Turnbull lays out case for NBN cost-benefit

 

Opposition communications spokesman to meet NBN Co CEO, debate Conroy.

Malcolm Turnbull was looking forward to building a relationship with NBN Co chief executive officer Mike Quigley when they meet at the beginning of next month for the first time since he assumed the role of Opposition spokesman on broadband.

And although the Opposition has called for a cost-benefit analysis on the National Broadband Network, Turnbull said he wouldn't commit to support the $43 billion project in the "unlikely" event that such an analysis concluded fibre-to-the-home should proceed.

Turnbull said October 8 was the first time a "busy" Quigley could clear his diary to meet since the Opposition lost the election to a minority Labor government earlier this month. A NBN Co spokesman confirmed Turnbull requested the meeting.

"NBN Co has been very busy, they haven't had time to meet us," Turnbull said.

"I don't have a relationship with [Quigley but] I'm looking forward to having one."

Turnbull and his advisers were speaking to a "gigantic universe" of people in the communications industry to get a handle on the issues it faced, he said.

He said that the Opposition's relationship with the broadband builder wasn't damaged by pre-election comments from Coalition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, calling NBN Co staff "talentless" and "stodgy bureaucrats".

Turnbull said the Opposition would not rubber stamp the NBN, widely hailed for getting Labor across the line with support of independents in what could have been a hung parliament.

He said his role was to get "real transparency and accountability" from the Gillard Government on the NBN and not just "wave through" the project because it was "politically expedient".

"The Government is talking about spending a really stupendous amount of money and our job in the Opposition is to hold them to account for that," Turnbull said.

"I wasn't elected to Parliament to look the other way when billions of dollars are potentially being wasted."

And he has called out Senator Stephen Conroy with a planned televised debate with the Federal Communications Minister on ABC's Lateline scheduled for next week, he said.

Turnbull predicted Australians could be headed back to the polls by the end of the year even though it was unlikely independents who sided with Labor on broadband would change their minds to turn coat to the Coalition. He thought it unlikely that the Government would last its three-year term.

Turnbull said he  "was not foreshadowing a change" to Coalition communications policies but its activities included looking at the digital divide in the bush, broadband black spots in the cities and backhaul competition.

"The overall objective [was] promoting access to the internet and the information economy that is financially prudent," he said.

Case for cost-benefit analysis

Turnbull said evidence in the US, Japan and the dismal NBN takeup in Tasmania pointed to the fact that households did not want "gigabit speeds". He wasn't influenced by NBN Co claims that its network would give service providers greater certainty when provisioning, marketing and maintaining their networks.

His goal was simply to hold the Government to account and bring the costs home to the public, he said.

"The first thing you've got to do is [discern] what is the problem you're seeking to address?" Turnbull said of the approach to the cost-benefit analysis.

"What do we want to achieve? And, having done that, look at different ways of doing it and assess their relative costs" such as supplementing the existing network, erasing black spots and bringing the internet to disadvantaged areas.

"Compare them, look at their costs, model their revenues; we have to look at what the financial outcome of this investment will be and then form a view of any externalities" such as improved productivity.

"Does that mean 100Mbps or does it mean 12?"

Turnbull said the Government and NBN Co were proceeding with a project where there were no killer apps: "What are the applications that require bandwidth of this scale that's being proposed by NBN (Co)?"

"If you can achieve the same spill-over benefits with a lesser investment that may deliver less bandwidth to the customer then that's something you have to take into account.

"No one in their right mind would ever give a blank cheque to an analysis that hasn't been done but a good cost-benefit analysis will be very transparent, set out all its assumptions, will enable people to play with those assumptions, to change them and form their own view about them and it will inform the debate so it could be very influential, absolutely, but no one's going to give it a tick in advance."

But he acknowledged that the clock was ticking and that lessons would be learned as the network rolled out although he wouldn't say when it might reach a point of no return such that the Opposition would have to grudgingly change its policies.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Turnbull lays out case for NBN cost-benefit
"iTnews wrote: iTnews Article: Video: Turnbull lays out case for NBN cost-benefit Opposition communications spokesman to meet NBN Co CEO, debate Conroy. Read the story here: Video: Turnbull ..."
By OzBoy08
 
 
 
Comments: 76
HubertCumberdale
Sep 24, 2010 9:33 PM
"NBN Co has been very busy, they haven't had time to meet us,"

Of course they've been busy, they're trying to build a FTTH network while all you've been doing is bitching about it.
RJ
Sep 25, 2010 1:46 AM
"Turnbull said evidence in the US, Japan and the dismal NBN takeup in Tasmania pointed to the fact that households did not want "gigabit speeds"."

Wait.. is this his words or ITNews's? How the hell is 50% take up 'dismal'? What other product/service has that sort of takeup? And how is a 50% take up proof that people don't want gigabit speeds?

"What are the applications that require bandwidth of this scale that's being proposed by NBN (Co)?"

Why would anyone ever need more than 640K of RAM?

I can understand people who don't care about the internet and are more than happy to instead sit in front of the TV, watching their football/australianidolchef or what ever, I don't care, but lets not let them set the technological progress of the country.

I don't even think Turnbull personally disagrees with NBN, just it's the only remotely relevant thing his party is involved with.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 25, 2010 3:00 AM
Ha, I missed this quote.

"What are the applications that require bandwidth of this scale that's being proposed by NBN (Co)?"

The applications Mr Turdbull are numerous but I will outline just one here: Videophones. Ever seen "Back to the Future II"? it's set in 2015 that just 5 years away! yes I can already hear the Luddites of the coalition saying "BU BU BU U CAN ALREDY DOO THAT ON THE ASDL2+ DUR DUR!!!" yes but what about the frame rate? resolution? latency? do I have the upload capacity to achieve it? does the videophone I'm calling at the other end have the download capacity to see me with the same clarity? What about everyone else in the household? what if they are ALL watching HD video streams? what if just one is? is my video call disrupted? I dont have to worry about these things when I make voice calls, why should video calls be any different in 2020? I'm being generous here giving an extra 5 years.
deteego
Sep 25, 2010 11:22 AM
RJ wrote:
"Turnbull said evidence in the US, Japan and the dismal NBN takeup in Tasmania pointed to the fact that households did not want "gigabit speeds"."

Wait.. is this his words or ITNews's? How the hell is 50% take up 'dismal'? What other product/service has that sort of takeup? And how is a 50% take up proof that people don't want gigabit speeds?

"What are the applications that require bandwidth of this scale that's being proposed by NBN (Co)?"

Why would anyone ever need more than 640K of RAM?

I can understand people who don't care about the internet and are more than happy to instead sit in front of the TV, watching their football/australianidolchef or what ever, I don't care, but lets not let them set the technological progress of the country.

I don't even think Turnbull personally disagrees with NBN, just it's the only remotely relevant thing his party is involved with.


Uhhh, I don't know if you realise, but you are twisting figures around. The NBN only reached 50% of the Tasmanian recipents it was supposed to reach, that means only half of the people expected to sign up to NBN, and installing the NBN to those half amount of people cost 90% of the budget (100% being allocated to double of the expected sign ups)

Maybe Tasmanians really don't need Fibre internet.....
djzort
Sep 25, 2010 7:24 PM
50% of homes in tasmania allowed the connection to be installed for free, this statistic does not represent taking on a service nor does it represent the speed the service is purchased at (ie NBN sells 20megabit chunks)

what really needs to be publicly stated is the take up of Optus and Telstra 100megabit services in areas where ADSL2+ and 3g are available (as compared to ftth in greenfields, where there is no alternative).

this information will truly show if there is an overwhelming demand for 100megabit services when there are a variety of options.

deteego
Sep 25, 2010 10:56 PM
djzort wrote:
50% of homes in tasmania allowed the connection to be installed for free, this statistic does not represent taking on a service nor does it represent the speed the service is purchased at (ie NBN sells 20megabit chunks)


Yeah exactly, in fact taking into account the Tasmanians basically got Fibre internet FOR FREE, how the NBN didn't manage to get 100% of their expected number to sign up for NBN is really beyond me
johnpro2
Sep 26, 2010 9:01 AM
A comment to Mr Turnbull, it is very hard to asses what the likely take-up of the market will be on a large scale.
The market can be fickle and unpredictable.
Two real life examples in infrastructure and products are:
Clem 7 tunnel here in Brisbane. Market research was out by about 50% and as a result the project's value has been marked down $1,500,000.000 {1.5 b}, although the project is good for the city.
3D TV which is presently quite useless to the consumer is selling in record numbers. Gery Harvey himself said he would not buy one, yet his stores sell them in the 10's of thousands.
High speed fiber will be good for Australia overall, as long as you are not in the repayment loop ...your finances could become rusted.

