt know wht ur point was... GET REAL eh ?!, the money you spend now on FTTH/FTTx will recuperate with interest over time !, any "patchwork" costing millions - billions is a waste ! what were u thinking ? YOUR OWN PERSONAL USAGE OR YOUR observation of how people use the net ?? You do know the internet houses many livelihoods right... ? or are you just another @ss-warmer with bloated comments up your sleeve... ? do you know how much a SHDSL connection costs a month ?, i bet u do... ;)
Mabelode Aug 17, 2010 8:46 AM	Its time we heard from Bob Katter. We need another well informed politician telling us what we need.
Ace Aug 17, 2010 8:52 AM	Come now, no need to attack the trolls. I think most in the IT industry with an ounce of network knowledge and any idea of what 10 years in IT means know that 1gbps to households will probably be just about right for delivering services people expect, and services businesses want to deliver. Do you remember your broadband in 2000? Is that what you'd be happy with now?
MerariSchroeder Aug 17, 2010 9:26 AM	I believe the Libral governments plan is much better than Labours all-or-nothing gamble. I would actually prefer a FTTN solution as well as wireless - maybe the private sector will deliver that. @Tailgator "Look at his photo and ask yourself, 'Is this the image of someone who is switched on,"... If you went by looks wouldn't you be re-electing Kevin Rudd?
Tom Aug 17, 2010 9:40 AM	Labor policy always amazes me. For something as irrelevant as the environment they want to 'let the market decide' by implementing a price on Carbon. But for something as important as Broadband they wish to spend $43B of our tax dollars. With a few assumptions such as depreciation period, rollout, investment profile and number of homes signed the cost per month is circa $50 assuming a 10% RoI. Note this is not the ASP but the COST. So any subscription will be significantly higher than this. Why not instead of investing $43B of our money they implement a tax break on our broadband subscriptions and then let the market decide on where and how to invest?
Tom Brown Aug 17, 2010 11:23 AM	Hmm I think we already have a donkey or two Senator!. Amusement aside. The recession is not over!
RDEFCON1 Aug 17, 2010 11:27 AM	@Tom Ha! that's a great point that they want to rely on the market for carbon, but not broadband. Just shows how inconsistent their philosophy is.
markjuliansmith Aug 17, 2010 1:09 PM	"Technically illiterate Donkeys" Oh yes lest we forget the superiority of the expert to the reflective citizen. How quickly we forget the warnings and commonsense stance of one who challenged such basis for argument - experts are of course right the rest are simply "Donkeys". “In fact, it goes back to the beginning of Western culture when the first philosopher, Socrates, stalked around Athens looking for experts in order to draw out and test their rules. In one of his earliest dialogues, The Euthyphro, Plato tells us of such an encounter between Socrates and Euthyphro, a religious prophet and so an expert on pious behavior. Socrates asks Euthyphro to tell him how to recognize piety: "I want to know what is characteristic of piety ... to use as a standard whereby to judge your actions and those of other men." But instead of revealing his piety-recognizing heuristic, Euthyphro does just what every expert does when cornered by Socrates. He gives him examples from his field of expertise, in this case mythical situations in the past in which men and gods have done things which everyone considers pious. Socrates gets annoyed and demands that Euthyphro, then, tell him his rules for recognizing these cases as examples of piety, but although Euthyphro claims he knows how to tell pious acts from impious ones, he cannot state the rules which generate his judgments. Socrates ran into the same problem with craftsmen, poets and even statesmen. They also could not articulate the principles underlying their expertise. Socrates therefore concluded that none of these experts knew anything and he didn't know anything either.”