Jp


Edited by johnpro2: 26/9/2010 09:04:06 AM

Edited by johnpro2: 26/9/2010 09:14:54 AM
deteego
Sep 26, 2010 12:10 PM
deteego wrote:

Yeah exactly, in fact taking into account the Tasmanians basically got Fibre internet FOR FREE, how the NBN didn't manage to get 100% of their expected number to sign up for NBN is really beyond me


I just want to quote myself here, it seems there is a very good reason why the rest of Tasmania didn't sign up to the NBN. Apparently the reason why the rest of the Tasmanians have not signed up to the NBN, is that well, they have to pay for it (thats right, those $5000 or whatever it is). Since the NBN basically spent all of their budget deploying the Fibre to half of the expected homes, they cannot spend anymore on the Tasmanian's that didn't get attached to the Fibre. This means the state or the consumer will have to pay for those $5000 per house, and this is how the rollout is looking so far (http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/07/30/162321_most-popular-stories.html). Not good at all

If this ends up happening around the country, this is massive disaster. It means that only around half of the people will end up getting FTTH, where as the rest of the people will end up having to pay for the Fibre (= massive inequality, this is the exact opposite of what the NBN was designed to do). Either that, or the NBN won't cost 43 billion, but somewhere around 70-90 billion dollars, and those figures don't look good at all. There are even expected to be many more costs (for the consumer) in regards to people having to rewire their house in order to take advantage of the FTTH connection in the first place (old news but still relevant
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lying_about_labors_43_billion_disaster_and_its_extra_price_tag)

Furthermore (and I am surprised itNews didn't report this), there is actually massive uncertainty amongst IPS's regarding the NBN
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/delay-to-nbn-laws-threatens-home-building/story-fn59niix-1225928630054

Basically hardly any legislation has passed through parliament in regards to the NBN, and telcos are having massive worries regarding to the cost amongst other things. Even the ISP's are saying that the NBN must have had a cost benefit analysis. This isn't looking good at all. The more you look into this, the bigger failure it is turning out to be

Edited by deteego: 26/9/2010 12:11:14 PM
djzort
Sep 27, 2010 12:50 AM
additionally, people may be interested/outraged that telstra is now knocking over exchanges, ripping out copper and running their own fibre in locations including adelaide and brisbane. they have sent letters to owners of equipment in their exchanges with a date of demolition. further more it is my understanding that they have donated one of the sights for the construction of a childrens hospital (or similar) - although the donation part is heresay.

what i find interesting is that telstra are not compelled to provide wholesale access to their fibre assets, only their copper. so from one point of view i can say "good on them" for finally getting their own back by ripping out copper that they are forced to resell and replacing it with fibre - knowing full well that the ACCC cant really force them to open access to it with the NBN hovering on the horizon. so i can totally see where they are coming from and in a way applaud them.

on the other hand its a scum thing to do.

but business is business. so whilst everyone hates telstra, the reality is that they are a company who are tanking - and largely because they are completely unable to grow or flex their muscles as a vertically integrated business.
djzort
Sep 27, 2010 12:52 AM
greenfields also, as reported on this very site...
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/151372,new-home-buyers-fight-telstra-lock-in.aspx
hellfire
Sep 27, 2010 7:36 AM
Here are the reasons set out by an expert who works for Telstra on Network Design in WA.
> I am a network architect for one of Australia's largest Telco's
> - so I speak with some authority on this issue.
>
> Here are the technical reasons this will fail :
>
>
> 1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25
> years when installed in conduit. Over time, the glass actually degrades
> (long story), and eventually it cant do it`s bouncing of light thing any
> more. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be
> done for much of Australia's houses, except newer suburbs with
> underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind,
> temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation. The glass in this
> case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have
> to replace it. Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to
> come. Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile. That`s why
> no other country has done this.
>
> 2) You can not give every house 100Mbps. If you give several
> million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire
> bandwidth of the whole internet. In reality, there is a thing called
> contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention
> ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers). That means, you share
> that 20Mbps with 20 other people. It`s a long story why, but there will
> NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth. Not
> for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution.
> The "Core" can not and will not be able to handle that sort of
> bandwidth. The 100Mbps is only the speed from your house to the
> exchange. From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you
> get now. The "Core" of Australia's network is already fibre (many times
> over). And even so, we still have high contention ratios. Providing
> fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up. You will
> not get better download speeds.
>
> 3) new DSL technologies will emerge. 15 years ago we had 56k
> dial-up. Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps
> ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+. There are already new DSL
> technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the
> same copper we have now. $zero cost to the tax payer
>
> 4) 4G wireless is being standardised now. The current 3G
> wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can
> deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia. There are problems with it, but
> remember that it was developed for voice. The 4G standard is
> specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps
> bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues
> apply mentioned earlier). $zero cost to the tax payer
>
> 5) The "NBN" will be one of the largest single networks ever
> built on earth. There are only a few companies who could do it -
> Japan's Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc. Even Telstra would
> struggle to built something on this scale. Yet we are led to believe
> that the same people who cant build school halls or install insulation
> without being ripped off are going to to do it ??? Here at Telstra, we
> are laughing our heads off !! Because when it all comes crumbling down,
> after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2
> complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces ! (shhhh don't
> tell anyone, it`s our secret)
>
>
>
> Keith Taylor
>
> Scribe
>
> WA Div FAAAA

sydneyla
Sep 27, 2010 8:29 AM
Hell hellfire that is the scariest article I have ever read. If true why are the Australian people not advised and how is the Government allowing the fibre project to proceed????
MerariSchroeder
Sep 27, 2010 10:09 AM
Good posts @deteego, @hellfire

@djzort "this information will truly show if there is an overwhelming demand for 100megabit services " (*change-o*) where it is affordable

@HubertCumberdale, you're missing the point of the article. Everyone wants a cost benefit analysis.

@RJ, [Sarcastic] "Why would anyone ever need more than 640K of RAM?"
Tell me what consumer content stream needs 1Gbps? Since dial-up, we've moved up the media ladder: text, images, sound, video.

Also over that time, communications technology has improved. NBN 2 supporters believe that they can spread their investment over 30 years - but they fail to consider future competition - what technology will be developed in the next 30 years?

So basically the government wants to spend $43bn to put HD and 3D video down fibre - how productive! The implementation report advises against duplication of infrastructure. So how about FTA TV, which you pay absolutely nothing to watch! And telephony - almost every consumer has a mobile phone now - why would they have a fixed fibre phone too?

We need to compare the $43bn NBN 2 with the alternatives. We *can* get more for less. And we *can* still include FTTP in the picture. Have a look at NBNOptions.org, they have quite a comprehensive site, and you can contribute too.
Avid Gamer
Sep 27, 2010 10:25 AM
@MerariSchroeder quotes "We need to compare the $43bn NBN 2 with the alternatives. We *can* get more for less. And we *can* still include FTTP in the picture. Have a look at NBNOptions.org, they have quite a comprehensive site, and you can contribute too."

There is VERY LITTLE support for NBNOptions.org as their donations are STILL ON $000.00 and their petition is still on ONLY 43. What a joke that site is. That site reminds me of Telstra's NWAT website.

As for Labor's NBN GO, GO, GO.
Ace
Sep 27, 2010 10:44 AM
I love that people are using Tasmania as some kind of indicator, lol. Tasmania! he he.

Someone even quoted a Telstra/Optus network architect! - oh, he wouldn't be a little biased would he? Has he managed to architect a change is the atmosphere and building codes that would somehow make wireless more viable, or did he conveniently 'forget' that little bit of the equation? Only the government can change the atmosphere!
anonymous
Sep 27, 2010 11:48 AM

@hellfire & sydneyla, that unsigned "opinion" you lovingly quote has been running on the Net for about a month now, and seems to have been universally and thoroughly discredited by a large number of people who know what they are talking about.

Nice try, guys, but it seems you are relieving yourselves while facing north into a southerly buster.
;-)
Tom Brown
Sep 27, 2010 12:24 PM
Dear Mr Turnbull
If you are going to ignore a cost benefit analysis why are you calling for it, also during the election the opposition was able to do their own independent costing why not now. Is it just an excuse to get attention, delay the government, claim it shows indecision. You also know the cost benefits of the NBN and all independant sources agree with the NBN proposal.

Dear Hellfire
I believe you misrepresent as fact.

1: I do not know the life of fibre but I do not see Telstra ripping up their older fibre line to the backbone.

2: though the aggregation of that bandwidth is so, It is the same for all Telco IP networks and when that occurs bandwidth is limited but it is literally impossible for everyone to be active at full bandwidth at the same time. your argument is false.

3: Rot, new DSL techs will emerge but the physics of copper pair is long known. It has only been the ability to 1 access Telstra exchanges to install the gear and 2 the ability to miniaturise the equipment as needed. The maths has been there all along. As you say Telstra is upgrading, they knew and now they are upgrading, I wonder if they will put fibre to the home or specifically target bigger deals and continue with copper to the home. Looks like we will end with 2 infrastructures good!

4: You talk in 1 about aggregation, aggregation is much more limiting and severe problems relating to too many connections on all wireless technologies as you well know. Also try running your 4G on an adsl feed.

5: Telstra was sold for ~30Bn 1st 14Bn in 1997 and 16b in 2003 30Bn so in 2010 to 2015 43Bn seems about the same taking into account inflation. That's without looking overseas.

My last point today is many critics talk about the per head cost and they divide the 43b by the population to get a figure. then they proceed with the interest cost, what is purposely missed is the users do not pay the cost of the NBN, they pay the cost of the loan.


johnpro2
Sep 27, 2010 1:11 PM
@TB: they divide the 43b by the population .

******
Divide the cost by the actual taxpayer would be a more realistic figure.
Last I heard there there are less than 7 million taxpayers.
As for $43 billion cost ..I suspect this is an arbitrary figure. Major enterprise resource projects are often well over budget which has sent companies broke ...still the tax payer {us} is looking forward to another hit?

There would hardly be a debate if the cost was only going to be $100 m ....
Jp
RDEFCON1
Sep 27, 2010 2:31 PM
So Turnbull asks for a proper cost-benefit analysis, and you point to a science-fiction movie? Is that really the best you can do to come up with a 'killer app' that requires NBN-bandwidth?

Essentially, your argument is that the benefits of the NBN are science fiction. Well - that's brilliant! Let's throw $43bn at it then!

You realise they also have hoverboards in that movie? Perhaps in 2015 (nah, 2020... I'll be generous) we could put a pig on a hoverboard, and it would actually FLY!

RDEFCON1
Sep 27, 2010 2:47 PM
ps. that was @HumbertCumberdale
HubertCumberdale
Sep 27, 2010 3:25 PM
RDEFCON1 wrote:
So Turnbull asks for a proper cost-benefit analysis, and you point to a science-fiction movie? Is that really the best you can do to come up with a 'killer app' that requires NBN-bandwidth?

Actually no. I could go on for days, did you miss this line?

HubertCumberdale wrote:
The applications Mr Turdbull are numerous but I will outline just one here.


RDEFCON1 wrote:

Essentially, your argument is that the benefits of the NBN are science fiction. Well - that's brilliant! Let's throw $43bn at it then!

You realise they also have hoverboards in that movie? Perhaps in 2015 (nah, 2020... I'll be generous) we could put a pig on a hoverboard, and it would actually FLY!


Do I really have to respond to this tripe? videophones are real, they are not science fiction I was merely using the movie as an example of what the technology could achieve given the right amount of bandwidth... and yes hoverboards are "magical" but they wont help me upload 2gb of files to someone in Queensland now will they? Please stick to the topic, keep it real and leave your dismal arguments for some lesser forum.

RDEFCON1 wrote:
ps. that was @HumbertCumberdale

Oh you must think everyone here is as s... No I wont say it it might be mistaken as a personal attack, everyone is thinking it though. Sorry.

Edited by HubertCumberdale: 27/9/2010 03:27:26 PM
Bazwalt
Sep 27, 2010 3:36 PM
Tom Brown said:
"If you are going to ignore a cost benefit analysis why are you calling for it, also during the election the opposition was able to do their own independent costing why not now."

Fair call Tom.

Ace said: "I love that people are using Tasmania as some kind of indicator, lol. Tasmania! he he."

Lol I laugh about it too. Tasmanias deployment was never supposed to be an indicator of the take-up. It was about testing the deployment and performance.
RDEFCON1
Sep 27, 2010 4:05 PM
@HumbertCumberdale

1. "The applications Mr Turdbull are numerous but I will outline just one here." Well, clearly you would try to pick the best one, which was totally ridiculous. And clearly you ARE into personal attacks rather than rational argument, or you would use the shadow ministers real name instead of an insult.

2. Yes, videophones are real. I have one in my hand. It's an iPhone4. And it works on 3G. No need for NBN to do that, unless you're arguing that we will get $43bn+ of productivity benefits from the slightly better frame rates and resolution you might get from NBN over an LTE or ADSL2+ connection.

3. Actually, I don't think everyone here is stupid. Just one person who actually can't name a single killer application for NBN that is unavailable on alternate technologies, but expects us to just believe that there are lots of them because he says so.

4. What kind of residential application requires you to upload 2GB of files to Queensland? And please explain the exact national productivity benefits of doing this file transfer in <3 minutes (on NBN) instead of <30 minutes (on today's technologies) or even 1 business day (by sending a DVD in the mail). btw - I'm actually interested in a genuine response to this question, if you can manage it.
Mordd
Sep 27, 2010 4:39 PM
The only relevant part of Hellfire's post was this:

"Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off !!"

Biased at all? Its just more spin, nothing more.
johnpro2
Sep 27, 2010 7:22 PM
I thought the techno kids here would have demolish @hellfire's charge agin the NBC roll out.
We might have to wait for Mt T to comment? I could C&P direct to his blog I guess ...although he would only answer after consultation naturally enough.

HubertCumberdale
Sep 27, 2010 11:17 PM
RDEFCON1 wrote:

1. "The applications Mr Turdbull are numerous but I will outline just one here." Well, clearly you would try to pick the best one, which was totally ridiculous. And clearly you ARE into personal attacks rather than rational argument, or you would use the shadow ministers real name instead of an insult.

No. I really dont need to. I said "I will outline just one here" and that is EXACTLY what I did. As for "personal attacks" I dont see how this is possible when he is not here, posters say things like "Conjob" all the time here, besides people have misspelled my name here before too and you didn't hear me crying over it, so why are you are defending him over something so trivial? what are you his mother? or is it because you have a weak argument and this is what you've decided to cling to... seems so...

RDEFCON1 wrote:

2. Yes, videophones are real. I have one in my hand.

But before you said they were science fiction...

RDEFCON1 wrote:

It's an iPhone4.

This compares to a HD video display how? remember my example? apparently not...

RDEFCON1 wrote:
slightly better

LOL

RDEFCON1 wrote:
frame rates and resolution you might get from NBN
HubertCumberdale wrote:
but what about the frame rate? resolution? latency?

Thanks!

RDEFCON1 wrote:

over an LTE or ADSL2+ connection.

3. Actually, I don't think everyone here is stupid. Just one person who actually can't name a single killer application for NBN that is unavailable on alternate technologies, but expects us to just believe that there are lots of them because he says so.

WOW I was right. I am a visionary. Too predicable really.

RDEFCON1 wrote:

4. What kind of residential application requires you to upload 2GB of files to Queensland? And please explain the exact national productivity benefits of doing this file transfer in <3 minutes (on NBN) instead of <30 minutes (on today's technologies) or even 1 business day (by sending a DVD in the mail).

Yes the old DVD in the mail, that IS the way to move data across the country in 2010! Hey I got an idea maybe we can use carrier pigeon too! we can strap 64gb SD cards to them! No need for NBN! The coalition has it ALL figured out! Go Turnbull Go!! wooo!

RDEFCON1 wrote:

btw - I'm actually interested in a genuine response to this question, if you can manage it.

No you're not. If you've read my other responses on this forum you'll know that I follow the "reap what you sow" philosophy. It has never been more appropriate than it has here.

TelstraWirelessSux
Sep 28, 2010 8:56 AM
@MerariSchroeder and anyone else that think the current NBN, not the proposed fibre is good since it is free.

I have been on wireless internet for over a year now. I cannot get anything but wireless..

After over a year of calling Telstra 3-4 times a week for the most part. They finally contacted my mobile and let me know almost 2 months ago that they were upgrading my wireless service for the next month or 2 to improve my wireless coverage.

7 weeks later.. this is with a $173 antenna provided by telstra and using their elite network gateway I currently have a "LOW" Signal, and can download at 425kb/s downloading the storage device.

Thank you Telstra for finally getting around to dealing with my slow speeds for the most part. Some days, it is still slow but at least I can now surf the web. For the most part.

Now, for my username. Wireless sucked before because I was paying $120 per month for 6kb/s - 50kb/s over half of the time. Now that they finally got around to fixing the problem. Wireless sucks because there is NO plan to offer more than 10gb of data. For anyone that plays World of Warcraft. The patches that just came out will take me 2 months to download unless its offered on bigponds site.

So for those who say $000 spending is great. Try wireless for a year, and tell me how great $000 spending actually is when your used to unlimitted cable broadband for $39.99 downloading at 4mb/s+ speeds.
I actually got an email from telstra saying they were upgrading the tower
TelstraWirelessSux
Sep 28, 2010 9:10 AM
"Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off !!"

For the last year....

Telstra has yet been able to make me even crack a smile.