markjuliansmith Aug 17, 2010 1:17 PM	It is my view the first major political power in this election who honestly purport to recognize the desire of its Australian citizens to move on to a better model of governance and promises clear mechanisms to do so will “win” the Australian 2010 election broadband or no broadband. In essence like growing numbers of Australians I have no confidence, particularly given the ‘Pink bats’ fiasco and many other policy initiatives Liberal or Labor inspired resulting from the current Australian model of governance will deliver what is promised. Also if Labor cannot even manage to build a bridge properly in Canberra without it collapsing and injuring people one has to wonder about other massive infrastructure projects going awry. This bridge collapse which occurred recently was after Labor in Canberra discovered they had significantly underestimated the necessary required road infrastructure and had to add road lanes with the resultant extra cost. Also as to the necessity of spending vast sums of Australians savings on projects of dubious relative long term return to Australia to save us all from a recession this was contradicted quite clearly recently by an assistant reserve bank Governor. At election time, Australians are told they have a choice between the past or the future. However, the future promised in reality is no different from the past. Lost opportunities, mismanagement of Australia’s scarce resources, and worse, loss of life resulting from ill-considered policy initiatives. Loss of life for which neither politicians nor bureaucrats can currently be held judiciously accountable. This is Australia’s past, and it is Australia’s future unless Australia’s current model of Governance is changed. Sometimes we get so stuck in the models of behavior we fail to realise these models can be changed quite easily without the supposed cataclysm which self-interested parties assure us will occur. If Labor was the worst Government in history what does that make the opposition? Abbott was as much an integral part of the Governance structure of Australia as Julia Gillard of the Labor party so does this make the coalition opposition the least capable opposition in history to hold the governing party to account? The unpalatable truth is no opposition can really hold a governing party to account? Britain’s Westminster opposition, as Alfred Deakin observed when negotiating the nature of the Australian constitution early last century, were wasting their lives on the opposition benches and I would therefore say lives as wasted as the votes and aspirations of ordinary citizens who put them there. The following media comments taken from simply one day reflections Saturday 7th August 2010, particularly of Andrew Podger, underlines a flawed Australian model of Governance: ______________________________ Canberra Times piece by Nicholas Stuart (Journalist) "...The Prime Minister… Very soon, no matter how “grounded in reality” any person is when they start off, they lose their humanity to become a cipher – a very important one perhaps, but nothing more than an empty flask into whom the electorate pour their hopes and expectations.” Sydney Morning Herald piece by Nataha Bita - Jackson Dwyer (Australian voter) “You watch parliament at question time and it’s a bit of a laugh after a few beers but… then you think, ‘you guys are running the country and are acting like a bunch of clowns’, “ he says of the main parties. And the knock-out blow if one was really needed- Canberra Times piece by Markus Mannheim - Andrew Podger (former Health Department head and Public Service commissioner) – “ .. the public service finds it difficult to operate through close and consistent personal and community relationships. … attention to bottom up relationships (required) a very different public service culture, rather than the inevitable preoccupation with ministers, cabinet and the Parliament that comes with being a part of a portfolio department. … knee-jerk political reaction rather than a considered response to a carefully prepared report”. ______________________________ Communities scarce resources are put on a knee-jerk auction block to perceived influential individuals or groups rather than subject to mechanisms of rationally considered cost benefit analysis for the society as a whole. Clearly from the response to so called maverick Mark Latham’s call for leaving voting forms blank it would appear on the surface I am not the only one who are rightly disenchanted with the current political model. Having gone past Marks Latham’s desire to leave his voting form blank I am suggesting Australians seriously consider new political governance processes which ditch the clearly self-serving Parliament Public Services nexus. A system which tends to encourage confidence not skepticism and division. There is a fundamental problem with Australians Governance process which in reality is still based on elements of the feudal system. Anyone who has been a public servant will know what servant means in a hierarchical sense and indeed the relationship with incumbent politicians. It is not a citizen focus. It is not about the welfare of the citizens at large when push comes to shove as it should be. I think management theory has moved on since 1066 and so should Australians model of governance. The republican model is not the answer as the results are in essence the same as the Westminster system as they are both based on the feudal system ideal for management relationships.
Tom Brown Aug 17, 2010 3:15 PM	It is funny how so many seem to know how expensive the NBN will be. I suggest you look at a plan from Telstra at this site http://www.telstrabusiness.com/business/portal/online/site/productsservices/telstrabusinessbroadbandethernet.10838 This may give a little perspective. Also markjuliansmith you rabbit on but actually say nothing! Go back to school! Mention Socrates ha whose murder was the first act of democracy.
markjuliansmith Aug 17, 2010 5:11 PM	Tom Brown: What can I say hypocrisy is the true nature of humanity Socrates was neither the first hypocrite nor the last. Humans would simply not survive without being one. Therefore as I have pointed out in the past being a hypocrite should not negate all ideas which emanate from a source. You also underline why it is important for citizens not to think one person alone is capable of resolving humanities ills. The investment we have in the notion of the need for a “leader” can be clearly seen as a failing in the choice of the Labor Party Machine of Gillard. Gillard is now destined for Presidency I hear once the beloved Queen no longer finds favor in the opinion polls – I am not sure if this was the sensitive death Gillard was referring to – it certainly was for poor Rudd. A nice little chat will of course be in order. It is just a matter of who Julia sends her bodyguard or her adviser. To which school are you referring - the one which actually has sufficient qualified teachers or the one with simply a computer screen with a smiley face advising me how I can carry out brain surgery on a squirrel? Most peculiar Alice a response about nothing. As for the rabbit I am not sure we have met.