First thing I can do when I move, is cancel my 2x mobile plans, home phone, and wireless plan to find a better, cheaper, and more reliable service.

So laugh now, cause I hope you all get the sack.
advocate
Sep 28, 2010 9:41 AM
Good luck with your effort in getting a 'better service' from a Telstra wireless competitor, Telstra NextG has the highest speed and best coverage by far.
anonymous
Sep 28, 2010 11:07 AM

@advocate, good luck with getting any service at all from your Telstra ;-)
RDEFCON1
Sep 28, 2010 11:27 AM
@HumberCumberdale

Just because others are rude and insulting doesn't justify you being so. Unless you just like trolling.

I didn't suggest mail or carrier pigeon was the way to go. I just asked you to elucidate the relative national productivity benefits of faster data transmission of your '2GB file' to Queensland. That is, what value do we get for the faster transmission, on which we are spending billions.

Thanks for not posting an even vaguely rational argument. Just goes to show you don't have one.
Mike_Sadler
Sep 28, 2010 11:40 AM
W-a-y too many fragmented comments to respond to individually. So a quick note:

@hellfire: Lies. The oft mentioned (on Right Wing sites or by thier fanbois posting elsewhere) "I work for Telstra, so I should know" email, is in fact a unvalidated posting from Andrew Bolt's blog (though it may pre-date that elsewhere); that qualifies as 'fact', right? Apart from being widely discredited by 'my' side, don't you think the Lib's would be citing this publically if it had any merit? The fact that each of the five points presented are total fabrications probably gave them pause too... better to let the loonies disseminate it so it sticks with people who do not know better. Now, where could they find some lemmings?

@RDEFCON1: Lies. People can read mate! Folks need only go to http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/phones/iphone/ and look at the superscript '1' next to 'Facetime' to see that it specifically doesn't work over Telstra's 3/Next/4G networks. It doesn't work here or anywhere else in the world on carrier networks, but rather only on WiFi and ONLY TO ANOTHER IPHONE 4 on a WiFi network. YOU didn't before buying one? You wanna know why it only works on WiFi? Because (US) carriers "aren't yet ready". In answer to the "Use WiFi instead of 3G because it's MORE relaible - what could possibly go wrong?" question, perhaps its better to see how Jobs himself used the product at its launch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoqh27E6OuU. Now RDEFCON1, you could have claimed to have read it somewhere, etc, but then, no, it hasn't ever happened, so you couldn't do that. So you just made it up! That IS what's called a lie isn't it? I know TA said that you had to get it in writing to be sure it wasn't a lie, but your post IS in writing. So what, now that TA lies in writing, you think you should be permitted too? The most disgusting thing about this of course is that you didn't know. I did, all my tech mates did, AT&T put spin on it ("You won't use voice minutes when you use Facetime"), so I didn't need to check to know you'd lied; I just needed to collect the (latest) evidence. If folk really want the evidence about (some) of the rest of your lies, they need only nominate some of what you've WRITTEN and I'll oblige. You could challenge me too of course - "Where's the alleged lie in THIS post Mike, you smarty pants" - but I'm not holding my breath.

The reality of course is that, like bleating about CBA's and whatnot, the naysayers here are just looking for excuses to kill the NBN; not facts about how, why and for what purpose it's being built. And mostly, lies are used. Deteego, Hellfire, Johnpro2; all liars. Djzort, MerariSchroeder (and others) hopefully *just* deluded/in denial' (you two DO realise that Telstra has signed on to move everything to NBNCo and get out of Dodge... that'll be close to 100% uptake and 100% coverage. You get that don't you?)

So, "friends of the outted liar Rdefcon1", nominate just one of your posts that do not lie or mistate 'fact' or cite facts not in evidence (well, in existence actually), or nominate just one of mine that is even 'wrong' let alone deceptive lies and nonsense. Else nick off... this stuff is the 'public record' of the future and I don't want future generations believing we were all dishonest or stupid, based on what they read from anonymous nutjobs here.
TelstraWirelessSux
Sep 28, 2010 11:54 AM
Telstra maybe the best as to wireless, but the data limits compared to all other broadband plans are beyond a joke. Since they are the best, they set the standard.

Which is why I have the power to move and free myself from Telstra monopolising my life. TBH I am getting quite excited at the possibility of a new provider with more data, better service, and an ISP that uses quality lube before bending me over.
johnpro2
Sep 28, 2010 11:57 AM
@MS :Deteego, Hellfire, Johnpro2; all liars.

Exaggerate and embellish occasionally ...why lie when the truth will do..?

Jp

HubertCumberdale
Sep 28, 2010 11:58 AM
RDEFCON1 wrote:

Just because others are rude and insulting doesn't justify you being so. Unless you just like trolling.

Please learn the difference between an insult and a joke. The fact that you pointed out something so trivial says more about you than it does me, not that it really matters...

RDEFCON1 wrote:

Thanks for not posting an even vaguely rational argument. Just goes to show you don't have one.

HA! I should have known better and the predictable lines just keep coming! Listen you want a rational argument you'll get one when you present one yourself. All you've done so far is ignore facts and try to divert the conversation 3 times because you didn't like the music.
RDEFCON1
Sep 28, 2010 12:01 PM
@Mike_Sadler

ok. Accepted. I only got my iPhone4 this week, and while I did use facetime - I was at home... so I was on WiFi. I did just assume it worked on 3G - but no, that doesn't make it a lie - just a mistake. I do use an HSDPA+ card in my laptop, and I can skype-video on that with relatively little issue... so I CAN still use 3G for a video call. As it is, my iPhone quip was only a side-issue to the point I was making, and it being incorrect doesn't invalidate everything else I said.

BTW - Telstra has NOT signed on to move everything to NBNCo. They have a 'heads of agreement' which is in-principle only. It's not committed. It needs to be finalised, and have shareholder approval. So perhaps you should stop being a hypocrit and actually check your facts - as you would have others do. But I won't call you a liar or a nutjob... I'll just accept that you got your facts wrong.

advocate
Sep 28, 2010 1:04 PM
TelstraWirelessSux wrote:
TBH I am getting quite excited at the possibility of a new provider with more data, better service, and an ISP that uses quality lube before bending me over.


So which provider is that then?
RDEFCON1
Sep 28, 2010 2:44 PM
@engelberthumperdinck

I just don't like your music.

cmasiero
Sep 28, 2010 3:30 PM
I'd really like someone to tell me what we need the NBN for right now.

Sure in about 6 years time I could see it being more important... But now? While we are in a big budget hole? Eh? Doesn't make sense other than to buy votes. Which it clearly has.

I'm with RDEFCON1 here. I see a lot of people arguing with him about insignificant issues, but no-one seems to be able to respond to the main point.

Another thing I want to note is that the supposed telstra employee is quite correct in a lot of his comments. It's true that VDSL2 is commercially out with 100Mbit tech next year, and standard optical fiber cables have a life of 25 years depending on forces as mentioned in the comment. That's not to say he is right about telstra laughing about the whole thing though.

Also... Now I don't wan't to criticize or make people feel like lashing out at me, BUT... If you think that a CBA is not an important step - and that it's just some bleating on by nay sayers - then you're very very wrong. It's one of the MOST critical documents when assessing so many other things to do with a project. It's a core document, and it covers things not covered by other documentation. It is very very strange that this document was not presented, and most often points to a 'fail' in the CBA.

You don't go ahead with a fail on the CBA, you might change some parameters and keep trying the CBA, but you don't move ahead with fail here for any project. Very interesting.
Mike_Sadler
Sep 28, 2010 4:05 PM
@RDEFCON1:
Not convinced its not a lie mate. You spoke with somebody using Facetime which you and that person both had to have iPhone 4's and be on (a reliable) WiFi connection at the same time. Seems a little too contrived to be something you 'assumed' was happening on 3G. You 'trying it on' goes to the heart of this. Every single NBN naysayer is doing this nonsense and if picked up on it does the good ol' "just a mistake mate and anyway... blah, blah, blah.

Then, in your first reply to me, you're telling porkies again!

"BTW - Telstra has NOT signed on to move everything to NBNCo..." blah blah. What is it you think has indicated they're NOT? They have 'signed on' I said. Which is the bit I haven't got right? The Heads of Agreement bit? Its a binding document - some things in writing still are you know. Its 'signed'. You are splitting hairs. A heads of agreement allows the parties to pursue this course while they get the details together, like 'subject to finance and building inspection' so they can do the myriad documents that'll be required. So don't obfuscate. They have signed up. There will be close to 100% market share. It will be a monopoly, where the wholesale price is the same across the country and a utility which makes the barest minumum returns and won't need to overbuild, so its wholesale price to retailers will be the same or cheaper for the same or better service. Everyone with any fixed service will be on it, its not just about Internet... might be for you, not for lots of people. As for your LTE 'video conferencing'... you realise you and your mate could *just* buy a HD webcam for $100 each and use that instead of the iPhone, right. When you've got 25/2 FTTP, (for what you're paying for xDSL today) you'll even be able to realise the full capability of that $100 device; you might actually video-conference "instead" of going somewhere, rather than "as well".

Ace
Sep 28, 2010 4:22 PM
@cmasiero says "Sure in about 6 years time...". This about how long it will take to build it. So if you want it in 6 years, now is the time to start building.

As previously pointed out, the independent studies into the cost of the NBN have priced it at about $32 billion. And that of course is over the full term. Repaying it will be over a much longer period. If Australia was in 'a budget hole' now (which it isn't), it would make no difference to something being paid off over the next 20 years.
The peak investment required by Government is estimated at $26 billion by the end of year 7, of which $18.3 billion will be required over the next four years
The govt expects the debt to reach about $32 billion in year 15, by which time quite a bit of privatisation is expected to have occurred, offsetting that debt.
deteego
Sep 28, 2010 5:22 PM
Ace wrote:
@cmasiero says "Sure in about 6 years time...". This about how long it will take to build it. So if you want it in 6 years, now is the time to start building.

As previously pointed out, the independent studies into the cost of the NBN have priced it at about $32 billion. And that of course is over the full term. Repaying it will be over a much longer period. If Australia was in 'a budget hole' now (which it isn't), it would make no difference to something being paid off over the next 20 years.


We are actually in a budget hole, we have a net ~50 billion dollar debt (released by the Treasury), compared to the 80 billion dollar surplus when the government was handed over. The treasury stated (very strongly) that they are seriously concerned over the NBN not having a CBA, and furthermore wasting a majority of Australia's infrastructure (copper). I mean there would have been a bigger argument to do the NBN when we are not about to hit another GFC (or just recovered from one, whatever way you look at it)
Mike_Sadler
Sep 28, 2010 5:56 PM
@cmasiero

"I'd really like someone to tell me what we need the NBN for right now. Sure in about 6 years time I could see it being more important... But now? While we are in a big budget hole? Eh? " etc.

On the surface of it, all very valid questions. They've all been answered a million times, but lets recap anyway. If you want more detail (with links and pictures if need be) I'm happy to oblige.

Why now? These things take time to build. FTTP NBN will only just be finishing in six years. It won't get cheaper. Telstra have (publically) wanted to do fibre since 2005 (but started down that path much earlier) so they need to know there is an escape from the copper CAN and soon.

More specifically? No one seriously believes that wireless will catch up to fibre, let alone surpass it. Apart from all the science and commercial arguments, two basic 'layman friendly' facts remain; whatever 'tricks' you do to get more bandwidth over wireless, you can use the same tricks (maths) to boost fibre's performance too and; Fibre has already got standardised, off the shelf, 10Gbps. 40, 80 and 100 Gbps are all in (parallel) development, because many network folks believe they'll be going straight from 10Gbps fibre (about 1.2Tbps in a 'bundle') to 100Gbps (12 Tbps in a bundle). That tech is in the lab NOW, will be deployed withing five years on international links. Wireless isn't even drowning in the wake! The replacement for the current copper CAN will be FTTP 'one day'. This has been inevitable since fibre was invented basically, its *just* a matter of cost. It would have been unbeliveably expensive 20 years ago when even the fibre technology was fairly new and in any event, copper was doing OK. Do we really think the copper will be OK in twenty years from now? Ten? Thirty? Name a number. Minus 10 years for planning, rollout, changover, it becomes mainstream; that's when we MUST start. Let's say that was 5 years hence, 2015 and wouldn't be available until 2025. What do we do for 25 years? Remember, the cost of labour will only go up, so let's add just 20% to the cost (as the technology elsewhere will feed back into our project to make it 'easier'). What will be cost of maintaining the copper? What would stop Telstra overbuilding FTTN/FTTP everywhere there is wireless network (or some other FTTN technology) deployed AFTER the ISP has done their dough on a 4G rollout in that area?

The 'Telstra dude' was just not... unless in sales and well deluded.

VDSL has going to be available in lightening speeds in Australia for many years. To what end? You need to deliver (on fibre) to within spitting distance of the subscriber premise and then the install is almost as expensive as FTTP or fixed Wireless. Great for a dense MDU (especially hotels) but negligable savings in suburbia. Then, that's it... VDSL for a while, then FTTP. Fibre has a LOT more than 25 years life in it; yes I can 'find' some dry package fibre that *only* lasts 25 years under certain conditions, but I think I'm smart enough to NOT use that when I want more life. How about I use what Telstra does... and anyway if longevity is a showstopper, let's spend extra to bury it all. Goodness knows why you'd be worried about fibree longevity when the life of the copper CAN is unknown (in public).

So basically, show me the case for how copper (and its succesors) will do, so we can compare. No naysayer is telling/knows.

Which brings us to the CBA. Lets park the ALP/NBNCo (and my) preferred solution. What should we do instead? Abbotts notNet? VDSL/FTTN? WiMax? Where are the CBA's for them? For the benefits of 'lack of ubiquity'. Whereas in the NBNCo world, all the money is borrowed (not out of the budget, not out of our pockets) and paid back with inflation geared (modest) interest, the notNet plan wanted to give away $5B free money to an industry and market mechanism that has failed so far. That money will last what, 5 years or so? 10? Then what? Where's the CBA for THAT? Will it be FTTP or something else that follows? How long will it last? How much will it cost? When would you replace THAT iteration? With what? Who's covering the cost of all these customer migrations? What will be the uptake (cause it won't be a monopoly)? How is running more, disparate networks more efficient, more economical than running one?

So, whilst I DON'T need a CBA you DO. So let's see one on ANY of the 'alternatives' proposed, especially in light of the $5B from hospitals, schools and roads it would have sucked up for the next five years and then again for the following and then... $22B comes up m-i-g-h-t-y fast and STILL we wouldn't have any FTTP and still have a growing digital divide as the big guys throw capacity at lucrative city markets.
and we would have lost $15B of government services in the process.
So, $43B invested for a FTTP network by 2020 that will be paid back by 2030 and a 'better' (in every sense) underlying wholesale, high speed, infrastructure with many more years of economical and technical useful life as a major public asset owned by us. Implementation and very detailed planning/field information already. A secure and credible product roadmap out 20 odd years, with the future standards contemplated already being demonstrated in labs. 10GBps available, off the shelf, today if it were required and - importantly, the ability to mix speeds in the network and even the PON (<1Gbps, 2.5Gbps, 10Gbps, simulatanously). Ubiquity. But, no CBA

Or notNet, a gift of my taxpayer dollars to the tune of $5B for a short term solution with nothing planned after that. No improvement in speed for the majority. In fact no deliverables! No CBA! No business plan. No takeup numbers. How is THAT credible, logical and of course responsible. Just looks like a $5B smokescreen to me.

So, if you really do insist on a CBA cmasiero, you could start with Abbott, Turnbull and Co, or any one of a number of similarly hare-brained, short sighted schemes kicking around that have the temerity to suggest a $5B gift for 5 years with NO plans in evidence, no outcome stated and with daily impact on our 'normal' lives is somehow more 'fiscally responsible' than building a world class asset with a long future which simply uses our money as a 'stake', then gives it back, with interest, plus assets and opportunities galore.

Do you really think notNet is going to 'pass' the CBA you would no doubt demand of it before trying to compare it relative merits with the NBNCo's plan? I wonder.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 28, 2010 6:16 PM
RDEFCON1 wrote:
@engelberthumperdinck

I just don't like your music.

yeah I figured you were more of a hi5 fan.


cmasiero wrote:
Also... Now I don't wan't to criticize or make people feel like lashing out at me, BUT... If you think that a CBA is not an important step - and that it's just some bleating on by nay sayers - then you're very very wrong. It's one of the MOST critical documents when assessing so many other things to do with a project. It's a core document, and it covers things not covered by other documentation. It is very very strange that this document was not presented, and most often points to a 'fail' in the CBA.

You know the coalition wont stop "bleating" about it regardless of the outcome of a CBA. Really the only reason why they are making so much noise now is because it was an election issue and they didn't take it as seriously as they should have. That was a failure on their part if they really wanted to be taken seriously now they should have 1) Spoke up before election day. 2) Come up with a better plan and 3) really done something about it BEFORE labor won in 2007. Now we are going to get drowned by a torrent of tears for the next 3 years, yay!
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 10:30 AM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

You know the coalition wont stop "bleating" about it regardless of the outcome of a CBA. Really the only reason why they are making so much noise now is because it was an election issue and they didn't take it as seriously as they should have. That was a failure on their part if they really wanted to be taken seriously now they should have 1) Spoke up before election day. 2) Come up with a better plan and 3) really done something about it BEFORE labor won in 2007. Now we are going to get drowned by a torrent of tears for the next 3 years, yay!