umbria Aug 17, 2010 5:29 PM	Suppose it costs $2000 a head over ten years for the fibre rollout. That's $200 a year, or under $20 a month. And the fibre, once laid, needs no maintenance for the best part of a century (that's why phone companies use it). Add fifty bucks per household for an always-on high speed broadband service including all your phone calls, and saving copper line rental too, and you can see that you are certainly ahead. So who's the donkey?
Maxxi2 Aug 17, 2010 5:40 PM	Interesting how some folks cannot free themselves from the blinkered concept that the internet is just for home users and their entertainment. Massive business, medical, commercial, govt, police, etc usage of the internet infrastructure is alien to them, like a dark shadow flitting around at the fringes of their consiousness... Be aware!!! The internet is not just for faster movie downloads and better online gaming...! Shocking as the reality of modern day life may be to some, their is life beyond entertainment and Facebook! Horror horror..."How can that be!?!?" they ask in a semi-coma like condition. Isn't the internet all about me? What I do, what I use? Codswallop they cry, who would use the internet for commerce? Banking? Online consultations? Online education? Online medical services? Online conferencing? "Never! All just a fable and bulging untruths, thought up by those dreamers and ignortant NBN people so that they could keep their bulging pay packets! No-one else in the world is building or even using FTTH, right????" Ah the comments of those with such a broad horizon... Like they would voluntarily go back to 14.4kbps modem access??? Er, nope. Not one of them. Sad though are those who should know better and denigrate Quigley and his team. They demonstrate incredible ignorance of the industry, their career achievements to date and what has been achieved with the NBN so far. We must forgive Barnaby though, he means well but is constrained by the requirement to toe the LNP election line. Thus he toes the line of supreme electoral ignorance in the name of winning at any cost...
listohan Aug 17, 2010 5:48 PM	Barnaby is far more interested getting his face on TV with a "clever" quip than informing the public. As an accountant, he should know Maseraties depreciate far faster then a fibre network which probably has a life of 50 years. That's a depreciation rate of 2% per year. Dividing the capital cost by the construction time only tells you how much cash you have to find each year and is not relevant to discussing profits and losses. If the Opposition had an economically and technically superior solution, they could spend less time denigrating the talented team gathered to build the NBN.
anonymous Aug 17, 2010 7:36 PM	@Maxxi2, your comments here are well-focussed and relevant, so can we take it you have also dropped your attachment to Conboy's stupid secret internet censorship?
scan06disk Aug 17, 2010 11:16 PM	@markjuliansmith Your a funny troll... "reflective citizen", i really wanna meet you now ! lol
Tom Aug 18, 2010 1:42 AM	I dont think many people would disagree with the idea of a National Broadband Network. FTTX is a good thing and will always trump wireless for capacity and latency. Whats being discussed here is the value. Clearly the market does not see the value in spending 43B dollars to improve the broadband speeds but the current Government does. Now for all those who say we don't know how much it costs I suggest you model it.... With a 43B investment, depreciation of 20 years, build period of 8 years, linear investment over the 8 years, 10% RoI, 10Million homes connected over 10 years with the first subs coming on line in 3 years the COST to each household for the fibre only is $48.84/month. You can change the assumptions and run the model yourself. For example change the depreciation period to 30 years and the cost drops 5$. Assume your first subs are in 2 years and now we are at $40. Assume a reasonable RoI of 15% and the cost blows out to $61. However you cut this the cost for the NBN is prohibitive. How many years of Supertaxing the mining companies (and the banks..they're next) does it take to pay for one Labor initiative? I would love gbps to my home but I can't see how this will ever be cost effective. Surely a better way would be to let the market decide and provide other incentives so we all invest more dollars ourselves? Why is the NBN more important than the environment. Where is the proof that increasing my rate from 12MBps to 100Mbps or even 1Gbps will actually impact GDP? So lets argue the dollars and not get misty eyed about the benefit of fibre. We all get it. FTTX rocks. But can you ever (or that matter your kids) ever afford it?