That is the point of the opposition, thats what they are designed to do. Our whole parliament is designed around a 2 party argumentative system. If you actually watched the video on Turnbull (and actually read up on what a CBA is), its not designed to be a blank check. Its not supposed to say, build the NBN or not build the NBN. The CBA is just a very detailed factual report from which people can draw assumptions from. If the CBA shows unilaterally that the NBN shouldn't be built, then it really shouldn't be built

Furthermore its the Labor party that opposes every single policy that the coalition puts forwards, where as there are some policies which the Labor put forward that the coalition supports (not very many albeit)

Edited by deteego: 29/9/2010 10:32:12 AM
RDEFCON1
Sep 29, 2010 11:49 AM
@MikeSadler

Actually, it's a Non-binding Financial Heads of Agreement. Reference below. This time you had the chance to check your facts, so know we know you're being deliberately misleading.

http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media-centre/announcements/telstra-signs-financial-heads-of-agreement-on-nbn-1.xml

Re: Facetime. Yes, myself and a colleague both got new iPhone4's. We went home, set them up through iTunes, and then decided to test out Facetime. No big coincidence. At least I can admit when I'm wrong.
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 11:51 AM
RDEFCON1 wrote:
@MikeSadler

Actually, it's a Non-binding Financial Heads of Agreement. Reference below. This time you had the chance to check your facts, so know we know you're being deliberately misleading.


Ouch, someone got burned
HubertCumberdale
Sep 29, 2010 3:15 PM
deteego wrote:
That is the point of the opposition, blah blah blah etc


See points 1, 2 and 3

HubertCumberdale wrote:

1) Spoke up before election day. 2) Come up with a better plan and 3) really done something about it BEFORE labor won in 2007



deteego wrote:
Edited by deteego: 29/9/2010 10:32:12 AM

Thanks for stopping by!
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 4:02 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

1) Spoke up before election day. 2) Come up with a better plan and 3) really done something about it BEFORE labor won in 2007


I highlighted the problems right there. Labor can also thank Liberal for even being able to afford such a plan, they had a free 80 billion in the boat to spend on the Broadband (but nah, school halls were clearly more important)
Mike_Sadler
Sep 29, 2010 4:08 PM
Check MY facts, redefcon1 & deteego?

As IF I hadn't read the various parties' press releases on the Heads of Agreement about three minutes after they were published. And the commentary in the Australian (how WILL they put negative spin on this latest afront to Foxtel?) and here, SMH/The Age, etc, etc. Its my JOB to know. I get PAID to do this. You... don't - right? When did YOU first see the details? Last night?

BTW, not ONE answer to any serious question. Where is the CBA for notNet? How can you justify the idea of giving away $5B taxpayers' dollars without a CBA? Or even so much as ONE deliverable? How can Malcolm?

@deteego - you're a Uni student who has consistently demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge about how Networks operate; why would your legal opinion matter to anyone either?

@rdefcon1 - You are, I take it, not a Uni student?

Neither of you actually work in Networking, do you?

Neither of you have actually ever signed/worked on a Non-Binding Financial Heads of Agreement, have you? If YOU think this is a trivial instrument, you are very sadly mistaken. The parties have agreed to pursue a course of action, which they will bring to a conclusion in due course. Out here in the real world, with billions of citizens' dollars at stake (taxpayers, shareholders, or both) companies (like Telstra and NBNCo) want so assurance that if they do certain things to prepare for a transaction, that transaction will proceed EXCEPT under exceptional circumstances. It is also a way to ensure that interested parties cannot be accused of 'back room deals', nor of 'rushing through' negotiations.

Unless you're suggesting that Telstra will renege (and have a history of doing such)? Do you have some evidence of this? Unless they renege, they ARE doing it... the copper CAN is DEAD and now they need to iron out details like cremation or burial, what goes on the headstone/plaque, what type of service, when, whom to invite, open casket or not, etc. None of the parties (other than you lot) is seeking medical or divine interventation that I can see. Just a 'way forward'.

So... my evidence? An executed document, common within the industry and very measured in language, carefully agreed between two corporations with lots of ancillary commentry affirming a path forward. A timetable even!

David Thodey said: "Either side can determine not to proceed if something significantly changes, but it is our intent to move to finality on this, but based on a number of things that need to be worked through that we have a degree of comfort on."

I mean, really. There's some wriggle room sure, but its hardly ambiguous what he is aiming for.

Your evidence, is, er, just what exactly? The same as yesterday and the day before and the day before that; and tomorrow and next week, ad nauseum. Great Big New Fat NOTHING.

Give me a BREAK!

If you two want to split hairs on stuff you don't know about, fine. If you want to wait until everyone else in your street is connected via NBNCo's FTTP (you'll be flat-out refusing, right? Until when, BTW? If you'd care to nominate your estimate of the life of the current copper CAN, then I guess it'll be until that period has elapsed, right?) before you accept that NBNCo are going to do it and Telstra wants to do it and 50% of the population want to do it (and there is no downside for the other 50%, despite the scaremongering) then fine. But say it all in The Australian... this is "ITNews", not "IT pointless nonsense from neo-conservative IT wannabes". Don't expect folk to sit idly by when you try to present this nonsense as 'informed' opinion, let alone 'fact'.

Neither of you nor any of your chums (including your political heroes) have enlightened us further on your preferred plan; just what it is, the costs, the uptake, the payback, the deliverables, the technology, the roadmap, the ROI, the "can't scratch your bum without it" CBA. Nuttin'. Simply not good enough if you want to be taken seriously by grown ups. The flippancy with which you bandy about phrases and acronyms about which you actually know little or nothing is frightening when the outcome you favour will be such an unmitigated waste of other people's money. The gaul, to demand a CBA from NBNCo, but NOTHING from the 'all new, Gentle Monk' when he wants to GIVE away our money!

I also note that, while I use my real name (and will provide contact details if anyone wants them), you choose to hide behind annonymity. Not mandatory mind, but 'telling'; the clueless men are faceless too.
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 4:15 PM
You know, by your attitude, I would say you are a teenager mike. Yes I am a uni student, and yes I have done networking (its part of my course).

No I am not a lawyer, and I am not studying law. You clearly are also not a lawyer, because none of what you are saying is making any common sense. So I don't know why you are arguing about something you don't understand (and then come up with all this crap about spin and predicting what Telstra will and won't do etc etc etc). I am also not a Lawyer, which is why I am not arguing in this discussion, but it is clear you got caught out lying (and generally having no idea what you are talking about)

No one has actually explained what any of I said was incorrect (still waiting you realize?). Of course its not easy to argue with someone who actually disregards everything that doesn't fit into his argument (which is kinda why I stopped arguing with you)

In any case, you got shown lying through your teeth. You would probably regret giving your proper details, shit like this can come back and haunt you some day. In defense you just posted a page of junk which is about as useful as Toiltet paper, because all I read is a rant about what you think Telstra will/won't do (you work for Telstra now?)

Edited by deteego: 29/9/2010 04:21:36 PM
Mike_Sadler
Sep 29, 2010 4:29 PM
@deteego
There you go again, sprouting nonsense that would impact other peoples finances and well-being, with scant regard to reality. At least it has nothing to do with networks this time, so it could have been as valid an opinion as mine - if you hadn't already established how wrong you typically are so convincingly.

"I highlighted the problems right there. Labor can also thank Liberal for even being able to afford such a plan, they had a free 80 billion in the boat to spend on the Broadband (but nah, school halls were clearly more important)"

Yep, we'd all be better off, with $75B sitting in Federal reserves, 15% unemployment, soup kitchens in the streets and a economy in tatters. Just how, exactly, would that be better? Not in this forum of course... just give me your email address and we'll take it offline, eh? :)

But it wouldn't be a post by you without SOME Network type nonsense, now would it? So, FYI, there has never been any talk of hitting the Budget, surplus or deficit, to build NBNCo's FTTP CAN. Only the Coalition's notNet planned to use our taxpayer dollars, $5B for the first 5 years or so and some undisclosed amount thereafter. What for, we are yet to discover. You'd know... right? Just what did you believe you were getting for your bit of $5B? Where would it have come from... not from Uni's I hope?
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 4:39 PM
If you haven't realised, the reason I don't argue with you is that you have a nasty habit of coming up with strawman all the time. You argue some point which I never made in the first place and attempt to make me look like an idiot because apparently I don't know anything about networking (even though I never talked about that point)

And in regards to the reserves, Australia was one of the few developing countries that had a massive surplus before it entered the GFC. All the countries that Labor compares Australia to and says "we are doing fine" are all countries that had massive debt before they entered the GFC. Furthermore, as a country our main form of export are commodities, which barely dropped during the GFC (compared to all the other issues countries had with imports/exports). We don't even have any massive industry (apart from commodities), which is the reason why countries like Ireland, Iceland and Greece collapsed (and America)

Labor is doing the exact same thing they did 20 years ago, overspending on stimulus packages that end up putting the whole country in recession and raising interest rates to something like 15%+. Even the Treasury said that Labor "needs to stop spending" (im paraphrasing here) because the country is going to go into a 2 speed economy which is causing interest rates to skyrocket

EDIT: The treasury also stated that they are seriously concerned about the NBN, ergo they are not happy with it. They said quite strongly it needs a CBA to address whether it really needs to be built

Edited by deteego: 29/9/2010 04:50:18 PM
Tom Brown
Sep 29, 2010 5:06 PM
Deteego and Mike
The coalition did not have 80b surplus, the Australian people through government (which is not a political party)put that money into consolidated revenue and projects and so doing lost title to assets and paid a lot more tax by the introduction of the GST (which Howard disavowed prior to the election but then that was the Hewson GST).

Though I am critical about how Labor has performed, I am more critical of the coalition policies and the arrogance as they show their belief that the whole world revolves around them and their opinion is always right (even when they are admitting they were wrong).
Of the 2 sides the coalition is more full of bull, less available for discourse, less open and more likely to screw the public for their politico economic view, as I see it.
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 5:11 PM
Tom Brown wrote:
Deteego and Mike
The coalition did not have 80b surplus, the Australian people through government (which is not a political party)put that money into consolidated revenue and projects and so doing lost title to assets and paid a lot more tax by the introduction of the GST (which Howard disavowed prior to the election but then that was the Hewson GST).

That explains how the revenue was made, its a surplus regardless of how it got there

Quote:

Though I am critical about how Labor has performed, I am more critical of the coalition policies and the arrogance as they show their belief that the whole world revolves around them and their opinion is always right (even when they are admitting they were wrong).
Of the 2 sides the coalition is more full of bull, less available for discourse, less open and more likely to screw the public for their politico economic view, as I see it.


Tbh, this is pure opinion. The way I see it, Labor is more arrogant. Julia Gillard has denied anyone that doesn't believe in a Carbon Price to be put on their "climate commitee", she has plainly opposed every single policy that Liberal puts forwards (may be hard to believe, but Liberals do actually support a couple of Labors plans). They forced their own democratically elected leader by the people to step down etc etc.

I mean honestly, disallowing people to go on to the climate change board because they don't believe that carbon tax is the right way to go about it, is as you say, "arrogance as they show their belief that the whole world revolves around them and their opinion is always right"
HubertCumberdale
Sep 29, 2010 5:22 PM
deteego wrote:

I highlighted the problems right there.

Oh yes wireless+adsl2 ftw! ffs where is a giant rolleyes emote when you need one...

deteego wrote:

Labor can also thank Liberal for even being able to afford such a plan

Oh you are one of those people, it's all becoming clear now...

deteego wrote:

they had a free 80 billion in the boat to spend on the Broadband

yeah 80 billion in the bank is awesome and what should we do with all those monies? we could invest in a FTTH broadband network, you know just an idea and then rest we can spend on 37 billion dollars worth of mixed lollies how does that sound?
HubertCumberdale
Sep 29, 2010 5:25 PM
deteego wrote:
They forced their own democratically elected leader by the people to step down etc etc.

You must be unfamiliar with how the election process works in this country.
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 5:34 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

You must be unfamiliar with how the election process works in this country.


Actually I believe Labor is unfamiliar with how a democracy works (either that or they fail as a political party in regards to actually getting along, either aint good). This has nothing to do with me not understanding the election process, I was responding to the comment where Tom Brown said Liberals were arrogant, where I said that Labor is in fact more arrogant then Liberals (due to shoving off their own leader)

Edited by deteego: 29/9/2010 05:35:57 PM
Mike_Sadler
Sep 29, 2010 7:22 PM
@deteego

Yep, still nothing from you. Not a single link, citation or fact. Just more fibs:

- "You argue some point which I never made in the first place"
* Hate to be a pedant (OK, sarcasm 'off'), but could you cite a couple of instances? One?

"...and attempt to make me look like an idiot"
*No such subtlety deteego. I actually called you 'dangerously stupid' because you don't know anything about networking in this context.
"...apparently I don't know anything about networking (even though I never talked about that point)
*Yes, very apparent from where I sit. I was floored though by your claim that... what is it? You haven't 'talked' about Networking? Really?

Just skip to the end if you're only interested in the first installment of "deteego demanded to be informed of what he's said that was incorrect; Mike's happy to oblige".

Maybe I'll just concentrate on items that fall into the:

"I never talked about that..." (Networking) "...point."

This is NOT a charade. You may think that being pedantic about what this document means is another 'straw man', but that's no doubt becasue you don't understand that this makes the NBN totally viable without money being spent on going to war with Telstra AND has given Telstra the certainty it needed to move forward with access to a FTTP network to ply rich, multimedia products and services over that platform and kick some competitve butt.

Anyway, skip right down to Q1 below to get straight to the action part of the evening.
-------------- snip ----------
Me, lying... where? I claimed that, with the signing of an legal instrument, very commonly used in the real world for just this purpose (yes, including by me, yes with multi-billion dollar companies, yes for millions, yes in IT centric situations and also yes, in 'pure' business activity e.g. M&A too) meant "Telstra has signed up to move to NBNCo" which express sentiment and view was and is subsequently echoed by, ah, Telstra, its CEO, NBNCo, the federal government, the Minister, etc. Have I missed anyone? Oh, all the press... who ran with words like "Telstra agrees to NBN move". Are they ALL wrong? Except you (I'm not a lawyer) and (what network am I on again?) rdefcon1? Even your hero Tones claims that Telstra has been 'bought' not 'convinced'. Not a bleat about a Heads of Agreement being a useless device. Fancy that? The faux indignation that Abbott, the doyen of The Market has about Thodey being 'bought'; a CEO who is obviously purely out to maximise shareholder value? Telstra wanting to 'win'? Outragous!

You said:

"I am also not a Lawyer, which is why I am not arguing in this discussion, but it is clear you got caught out lying (and generally having no idea what you are talking about)"

But also quoted:

"Actually, it's a Non-binding Financial Heads of Agreement. Reference below. This time you had the chance to check your facts, so know we know you're being deliberately misleading."

and added:

"Ouch, someone got burned".

Agreeing with or quoting someone who IS arguing the opposite of me, is, ah, involving yourself in the opposite argument, isn't it? Have I missed something? But you say now you don't understand it anyway? Still not getting a good feeling about your grasp of the issues, especially when you state you don't understand the issues.

The 'crap and spin' you mention is erstwhile called 'information to the market', available on the public record, on which the market can base their judgement of the likely outcomes. Just like, I'm sure, the Coalition has detail on their plans... what WAS that URL again? You know, the one to their CBA for notNet? Dog ate it? It's not just me that's waiting on that - you are too, right?

WRT your claim:

"No one has actually explained what any of I said was incorrect (still waiting you realize?). Of course its not easy to argue with someone who actually disregards everything that doesn't fit into his argument (which is kinda why I stopped arguing with you)".

Interesting assesment. You're claiming a familiarity with all these technologies that you've clearly and repeatiously demonstrated to me you simply do not have. You expect people to believe you. They shouldn't. All I'm claiming is to have done a/my job for the last 20 odd years in IT that specifically involved 'owning' Telco/ISP networks (and data centres) and all the technical, business, compliance, regulatory and financial detail that goes with that and that I failed to forget it when I moved to a job specifying and selling gear back into that market. Oh, and the ability to use a calculator and Google. That's it.

From where do you draw your expertise? If it were from a book or website or whatever, that'd be fine too. You could cite the origin. I could see it, others - in both camps - could agree, disagree, whatever. Its possible to be 'misinformed'. I have been in the past. Not about this stuff though - its in my DNA now. But anyway, you've not cited anything or anyone as the basis for the nonsense you post as if it were fact. I believe its because no such source exists, that you just make up whatever you see as neccesary to support your case.

There are people who are not technical, who don't have any expertise in this area and rely on fora like this to learn... be that technical information from experts, or just 'what the other guy thinks'. Although THIS isn't the appropriate forum for it, I have no issue with an opinion along the lines of "I don't want nuffin that Ranga comes up with". How could I argue with that? I'd have to (with shaking head) accept that as opinion, just as I'd easily accept some ninkumpoop claiming steadfast allegiance to Jules if it were in my favour. That's opinion.

Largely, what you're posting is NOT opinion, its alleged facts, at odds with published and publically available standards, established/best practise; scientific, measureable and repeatable, with a sufficiently large dataset since 1994 (public, 'ISP' style Internet launched) to be able to see, predict and re-check trends, introduce new products, services and pricing, consolidate, replicate, simplify, repeat. That's pretty much all I've done for 20 years. The folks I've direct reported to have been the CEO's and CTO's of the largest ISP/Telco's in Australia and/or the world.