mikeyx11 Aug 18, 2010 5:19 AM	Only severely short-sighted ignorant people reject the idea of a national fibre broadband network. $2000 per head... how much per head is a sewerage connection? Or the laying of new roads and maintenance? The internet is already a fundamental part of society. If we cut the internet, everywhere, right now, what would happen? Our economy would fall apart. Everything would halt. 10 years from now, it will be even more important - to the point that without it, our society would entirely cease to function in every way. And in 30 years? 40 years?... Should we really be betting all that on a bit of wireless here and some copper band-aids there? Even $5000 per head is f*** all in the scheme of things. Those who associate the internet simply with emails and movie downloads, should seriously go and get an education and a real career. If not, get rid of your computer and get a typewriter and a pigeon. (@Tom: Where's the proof that increasing bandwidth from 30Kbps to 12Mbps will impact GDP? Hmm...)
Tom Aug 18, 2010 9:30 AM	@mikey11 - why are you suggesting that the NBN is the only way forward and without it the world will end. We have seen speeds increase from as "30kbps to 12MBps" without you and I spending $43B of our tax dollars. What suggests to you that we wont continue to see this increase in line with our needs and our ability to pay for the service? I don't think its NBN or nothing. We should compare the taxpayer cost for the NBN vs what the market would itself invest. This argument now reminds me of the Internet Filter. It seems if you ask questions focused on the business case of the NBN you are termed ignorant and short sighted. Ahh well.
mikeyx11 Aug 18, 2010 11:07 AM	@Tom: Government actually exists to provide services that cannot effectively be delivered by private enterprise. A fibre NBN in Australia is not viable for any private enterprise. I agree there is not a huge business case, but that's like saying there's no business case for public schools, or roads, or community centres. The benefits for the community as a whole far outweigh the desire for a "strong business case". You seem to forget what government is for. It's certainly not NBN or nothing, but it's NBN or we fall behind the world once again, simply because we are far too sparsely populated. When things are left to private enterprise, we end up with the disaster that is Telstra.
markjuliansmith Aug 18, 2010 11:05 PM	The question is not broadband to be or not to be. It is inevitable the technology will be delivered one way or another. As it should be. The question which no longer needs to be asked, underlined by this perpetration of fear utilized in the place of reason, is if the Australian political model which we utilize to make these decisions is producing a result which takes account of the many aspirations of Australian citizens inclusive of the broadband question. Clearly it is not. This method of deciding Australians future is a woeful waste of jingoistic appeal to our fear and encouraged division rather than a means of common purpose. Each election process becomes even more gut retchingly upsetting and divisive than the last. Scarce resources are divided between citizens based on the political angle not equity and community purpose as a whole. Old wrinkly personalities are dragged out of dusty cupboards to give a false substance to the new perpetrators of deception. Now as with the Democrats the so called protectors against the goliaths the Greens prove no better with Bob Brown today threatening Public Savants in Canberra with the loss of 30,000 jobs if Canberrans do not vote for the Green senate candidate. Even if elected this Green Senator would not be able to stop such actions even if it was true, which is in doubt. The nature of our Australian political system continues to prove itself to be the production line of the fear mongers and failed character. Reason can only come from ridding ourselves of this absurdity of a Parliament & Public Service nexus of vested interest which allows sovereignty to override sanity in deciding Australians future. I will be flying my ballot papers across the room for I will not vote for fear but reason. In remembrance of the four who tragically died in the implementation of the Labor inspired Pink Bats fiasco. Who are going to be held accountable for these four precious lives as we rabbit on about broadband – Labor?
Maxxi2 Aug 19, 2010 3:35 AM	Hey anonymous, nice to hear from you... lol. Filter come, filter go, I always only wanted a discussion based on some facts. I am not heart-broken either way and never was. What I never could stomach were the often outrageous claims about what would and would not happen if the filter happened, and where Australia would sink to when it was introduced. Myriad technical claims were outside of the laws of physics, as well as many being simply based on some wild assumptions and unproven guesses... The NBN always was and remains more critical to Australia nationally, but I guess you probably did not see most of my posts on that subject over the past 12 months. That said, it is going to be an interesting week and 12 months ahead... cya
btone Aug 19, 2010 8:05 AM	@Maxxi2: "Myriad technical claims were outside of the laws of physics, as well as many being simply based on some wild assumptions and unproven guesses..." Agree with you about these claims by Conroy and the filter vendors, good to see you describing their claims so accurately.
deteego Aug 19, 2010 12:50 PM	mikeyx11 wrote: Only severely short-sighted ignorant people reject the idea of a national fibre broadband network. $2000 per head... how much per head is a sewerage connection? Or the laying of new roads and maintenance? Cost is actually $5000 per head. As a comparison, when the Fibre Network was done in Singapore it cost $500-$700 per head due to the density/size of the country Quote: (@Tom: Where's the proof that increasing bandwidth from 30Kbps to 12Mbps will impact GDP? Hmm...) Difference between 30kp to 12Mpbs is a LOT more noticeable then a difference between 12 to 100Mbps. Anyone with any technical knowledge would understand that. You would only be getting such high speeds off local content anyways (since 70% of the content is overseas, which is where the major bottleneck is). In networks, there are many bottlenecks when you get above the 12 MB mark, there isn't any such bottlenecks in the 30kps to 12 MB mark. Furthermore when loading data off websites, the difference between 2 seconds to 0.1 seconds is more noticeable then 0.1 seconds to 0.001 (or whatever it is) seconds Also most people use Wireless networks at home, capping the speed to an absolute max of 56 (and thats with the peak speed of 802.11n), and to get anything higher then 100mps you will need to upgrade your Ethernet ports Also 100mps can be achieved on copper to house, they are doing it in the US now :) Edited by deteego: 19/8/2010 12:52:44 PM
mikeyx11 Aug 19, 2010 3:22 PM	@deteego: Yes, you're right. But copper can't go much above that, can it? If you know anything about supply and demand, as people have faster connections and require more bandwidth from overseas, more bandwidth will be provided. And for 100Mbps over copper to work, we still require FTTN, which is what they are using in the US, but they (like many other countries right now) are having the same debate that we are (FTTP, FTTN or wireless etc.). The FTTN in the US isn't provided by the government, because there's financial motivation by private enterprise to provide it. Also, there are many more countries deploying FTTP than FTTN, and for good reason. Yes, you are right, the difference between 12Mbps and 100Mbps isn't that great compared to 30Kbps - 12Mbps (not that it requires technical knowledge as you say, a bit of primary school math goes a long way). But if you have any technical knowledge, like you seem to promote, then you know fibre can go much higher than 100Mbps. The time it takes to load websites is hardly what we are talking about here. I don't think people want fibre just so they can load Facebook 0.0001 seconds faster.
mikeyx11 Aug 19, 2010 3:35 PM	@deteeg: Forgot to add... wireless in-home networking is much easier to replace and upgrade than national infrastructure. And by bringing that up, you are showing that again, you are only thinking of the now, and not the future. By the time the NBN is rolled out, do you really think we are all going to be using 802.11n and still using 100Mbps ethernet? In 5 years sure, but 10 years? 20 years? 30? Or how about the 50+ years the NBN is expected to last?
umbria Aug 19, 2010 5:27 PM	@Tom, as for income, the first subscribers are already paying in Tasmania, and will keep growing in proportion as the number of premises are provisioned. The environmental benefit of fibre includes not needing to build, electrify, maintain and upgrade over time thousands of wireless towers, or electrify and install multiplexers in 20,000 street pillars if FTTN is used (this was Telstra's number for the OPEL rollout). You can run robust fibre out to a premise with no electricity, and use a single rooftop solar panel and battery to power the NTU, a laptop and a phone for an always-on service at full fibre speeds that increase automatically with future exchange upgrades. Now that's a green footprint! Coalition fixed wireless on the other will mean a rooftop wireless mast and modem locked to 2010 speeds, installed at your cost, and often unable to sustain VoIP calls to get your phone bill down unless you're practically next to the tower. And you can't roam with it, that's why they call it FIXED wireless. Having big bandwidth means your Windows Update arrives in a few seconds, then your consumption drops to zero. How many people would actually use their current connection at 100% capacity, even if they had unlimited download limits? Just a few nerds who try to download the whole InterWebs every month. We have seen the costings in the NBN Implementation Report. As for the benefits, the OECD has stated that productivity of 1% to 1.5% will accrue from ubiquitous broadband access. In a trillion dollar economy, this means the NBN will easily pay for itself, even before it is all rolled out.