What's made YOU such an expert?

I will spend some time tomorrow cataloging your nonsense posts if you like, but here's one straight off the top of my head. I don't have the links to your (or my) posts on this, but I'll happily post them if you wish to deny you such claims.
-------------- snip -----------
Q1.
I seem to recall me asking you to substantiate your claim that all international links were saturated. I opined they weren't. Seeing as how it was my job to know for over ten years, I was pretty confident. None-the-less, I checked, on the public Internet no less and found significant evidence to the contrary, to which I think I posted links? The response from you has been... well, nothing. So there's the first one.

So... over to you.

PS: Love the crack about me being 'a teenager'. I'm definitely NOT young enough to know everything, like you. I love the way dangerously stupid people are all afronted when called dangerously stupid. But, true to form, NEVER answer the question :) Life is just soooooo predictable sometimes.
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 7:27 PM
Sigh I'm not going to bother to reply to this, just another page of waffle. If you haven't gotten it already, I'm am not debating you over the technical merits over the NBN, but over the Financial/Feasibility merits. But clearly you are so smart that you don't don't need to read what is said, you can just imply it. Your wasting your own precious keystrokes by writing a page of crap I never even argued against. You may know about IT, you clearly know little about everything else, and its that "everything else" that I am arguing about. Here in reality, we actually deal with everything else

I will let someone else finish, I am sure there is plenty of gold there
RDEFCON1
Sep 29, 2010 9:25 PM
@HubertCumberdale

Wow, talk about knickers in a knot! A few people need their valium, methinks.

For the record, I have >10 years experience in the telecommunication and IT industries in both engineering and marketing. I have two bachelors degrees and a masters in related fields. And I did have my CCNA (now expired).

NONE of which matters, Hubert, because I have never made the case for the coalition's plan nor for the NBN. What I have done is question whether spending large amounts of taxpayer funds NOW on a network which will not be fully utilised for decade into the FUTURE, is a good idea. I have suggested the investment, if it must be made by government, would be better phased over 20 years instead of 8 years, starting with the most underserved areas (because I believe as a principle that governments should only intervene in cases of complete market failure, which has occurred in some, limited, geographic locations in this country).

What YOU have done is unfairly maligned and falsely represent the opinions of every single contributor with whom you disagree. Frankly, there's no point even trying to have a rational discussion with you - so I'm not going to bother.

HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 1:24 PM
RDEFCON1 wrote:
@HubertCumberdale
Wow, talk about knickers in a knot! A few people need their valium, methinks.

eh? you must be reading someone else posts and mistaking them for mine.

RDEFCON1 wrote:

For the record, I have >10 years experience in the telecommunication and IT industries in both engineering and marketing. I have two bachelors degrees and a masters in related fields. And I did have my CCNA (now expired).

I dont believe I asked or cared are you trying to prove a point with this?

RDEFCON1 wrote:

NONE of which matters, Hubert, because I have never made the case for the coalition's plan nor for the NBN. What I have done is question whether spending large amounts of taxpayer funds NOW on a network which will not be fully utilised for decade into the FUTURE blah blah blah

Yes you are questioning things you must feel so intelligent, I question government spending too. Like why the government didn't start this project 10 years ago, makes you think doesn't it?

RDEFCON1 wrote:

What YOU have done is unfairly maligned and falsely represent the opinions of every single contributor with whom you disagree. Frankly,

I haven't unfairly done anything. Are you one of those people with a persecution complex? Hey dont be a hater, I cant help it if people here aren't as bright as they should be. It is Australia though so I guess I should lower my expectations.


RDEFCON1 wrote:

there's no point even trying to have a rational discussion with you - so I'm not going to bother.

You could have done that from the start and saved us all some trouble.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 1:27 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

I haven't unfairly done anything. Are you one of those people with a persecution complex? Hey dont be a hater, I cant help it if people here aren't as bright as they should be. It is Australia though so I guess I should lower my expectations.

Actually you have, you (like others) have completely misrepresented what we are trying to argue. And you arguing people aren't bright is comical, to say the least
HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 1:28 PM
deteego wrote:

Actually you have, you (like others) have completely misrepresented what we are trying to argue. And you arguing people aren't bright is comical, to say the least

Are you STILL crying over that other thread?
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 1:30 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:

Actually you have, you (like others) have completely misrepresented what we are trying to argue. And you arguing people aren't bright is comical, to say the least

Are you STILL crying over that other thread?

Are you implying that you actually admit misrepresenting what people say to try and prove your point?
HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 1:39 PM
deteego wrote:

Are you implying that you actually admit misrepresenting what people say to try and prove your point?

No, you must be misunderstanding the situation. I haven't misrepresented anything like I said before you only think that because of your own faulty premises... and if you REALLY believe the opposite is true then just follow rdefcoms advice!
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 1:47 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:

Are you implying that you actually admit misrepresenting what people say to try and prove your point?

No, you must be misunderstanding the situation. I haven't misrepresented anything like I said before you only think that because of your own faulty premises... and if you REALLY believe the opposite is true then just follow rdefcoms advice!


And what makes you think that a premise is faulty (after all, that is your own opinion, you haven't actually proved how our premise is faulty)

You saying that I would cry over something implies I would have something to cry about (i.e. you doing something that would piss someone off, and no it isn't proving anyone incorrect, because you haven't proved anything AT ALL)

Edited by deteego: 30/9/2010 01:48:16 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 2:08 PM
yeah that's great detego, I'm not going to go over the same ground here and repeat myself over and over. Seems like you are one of those people that has to have the last word in every debate. I wont hold that against you but really I think you should move on, there are far more interesting topics here today, like the one where Mr Turnbull got his ass handed to him on a plate :-)
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 2:12 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
yeah that's great detego, I'm not going to go over the same ground here and repeat myself over and over. Seems like you are one of those people that has to have the last word in every debate. I wont hold that against you but really I think you should move on, there are far more interesting topics here today, like the one where Mr Turnbull got his ass handed to him on a plate :-)


Seriously come on, prove that our premise (whatever it is, its still a mystery) is 'faulty'
HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 3:28 PM
deteego wrote:

Seriously come on, prove that our premise (whatever it is, its still a mystery) is 'faulty'

http://www.itnews.com.au/forums/yaf_postst41159_Turnbull-blasts-NBN-waste-internet-filter.aspx
epimetheus
Sep 30, 2010 3:32 PM
Another Labor looney wrote: "The coalition did not have 80b surplus, the Australian people through government (which is not a political party)put that money into consolidated revenue and projects and so doing lost title to assets and paid a lot more tax by the introduction of the GST (which Howard disavowed prior to the election but then that was the Hewson GST)."
Why do these idiots keep harping on the GST but conveniently forget the 18% mortgages of "Looney Toons" Keating?

Some facts: In 1996 the ‘new’ Coalition Government inherited a
$95.8 billion dollar debt and a budget deficit of $11.1 billion from
Labor. By 2007, the Coalition Government, working tirelessly, had created
$42.9 billion of net assets, and delivered a proud legacy for the Australian
people – a budget surplus of $22.6 billion in the 2006-2007 financial year.
Since then Labor has recklessly squandered Australia’s economic strength in exchange for political spin with no economic plan. The deficit forecast shown in the latest predictions revealed are as follows:

* 2009-10: $57.1 billion deficit
* 2010-11: $40.8 billion deficit
* 2011-12: $13 billion deficit

Plainly we cannot afford the NBN any more than we can afford another senseless Labor government!
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 3:38 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:

Seriously come on, prove that our premise (whatever it is, its still a mystery) is 'faulty'

http://www.itnews.com.au/forums/yaf_postst41159_Turnbull-blasts-NBN-waste-internet-filter.aspx


Try harder, still not reading anything

Don't see any premises stated (or being disproved)
HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 3:42 PM
It's all there in black and white.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 4:12 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
It's all there in black and white.


Try harder (since I am clearly stupid)
thor
Oct 1, 2010 11:40 AM
Wow this has definitely gone to a personal attack level. Come on guys keep to the topic, show your evident and make informed decisions.

OzBoy08
Oct 1, 2010 12:54 PM
iTnews wrote:
iTnews Article: Video: Turnbull lays out case for NBN cost-benefit
Opposition communications spokesman to meet NBN Co CEO, debate Conroy.

Read the story here:
Video: Turnbull lays out case for NBN cost-benefit

What do you think? Join the discussion.


Just goes to show out of touch with the people of Australia this pathetic politician is. No wonder the independents decided to back Labour and their NBN. Fromt he opposition, no constructive ideas just negativity. Sick of it. Come on Mr Turnbull, tell us how you will do it and show us the cost/benefit analysis of that.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote