The broadband battle: what will they really deliver?
|
The political message of the Coalition’s Plan for Real Action on Broadband and Telecommunications is that they can deliver the same outcome as Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN) for $6 billion instead of $43 billion, sooner and with less risk. But while both Labor and the Coalition promise headline speeds of between 12 and 100 megabits per second (Mb/s) for 97% of the population and satellite for the rest, they’re otherwise wildly different propositions. A broadband network is, simplistically, these pieces. A customer access network (CAN) connecting everyone to the local exchange. A backhaul network running between cities connecting the exchanges together. A core network that ties it all together, connects to the rest of the world, and provides administrative functions such as metering. Together these constitute the wholesale network. On top of that you need retail operations such as marketing, sales, billing and customer support. Before we go further, if you need to brush up on “megabits” and what’s possible at different speeds, try our NBN Clarifier part 1. Now for a century or more the CAN has been copper wire. Mostly that’s still the case. Currently the fastest data over copper is ADSL at up to 24Mb/s. However speed declines rapidly further from the exchange, and the maximum distance is just a few kilometres. Physics is physics, and this is pretty much it. In some areas line-sharing techniques such as pair gain and RIM mean that ADSL is limited to around 1Mb/s or can’t be used at all. In parts of some cities there’s also hybrid-fibre coax (HFC), the “cable” networks laid down by Telstra/Foxtel and Optus, originally for pay TV. This has optical fibre cable from the exchange to a neighbourhood node that typically serves a few hundred homes, then shielded coaxial cable. Maximum speed is up to 100Mb/s using the DOCSIS 3.0 standard that both Telstra and Optus have been rolling out, with the potential for a few multiples of that, but around 10Mb/s otherwise. Then there are fibre CANs. Fibre to the Node (FTTN), as in Labor’s plan at the 2007 election, uses cable or DSL for the last segment. End-user speeds are therefore broadly similar to HFC, or to ADSL when you’re close to the exchange. Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) is fibre all the way. It typically provides 100Mb/s now, but can be upgraded by changing the devices at each end. Indeed, technology already exists to run fibre many orders of magnitude faster, although at higher cost. For example the forthcoming Pacific Fibre/Pacnet cable from Sydney to Los Angeles via Auckland will run at around 2,500,000Mb/s on each fibre pair. There are also rapidly-evolving wireless technologies. Without getting into the messy details, the fastest are currently Telstra’s Next G, a 3.5G network offering up to 24Mb/s, and the vividwireless 4G network which can provide up to 100Mb/s to mobile devices and 1000Mb/s – that is, 1 gigabit per second (1Gb/s) – to fixed locations. Faster will come, sure. But wireless has physical limitations, detailed in Crikey’s second NBN Clarifier, which can’t be ignored. Throughout all this sits that magic phrase “up to”. That’s where the parties’ policies differ. A fibre is yours all the way back to the exchange. With HFC you share the bandwidth back to the node. With wireless, you share back to the tower. FTTN also has the potential to run symmetrically — that is, upload speeds as fast as download. This means you can, say, send high-definition video as well as receive it. ADSL2+, HFC and wireless all run asymmetrically, with upload speeds significantly slower than download. Fine for watching content produced by someone else. Not so good if you wan to create or participate as an equal. Labor’s NBN is about completely replacing the copper CAN with FTTN for 93% of the population, with 12Mb/s fixed wireless for another 4%. They’ve published maps showing where the boundaries lie. FTTN is an expensive infrastructure build, but higher-profit areas like the central cities cross-subsidises the regions. It provides a consistent network nationally that can continue to be upgraded for decades. The Coalition’s policy is to primarily leave things to the market, but focus on areas where the market has failed. The Fixed Broadband Optimisation program would upgrading sections of the copper network to remove pair-gain, RIM and poor-quality wiring so ADSL2+ can be provided, and speeding up HFC where it exists. Carriers would be subsidized to build new rural and remote wireless networks, starting with $200 million in 2011-12. New metropolitan wireless networks start with $375 million in 2013-14. The Coalition has so far avoided saying who’ll get which technology where, and who gets 12Mb/s rather than 100Mb/s. So far they haven’t said what spectrum will be used for the new wireless networks either. When it comes to backhaul, the policies are similar. In areas where there’s only one backhaul provider, usually Telstra, competing backhaul will be constructed. But the NBN is already doing it, whereas the Coalition starts with a $50 million spend in 2012-13. But choosing one plan over the other is as much about ideology, vision and political rhetoric as technological choice. Labor is spending a lot now to build for the future. The Coalition is spending less on its “affordable broadband” — which certainly saves money now, but is it merely delaying the inevitable big spend? |
|
|
|
126 Comments
Good explanation! It would be nice to see a plain english description of PON and why it is the big suck in Labor’s plan in terms of long term upgrades to the network.
@ ninetenthsofthelaw: PON stands for Passive Optical Network. It is basically a system whereby wavelengths of light can be mixed & groomed out of a fibre without active (powered electronics) circuitry. Each wavelength can potentially carry Gigabits per second of throughput but we wont go to far down that path. PON is a very important part of the NBN as on a scale of this size it allows high throughput at relatively low cost without the complexity of having powered boxes sitting all over the network.
PON is critical to the fibre CAN. As I have stated elsewhere it is relatively easy to trench in 1,000 km of fibre for a point to point link as part of a backbone or backhaul as referred to in this article. However connecting 1,000 homes to an exchange 1km away is much trickier and more expensive this is where PON comes in. This is the critical part of the NBN as the CAN has to be wrested back off Telstra. Having Telstra remain in control of the CAN dooms us to the same problems we have been experiencing for the last 10 years.
@Trevor
Will the new NBN still use the existing copper network in the final “to the home” connection, will this have limitations on overall throughput? Ie. assuming the NBN cabling (FTTN) replaces all but the final “to the home” connection, how will the actual speed be impacted if the fibre to node has to rely on copper for the final connection? Will this be likely to reduce the effectiveness of the FTTN capabilities, or is the final copper line so short that it will not have a material impact of on speeds? Apologies if the terminology is not correct.
Ps this is not Tony Abbott asking this question BTW…
My question is - What is the amount of private sector investment required by the coalitions plan? If the following from todays Australian is correct, then Abbott’s plan requires a $57 billion investment from the private sector that has so far failed to make any substantial investement in telecommunications and why would they invest in something that would in the near future need to be replaced or undergo a major overhaul
“Yesterday the Coalition announced that an Abbott government would enlist the private sector to upgrade internet services in a $63 billion plan, rejecting the NBN.”
Some people have told me I’ve implied that the NBN’s FTTP optical fibre is your dedicated link all the way back to the exchange. This isn’t quite true. I’ll write a proper explanation later, but the key point is that while the fibre is in some sense shared — all internet is eventually shared at some point — this is less of an issue than with other methods.
@FarmerJoe: Labor’s current NBN roll-out is Fibre to the Premises not Fibre to the Node, so fibre replaces copper all the way to your home. No copper remains in your connection. The NBN’s customer premises equipment (CPE) is a box which has an Ethernet connection for the data network and a plain old telephone sock for plugging in a phone, should you wish to stay with an ordinary phone service.
But choosing one plan over the other is as much about ideology, vision and political rhetoric as technological choice.
What a load of bullshit!
What it is, is vision entirely, it is choosing a system that will either give country Australians an opportunity to partake in an equal digital future as urbane centres or condemning them to a digital dark age.
Given how few country areas actually support Labor the main question for me is why on earth is Labor proposing this at all.
No votes in it where it will cost the most, no seats in it either.
Maybe it is simply a desire to do the best thing for the nation?
Visionary and all that as opposed to the tripe served up by mr Rabbit last night who could not be bothered to get across such simple facts as peak speed. FFS it is not that hard!
@stilgherrian
Thanks for that, great article and explainations.
The new NBN, immediate affordability aside, obviously has great potential for future upgrades.
My concerns are that the actual rollout (digging the trench, laying the cable, replacing ashphalt etc etc. is going to cost substantially more than $43b. One former Telstra technician has indicated to me that this would equate to approximately $1 cost per metre, which seems extremely unrealistic.
Does anyone have thoughts about whether we will all still want to be accessing our internet at home in years to come? Or is there merit in investing (or retaining capacity to invest) toward developing better wireless technology?
Maybe the coalition policy is actually more forward thinking that labor’s NBN?
Farmer Joe: I understand the deal done between NBN Co & Telstra is for access to the Pit & Pipe network or ducts. This will allow NBN Co to pull their fibre through to the premises. I understand the deal is that NBN Co only pay for the ducts they can use ie if there is no room for the fibre and cable cannot be removed to make room they dont pay for that section.
The bottom line is each premise connected to the NBN will have a new termination point on their wall which will be an optical termination. The great news is that as new technology is developed and the electronics is upgraded in the core of the network, faster and faster speeds will be delivered. If you can remember what it was like when we thought 9600 bps dial modems were fast but have now evolved to ADSL 2+ speeds on the copper. Well we could expect similar advancements with fibre over the next few decades. That is why it is visionary, no other technology could promise that.
If we start with an idea which is in no way controversial: Australia needs to decentralise, then to argue that we can get people to move into regional centres without an NBN is sheer lunacy. OK, if we only expect them to work in abattoirs or on farms, but to be productively involved with the rest of the country (and the world, for that matter), then the NBN is not a matter of ‘ideology’.
Internet usage is on a rip tearing growth curve, so hey, let’s plumb in some small pipes, ask the ‘market’ to come and invest, and just close our eyes to the world and hope for the best.
Hmm, visionary indeed Mr Rabbit.
“The NBN’s customer premises equipment (CPE) is a box which has an Ethernet connection…”
I’ve been wondering about that. Thinking about the end user here, what kind of changes in hardware will migrating from ADSL2+ to the fibre network entail?
You’re saying that the optical signal is converted to an electrical signal by some NBN Co. hardware installed in my wall, which then goes over ethernet to my modem. Would it ever make sense to go optical all the way to the modem?
Coalition Broadband and Telecommunications strategy in a nutshell:
1. Spend as little tax payer funds as possible (makes them look economically astute).
2. Let the market rip (didn’t work in the past, but who cares because the average punter is economically and technically illiterate anyway).
3. Plan for the future? (Why, the electoral cycle is about three years, others can clean up the mess).
Fortunately it’s NOT going to happen! Tony, Julie and Barnaby are not going to make it! Phew!
@twobob
Good point about labor not gaining any votes by including cabling to rural areas. It is exactly why they will have nothing to lose if in the end they simply decide that the cost is too great and the cabling will only cover urban areas after all. Nothing visionary in labor screwing over rural voters.
Investing in the NBN using borrowed money based on costings that no-one has yet seen means that the $43 bn is likely to be a lot higher in the end.
Given your preference for a sustainable population I’d be keen to hear your views on how we will pay back the debt?
Trevor, is it true that a substantial “trial” rollout of the NBN has already been constructed in Tasmania, covering roughly half the state and coming in on or under both the original cost and time projections?
@ Andos. The box on the wall will provide an ethernet interface and this box has to be compatible with the PON technolgy which is deployed in the rest of the network. I could see an option for this box to also provide an optical interface if but it would still be at the same speed maybe just allow you to reticulate it further as ethernet over copper cannot go as far.
One of the design issues for the NBN is that the premises box does require power so in the event of a power failure your telecommunications would also fail. Not good. I know they were looking at having batteries in the units that would last for years but am not sure if this has been completely resolved. I am sure however that the roll out will not commence until they have a satisfactory solution for this.
@ Rod Hagen. You are right in one sense, a trial network has already been constructed in Tas but it doesnt cover half the state. I am not sure how many subscribers they have on now but the first became active only a short time ago. Just in time for the election really, what a coincidence.
I understand it is working well and a number of ISPs have signed agreements for wholesale capacity and the subscribers are entering into contracts with these pre existing ISPs . The traffic is running over the new NBN infra structure though. I dont believe Telstra have entered into an agreement yet for access. That is probably just a bit to difficult for them at this stage.
Wonder if Tony is going to tell them they will have to go back to a copper network?
@ Trevor is no-one building UPS into the premises boxes?
@ Holden Back: A battery in the unit is basically a small UPS for the unit. Its primary power would still be from the household supply. Design issues are still things like how long will it hold the unit up for? Hours or do we need days?
It could provide an alarm when the battery was getting low similar to your fire alarm but then who’s responsibility will it be to change the battery?
I could just see lawyers salivating at the prospect of someone not being able to call an ambulance because the connection was down due to a flat battery.
So tell me: once it’s all built and most homes in Australia are on fibre, what happens when someone wants to build a new town or greenfield suburb?
In parallel to this we have a population and infrastructure crisis in the making. You can’t ignore the interdependencies between these issues, which I discussed in more detail here.
Will the builders of new settlements be charged up-front for the the extension of the FTTP network? Will the taxpayer cover it, but only after 10 years of federal red tape in addition to existing state and council red tape? Will residents of the new settlement be on their own, having to pay for their own fibre connections if they want it, while existing homeowners gain a windfall price rise because their homes have fibre and new ones don’t?
There are three solutions to this problem:
1. Before making any further infrastructure plans, adopt Henry Tax Review recommendations #120 and #121, for reasons Henry explains in part 6.2 of his report
2. Go back to the original FTTN plan and let private enterprise connect nodes to homes. They typically do this by financing the up-front costs and recovering it over time in user charges — in other words, they use the equivalent of the more efficient property-tax model as opposed to up-front levies (see option 1 above), because unlike government they’ve learned it’s more efficient and better for growth.
3. Go with the Coalition’s plan which won’t be the all-singing, all-dancing shiny new toy everyone wants, but it will result in more homes being connected much much sooner, and it won’t lock future developments out from sharing in the benefits.
Otherwise, this is just a grab for benefits by home owners who want it all now, and bugger the home buyers of the future who will have to pay for it in either price premiums or connection charges. A great deal for the haves, at the expense of the have-nots.
@Powerisnotstrength
Dont forget to mention that once the $43bn runs out with only half the promised urban areas covered by the NBN cabling, how much liklihood is there of the rollout to rural areas?
I really hope the NBN happens, it would be a great opportunity for decentralisation and giving people the option to work from home more - thus decreasing congestion on our stressed transport networks, letting people spend more time with friends and family and less time sitting in traffic or a cramped suburban train.
Let’s just hope that Conroy’s beloved firewall doesn’t go up too
CORBIE68 - Conroy’s filter is already dead in the water after the Coalition decided to oppose it. I guess it slipped Crikey’s mind to mention that.
FARMERJOE - That’s also true. As I said, it’s a wonderful vision but it’s strictly for the haves - those who currently own homes in urban areas whose prices will rise to reflect the windfall - at the expense of the have-nots.
People are all ready to shake their fist at the haves, but they suddenly become smug when they are to be included in that group. The have-nots are mostly out of sight and out of mind, those who will need to buy homes in the future, mostly children and people not yet born. Just because the mechanism of the rip-off is not obvious, doesn’t make it any less real.
@POWERISNOT STRENGTH
As this goes on (or if it goes on) homes won’t be considered built until the power is on, the water connected, the gas connect and the fibre on. NBN now describes itself as broadband utility,not a network .
Yes, FarmerJoe, Trevor is right about the deal between NBN Co and Telstra: NBN Co’s fibre will be fed through Telstra’s existing “passive network assets” i.e. cable pits and ducts rather than having to dig new, separate trenches. A massive cost saving, even though NBN Co will continue to pay rent for that access.
As for backup power — yes, the CPE needs power — this is currently being envisaged as an optional extra. That is, if the customer wants backup power for the NBN connection, they can have it, but it won’t be standard. The rationale is that many people already have backup communications in the form of a mobile phone, so there’s no need for the expense of battery backup for everyone.
powerisnotstrength, greenfields developments will be required to roll out NBN fibre as part of their infrastructure they need to install along with electricity, water, storm water drains, sewerage, street lighting etc. They already have to do the telephone cabling, so it’s not that much different.
Crikey hasn’t done anything much on the internet filtering issue because, well, there’s only so many hours in the day. I daresay our wonderful editors will ask me or someone to write about that in due course. Personally, I wouldn’t call the policy completely dead yet. Certainly in yesterday’s debate Senator Conroy was still talking it up — though perhaps that’s just election-campaign bravado.
I have been following this for quite a while because it was of particular interest to me. On the battery thing the NBN as I understand it will use the same technology as we have now. I always thought it was an independent supply until I checked it out and found out about the battery thing. The present landline phones have a limited amount of time before the battery runs out or are replaced when there is a power blackout. I hadn,t realised it was temporary.
The filter which I always thought was bad policy will never fly with everyone bar labor against it so no hope in the senate. In any case it has been deferred for a few years but with the greens looking to have the balance of power it would be a waste of time putting it up for a vote.
Hah!
I just tried to access the Liberal Party’s broadband page at http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Infrastructure/Broadband.aspx
It came back with the message “Server is too busy”.
I then tried their “front page” at http://www.liberal.org.au/ . Same response!
What was that about real world bandwidth requirements and the like?
I wonder if they have the facilities to provide information by carrier pigeon?
@ powerisnotstrength The responsibility for developers of new sub divisions to provide services will be the same as it is now. The utilities go in and install the new infra structure and charge the developer for the privilege of them getting more customers.
As far as funding goes I will stand to be corrected if someone has better information but my understanding is:
1) If we assume the build cost is $43B the govt is not coughing up this amount but only $11B. NBN Co is then raising the rest through some sort of debt facility, probably bonds. The Govt may be offering a guarantee so NBN Co can get the money at a good rate but it will be NBN Co that will be servicing the debt. Obviously the debt would be taken on in tranches as sections are completed and revenues to service the debt are being generated.
2) I know this is very simplistic but if we assume that we need a ten percent ROC on the $43B and the NBN connects 10,000,000 premises. (Believe me this is not unreasonable). That equates to a monthly charge of $36. Not unreasonable for a wholesale charge for a 100Mbps connection I would think. I fully expect to get flamed by some amateur economists on this but sometimes it pays to keep it simple.
3) At sometime in the future NBN Co will be sold and I expect at a handsome profit to the long suffering tax payer. It will have to be sold with strict covenants on its operations so we do not end up with another monopolist squeezing out competitors but this could be done.
4) Upgrades expansions etc will be done by NBN Co as part of normal business & not funded by the govt. The govt may only be called on where there are small pockets of isolation that are un econmic to connect. Although this could also be managed through a scheme similar to the current USO whereby all carriers contribute to this fund.
The infrastructure will have a critical mass, when reached this is what will drive application developers and companies to make greater use of online business and operations. I am not sure what the critical mass is but once it is achieved we will be saying why did we not build this earlier.
I,m aware of the advantages that industry and GPS etc will get out of the NBN but my interest is more domestic. It annoys me greatly to be paying for phone rental when the only reason I have a landline is to access broadband. I use emails to keep in contact and if someone rings me they tend to use my mobile number for some reason. My phone bill always has as the highest component the rental and a few bucks for calls.
GP,s hospitals etc
@ROD - l live in the Illawarra, and the proposed area for the NBN is just ‘down the highway’from me - Kiama Downs and Minnamurra -it’s already in the discussion/education of residents stage, and should be implemented soon. I find the NBN an exciting and necessary inclusion in this country. We’re such a huge country and a long way from the rest of the world. My grandkids will need this for jobs, communication and a myriad of uses that we don’t even know about at this time.At last a govt that is thinking ahead, and using OUR money for our future! I think it’s essential! The $6-7 billion offered by the Opposition to “promote” the idea of a NBN?What will the ordinary person see or benefit out of that? A talk fest? And they scoff at the 150 people discussing climate change. At least that won’t WASTE so much money. I just want the govt to get on with it!
Tthe Coalition is not interested in spending our money on visionary programs/policies. They’re only interested in spending OUR money handing huge sums to big business. That’s why bridges, and rail and other essentials including education and health was neglected for almost 12 yrs? CEO’s increased their incomes by 150-300%, profits soared, cost of living increased by 40% over last 10 rs or so, but wages? Went backwards by 5% and women’s incomes are as far behind as they were in the 80’s? What can be seen for Howard’s 12 yrs? very little! At least the Labor govt has some vision!
Hah!
I just tried to access the Liberal Party’s broadband policy page
It came back with the message “Server is too busy”.
I then tried their “front page” . Same response!
What was that about real world bandwidth requirements and the like?
I wonder if they have the facilities to provide information by carrier pigeon?
(reposted without url’s because the original seems to have got “stuck” in “moderation)
STILGHERRIAN - Thank you for replying.
“Senator Conroy was still talking it up” - You know as well as I do that Sen Conroy is an idiot, who even sneered at the Productivity Commission’s gentle constructive suggestion to commission a cost-benefit analysis for the NBN.
“there’s only so many hours in the day” - What, just as there were only so many hours in the day when Crikey was leading the charge against the filter with daily full-length stories on it? Do you not think there is an element of partisan bias in Crikey’s sudden silence on the filter?
“greenfields developments will be required to roll out NBN fibre as part of their infrastructure they need to install along with electricity, water, storm water drains, sewerage, street lighting etc. They already have to do the telephone cabling, so it’s not that much different.”
Oversimplifying the arithmetic, and assuming that the NBN becomes the first major government project in Australian history to come in anywhere near its budget, $42 billion divided by 8 million homes represents 5,250 per home. Assume half of that is the retrofitting cost which, as you say, can be discounted in the cabling for new homes. Let’s say $2,500. Doesn’t sound too onerous at all, but that’s for the urban fringe. For more remote developments, the price could be what, ten times a much? Twenty?
What was wrong with the original FTTN plan — apart from some temporary problems Rudd was having with Telstra? People still could have got FTTP, they just would have had a choice to pay for it or not. Do we know what were the quotes in the original tender bids, before Rudd threw up his hands at the whole thing and became Father Christmas?
@ powerisnotstrength: The problem with FTTN was not technology I would think we could have got a quite reasonable network if the right design was chosen. The problem was Telstra & this was not a temporary problem, they were not going to give up control of the CAN and would just have been a huge beneficiary of the govt spend but retained ownership of the critical infra structure.
I have more than a sneeking feeling that although she could never admit it, Helen Coonan is secretly cheering on the govt over NBN. She tried and failed to bring Telstra to the table but did not have the backing to really take them on. The previous govt always blinked then crossed their fingers that Telstra would do the right thing only to be let down again after again.
TREVOR: You wrote:
“At sometime in the future NBN Co will be sold and I expect at a handsome profit to the long suffering tax payer. It will have to be sold with strict covenants on its operations so we do not end up with another monopolist squeezing out competitors but this could be done”
Isn’t this creating another Telstra? What happens if the government of the day is unable to broker agreement with NBN Co in future? Why couldnt the government put in place “strict covenants” over Telstra to co-operate with the NBN? Perhaps because labor’s business models are completely unfounded and no-one except the Telstra board has been privy to the NBN costings. Hmmm Telstra couldnt see it making money, but now bond issues will be taken up in NBN Co by all and sundry?
There are rumours that Labor plans to enforce compulsory investment by Superannuation Funds (retail, industry and SMSFs) into government managed infrastructure projects regardless of the investment returns acheivable? With so much money tied up in superannuation savings currently, it was only a matter of time before labor viewed this pool as a potential source of cash.
By defining the NBN as a “service” provider, labor has effectively removed the need for NBN Co to generate a market return on investment (keeps monthly access fees to an affordable level and losses are funded through further borrowing (bond issues). So why would any superannuation trustee want to invest in it? Because it will be tied to the fund’s SIS compliance - funding problems solved.
TREVOR - First thanks for your earlier reply. Your ROI and usage figures sound reasonable — assuming (a) the $43bn is accurate, (b) private investors are prepared to fund 3/4, and (c) you already own a home which will be included in the NBN rollout.
If (b) private investors are willing to fund 3/4, then what’s the material difference with government overcoming the capex hurdle (taking care of the “critical mass” you mentioned) by funding the original FTTN plan, and letting private investment take it from there? If it’s that good, people will want it, and telcos will fall all over each other to bring it to you for the best value. Competition would lead to more efficiency and optimization for local conditions.
But I’m not worried about existing home owners, they are the haves and they will be just dandy. I’m worried about the future. The current model of up-front infrastructure charges is unsustainable and has got to change. Sure, the FTTP plan fits in with the current model, but it’s a bad model and this will exacerbate it. Especially when there are alternatives (my three options above) which can solve that problem.
And finally, if the government is still having problems with Telstra and considering breaking it up, that does not bode well for future investors. Why would they trust what they read in the NBN Co investment prospectus?
Farmer joe
I noticed your question to 2bob has not been answered so I will have a go.
Could not the 20 odd billion dollars per year that Abbott plans to give back to the 75% foreign owned miners pay for it in a tad over 2 years?
I think it is a disgusting thing that Australian tax policy can be dictated to the Australian government by foreign owned corporations?
What do think about handing over such vast sums to foreigners? And do you think it is a good idea to give that money back given that as it stands the miners are still planing to invest heavily in more mines?
@BOLDENWATER
Hi, I agree with you, the deal struck with the three major players has left a great deal of uncertainty and expense to fall onto the smaller miners (most of them 100% Australian owned).
I think you will find the the $20b odd from the RSPT has already been spent.
Australian tax policy was not dictated by foreign owned corporations. The elected government of the day crumbled under lobbying pressure and an advertising campaign that was swinging support away from their tax policy. I think that is more a reflection on the strength and integrity of the government, not the foreign corporations.
Dont forget that foreign investment is what makes our economy tick (so we can afford to buy all the nice imported things and all that). Transfer pricing tax laws ensure that profits stay in the country and are taxed “at source”.
Oh, and the minerals actually belong to the States, not the feds.
powerisnotstrength & Farmerjoe: I believe the problem is retrospectivity in regard to placing covenants on Telstra. If NBN Co is sold in the future it will be sold with the covenants in place there should also be a restriction on how much another carrier may own.
It was high stakes with Telstra and it was either call their bluff which the gov did, nationalise them or give in & let them continue to dictate communications policy.
Unfortunately the seeds to this problem were sown when Telstra was sold as a virtual monopoly. It persisted with the view that it only had tolerate competition as long as it could dictate terms. Any solution to this problem was going to strip value from Telstra & I think that has now happened, just pity the poor buggers who bought in at over $6.00
With so much talk about ADSL2 and Wireless… I’m noticing that nothing is said about Cable internet. What’ll happen? Will that be upgraded or will we be stuck with 12-100mbits that we have now?
Farmer Joe
On mining the government did cave in to an advertising campaign that was patently false.
I think that is more a reflection on how easily the people of Australia can be misled by a scare campaign and also a reflection of who the coalition really do support.
And that is big corporations above the people of our country.
The whole telecommunications saga is a sad reflection upon the coalition.
Since privatisation we have seen our communications system slip from one of the best and cheapest in the world to one of the worst and most expensive.
And for what? So that the money we spend on our internal communications can be sent overseas. Or were you not aware that the vast majority of Telstra shares are held by foreign entities. The sale of Telstra is a blatant case of treason for which there is no justification what so ever or do you think that service and pricing has improved since privitisation and that it is good to give away our money to foreign investors for a service already owned and payed for by the Australian public?
Either way, we are all paying for a national fibre network of sorts in the long run. The questions come down to how comprehensive this network will be, when it will be in place, and which people will have access to it.
We have two options on the table:
1) Assimilate all of the current fibre infrastructure and build one government owned network that will lay out a national network then sell bandwidth on an equal footing to private service providers.
2) Give more subsidies to private telecos so that they might be incentivised to supply the minimum level of what constitutes broadband to people outside of CBDs. This money will be diffused by the fact that Optus, Telstra, and other providers must spend money on building and maintaining duplicate networks. $6 billion is just the beginning.
Under option one, we’re spending the money once for one network that is future proofed. Under option two we’re indirectly throwing money at private telecos who are wasting money by building uneven (often duplicated) infrastructure in cities and cutting corners on services they are forced to deliver to rural areas.
A fibre network is the highway system of the digital economy, and connecting every home to that highway will give our country a sorely needed competitive advantage.
JEEBUS - Duplication is just another word for competition. If it led to higher costs and lower quality compared to a single-provider monopoly, then we should be getting less value for money for cars, computers, mobile phones etc, than we would under the monopoly scenario.
That doesn’t mean state monopolies can’t make good use of mature technologies once they’ve arisen out of free markets, i.e. your option 1. My problem is the up-front cost to future developments exacerbating current problems, which spill outside the narrow issue of broadband provision. The problem is subtle but crippling. Solve that, by ensuring future population movement is not disadvantaged (i.e. by replacing up-front costs with property taxes) and I’ll be happy with option 1. Until then, it may be counter-intuitive but option 2 is the only one that’s really “future ready”.
Just when we thought the three amigos had gone with their loot along come another three amigos. Abbott, Hockey and Robb want to continue the Telstra intransigence of the first three amigos in thwarting a modern broadband for Australia. Their plan is a dogs breakfast that means we stay roughly the same as now but patchy improvements. Is it too much for them to admit they should never have sold Telstra as a single entity ? It was a monumental blunder or gross negligence to achieve a bigger sale price. Either way the Australian public lost out.
Well… two thoughts about all this.
1. A promise of “12Mbps to 100 Mbps” means 12Mbps. While that’s a good start, there needs to be a guarantee that the privateers responsible for this work will continually improve speeds once the network is in place. A guaranteed increase figure - say 15% increase in speeds per year after rollout (? I chose that because I know some networks here in the US are achieving such increases) - will be needed.
2. The coalition’s plan smacks of how things are done here in the US. And while some small pockets are doing well (for varying reasons), the country as a whole does deplorably on international scales of speed. Again, a guaranteed increase schedule, coupled with an investment commitment by the privateers, will be needed.
Oh - one quick additional thought. Yeah, I know that my 15% increase, over 8 years, from a 12Mbps base, barely gets you over 30Mbps at the end. That’s because in 8 years that’s a more realistic speed than 100Mbps *under the coalition’s policy*.
@GEOMAC - They shouldn’t have sold Telstra full stop! How has the country benefited? Better service?More competition? Why should people buy shares in a company that belonged to all of us in the first placc. THE PROFITs should’ve been spent on more services for the people - for education, medicine, business, leisure, communication etc.
I worked for Testra when it was the PMG, we even manufactured telephones in those days - in Australia. Most ‘adult’ countries have the sense and maturity to own their own communications network. What would the coalition sell next? Not much left to flog off! If they get in, their 6-7 billion re broadband will just be handouts to their mates -it’ll just vaporise!
Has everyone forgot the millions paid each week by Howard & Co to the bloke who owned ABC child care centres, or Howard’s mate in the Ethanol industry, or the monies wasted on IT in the Parliament during his reign. What program/policy/achievement/s of any real value did Howard leave for the country?Then balance it against wars and the pacific solution and the grief over WorstChoices? How many marriages broke up due to his policies?How much stress and illnesses did he cause? I’ve just about had enough of his ‘saintly’ presence! Abbott would just put his own brand on new cockups, and waste our money, with nothing to show for it and a nation left behind the rest of the world! Very depressing!
@Powerisnotstrength - Access to quality essential infrastructure is what separates the developed world from the developing world, and is one of the foundations necessary to build a competitive capitalist economy.
Countries like China and Germany are thriving because their governments are willing to invest in infrastructure that allows private enterprise to flourish. In the US and UK, where this responsibility has been delegated to private industry, there are profitable islands of modernity surrounded by seas of creaking underinvestment.
When you’re talking about infrastructure like water pipes, power lines, roads, and fibre networks, duplication is wasteful and inefficient, and the massive capital investments required to get started act as an overwhelming barrier to competition. This leads to the inevitable formation of monopolies and oligopolies.
The state is compelled by the voters to offer a consistent service to everyone, but private monopolies must be compelled by the state to service unprofitable customers, and usually do so to the barest minimum.
Regardless of which government is elected this year, I would urge all political parties to realise the importance of an ambitious national plan to build the infrastructure for our digital economy.
Rudd and Conways broadband plan was estimated to cost $4 billion, then $13.7 billion, now $43 billion, what will the price be when its rolled out?
Wow, a wonderfully healthy discussion here!
@powerisnotstrength: There was nothing “wrong” with the 2007 FTTN plan when compared with FTTP in terms of technology, it’s just cheaper/slower. As someone said already, at that time the issue was Telstra granting / leasing access to the cable pits and ducts. When the plan was revised into the NBN it became FTTP, and then later Telstra’s management changed and they negotiated a lease for access to their ducts.
That said my understanding is that the issue of deciding to lay the fibre all the way wasn’t entirely that. It was more “If we’re going to re-built the CAN then we might as well do it properly once and for all”. This is why I say it’s about a choice of vision and how far ahead you want to plan and build. There are arguments either way.
Obviously another key issue is the public money versus private money thing but that, as they say, is a whole ‘nuther story…
On Crikey covering the internet filter, well, the main people writing about that issue these last 2.5 years have been me and Bernard Keane. I can reassure you that both of us continue to believe the mandatory filter policy to be deeply flawed. However as Canberra Correspondent he’s covering all election issues right now, and as a freelancer I have to juggle commitments and between Friday and now there hasn’t been the time in my schedule.
There’s certainly no Crikey Conspiracy to silence the topic. Indeed, I’ll run the point past our delightful editors and see whether a story might be forthcoming.
@geomac: The fact that you have to have a phone account to get a copper wire for the internet was always Telstra’s fault. For them, copper = phone, and you had to have that before any other services were available. Now it’s possible to get “naked DSL” from some retailers, which is just a copper wire for DSL but no analog voice service on that line.
Because the NBN plan separates the wholesale and retail operations, you’ll be able to choose whatever retail packages are on offer, and some will doubtless include internet only with no voice phone. The retail provider then just pays NBN Co the relevant wholesale price for using the fibre.
Personally, I expect retail providers to offer all sorts of creative options. Perhaps “a bunch of TV and movie hires” as a package, plus access to Skype, YouTube and Facebook, all using one of those fancy new digital TVs but no computer as such.
@Robertson: When you say that “Rudd and Conway’s broadband plan was estimated to cost $4 billion, then $13.7 billion, now $43 billion, what will the price be when its rolled out?” you do need to consider that they’re very, very different things being costed there. That said, whether the current cost for the current plan is accurate is one of the most important questions here.
Indeed, that’s the point the Coalition will be hammering hard. The punters don’t know anything about the technical differences of the networks. Hence the lead paragraph of my article: the Coalition song is that old reliable tune “Labor spends, we’re responsible”. Good propaganda technique: reinforce an existing stereotype. Personally I reckon they’ll do well with that message.
@ROBERTSON…it’s CONROY not Conway! Howard didn’t understand broadband, didn’t believe the ‘science’; Son of Howard aka Phoney Tony doesn’t get it either, no surprises there - and probably doesn’t believe the ‘science’ - does he believe in any ‘science’? Surely what we want are people who not only ‘get IT’, but get the need to setup Australia and our kids for a brighter FUTURE - re-living the past in 2010/11 does not qualify for a brighter future.
Australians surely can’t be serious about voting for neanderthal people like this all ‘wrapped’ up in a ‘glossy’ business party wrapper called Liberals - about as ‘liberal’ as the Catholic Party…Oops…Church. Remember the wasted opportunities of the Howard 10 dark years….surely we have ALL moved on from red-necks like these neo-cons - ‘straight’ talking empty headed hairy-chested con-men? A deep understanding of ‘how things work’ is what we need and clearly pollies with that DNA ‘line’ can’t cope.
@ Spare Us
Yes that is the spin, but what about the cost that has blown out 10 times already. On this basis it will be well over $100 billion within 5 years.
Can you guarantee the cost wont increase
One matter that hasn’t received much comment is the Liberal claim that their approach will be faster to implement than the Labor and Greens approach.
I’ve finally managed to get through to the Liberal policy website and it turns out that although the policy claims that “by 2016 Australia achieves a national broadband baseline with 97 percent of premises able to be served by high-speed networks, using a combination of technologies including DSL, fixed wireless and other technologies such as Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC)” it also indicates that their own much more limited “fibre optic ‘backbone’” won’t be in place until 2017.
Given this, is there really any truth in their claim that their approach will be quicker to run out?
There have been quite a few misinformed media reports about how the NBN is “just another government monopoly” as if it is a vertically integrated telecomms company and not a wholesale entity.
Can anyone point to any of the original reports about how the government will limit individual shareholders to something like 20% each when the NBN is eventually sold off.
I recall this announcement or information released at around the same time describing how potential shareholders could offer their own infrastructure into the NBN in exchange for some ownership, and how if existing companies had similar optical core network infrastructure then it seemed possible that competitive pressure would drive them to accept less for their infrastructure in terms of NBN shareholding (because there was no advantage in owning something that the NBN already owned). There were also suggestions that the 43B cost figure was more of an upper bound.
@ROBERTSON….If you can believe the NBN Co boss the Government outlay will not be $43 billion - more like $22 billion. If they can Mums and Dads silly to buy T4 shares they will get some or most of that back. If we translate/invest our billions earned from digging big holes in Australia in this new transforming infrastructure - compare it to trains and aeroplanes of earlier Nation building transformations - then that is a worthwhile capex for the Nation’s budget.
The billions and billions squandered on ‘lollies and ice creams’ gets us very ‘obese’ people. This technology is the FUTURE and we need to invest serious money in transporting ourselves there - not going to happen with a Phoney Tony ‘lite’ version which he just doesn’t understand or believe in - you gotta believe in things to put the effort in and tolerate the ‘pain’.
There’s no doubt that the NBN is a superior plan, although I still have some doubt given the way technology is evolving so rapidly. What’s impossible today is possible tomorrow, and the NBN locks us into one means of delivery. With wireless achieving extraordinary speeds on the bench, how long before it becomes mainstream? Will the NBN become a white elephant that nobody wants or needs due to some technological breakthrough that could feasibly happen before it’s even switched on? After all ADSL through copper at the speeds we enjoy today was a pipedream until the boffins cracked it. Wish I had a crystal ball.
I understand more than most, but I think a lot of people just take the promises on face value with no understanding of the details. Take @Rod Hagen in the comments above who clearly thinks the fact that whoever hosts the Libs site is overloaded has something to do with bandwidth with the inference that the NBN will sort it. One has exactly zero to do with the other.
Bottom line though is that I simply don’t trust them to deliver it. The rorts are already in with mates being given top jobs without proper process.
Stilgherrian, I think you mean FTTP not FTTN in paras 14 & 15; should be: “FTTP also has the potential to run symmetrically”, “Labor’s NBN is about completely replacing the copper CAN with FTTP”, “FTTP is an expensive infrastructure build”. Your points make sense for both, but Labor’s initial plan was FTTN and the current plan is FTTP. Maybe we need new acronyms: FATW (fibre all the way) vs HFHC (half fibre half copper)
“Labor says its National Broadband Network will deliver internet speeds 10 times faster than first thought, at 1 gigabit per second.”
Game-changer or hot air?
Tasmania is switching on it’s fibre network today……
It will provide INITIAL speeds of 100mbs, but already Mr Quigley CEO NBN has stated that new technology will allow speeds of 1gigabit/s…..that’s 10000mbs.
Now, if Tasmania is the ONLY state in Australia to get this amazing technology, we will have another 2 speed economy to rival the mining industry led economy in WA…….
Remember, this is true “Nation Building” infrastructure…………the cost to this nation if we DON’T build it, will far and away exceed ANY cost required to build it now…
It appears that Tony Abbott is quite prepared to completely waste more than $6 billion dollars trying to get 19th Century copper wire to do what it will NEVER do……….unless he knows something about the laws of physics that no one else knows. This means that the optical fibre network will have to be built several years down the track, at several times the current cost………now THAT’S waste.
His proposed Broadband Network has been described as …..” a Ferrari pulled by a carthorse”……..I would describe it as a …….Holden EJ pulled by a donkey. We all know who the donkey is…………
You are misunderstanding me @CID,
I was actually simply having a dig at the fact that at the time a major political party in the middle of an election campaign claims that we can get by with a patch-up system of bibs and bobs and launches its “policy”, its own servers are apparently unable to cope with demand! Not exactly a good advert for their capabilities in the IT area!
Apologies Rod, I guess I’m just used to most of this debate being undertaken by people who don’t know what they’re on about. At least Tony Abbott puts his hand up and says so! You’re right, not a good look. This forum is a breath of fresh air with considered, reasonable questions and good answers.
I’d be very interested to know, given that Abbott admits to little understanding of it, who wrote this policy and what their qualifications are to do so.
After the micromanagement of Rudd, I don’t mind a leader saying they don’t understand a complex policy but I would like to know who in the inner sanctum does. Just as I don’t mind a leader saying they’re not a surgeon or a teacher or an Army General, unlike many sniggering at Abbott’s less than tight grasp of the ins and outs of this one, I have no issue with him essentially saying he’s not a network engineer. But I would like to know the surgeon advising hospital policy, the teacher advising education policy, the General advising defence policy …
It’s a whole other debate, but you have to tie the NBN, even if it does get built (which as stated I don’t trust them to do) with the rest of their net policy which is one of secret censorship and mandatory collection of information. Delivering government-approved content really fast. Disappointing as it is, I’ll take the 12MBs free over 100MBs of government approved and monitored information.
@FATW: You’re 100% right. I hate fat fingers. And I’m amazed no-one picked up that glaring set of errors until now. I’ve asked the web editor to fix those paragraphs.
To clarify, yes, Labor’s NBN is FTTP, Fibre to the PREMISES, i.e. all the way, not just to the node as in FTTN. This is indeed a key point.
MARKJS: “Remember, this is true “Nation Building” infrastructure…………the cost to this nation if we DON’T build it, will far and away exceed ANY cost required to build it now… “
Say no more, do no cost-benefit analysis, price is no object. It sure would be wonderful to have high speed internet. It would also be wonderful to have a very fast train up the east coast and a fast train to the other cities, regional freight rail networks with road-rail exchange hubs and warehouses, ports with excess capacity, trains in the cities which go faster than walking pace, and some of these new power stations we apparently need to save the world.
Which of these is the more urgent priority? Julia Gillard is great at promising the world to voters who jump up and down saying “I want, I want.” Tony Abbott is like the party-pooper dad talking about boring things like money, priorities, and compromises, so the children poke faces at him.
@POWERISNOTSTRENGTH: “It sure would be wonderful to have high speed internet. It would also be wonderful to have a very fast train up the east coast and a fast train to the other cities, regional freight rail networks with road-rail exchange hubs and warehouses, ports with excess capacity, trains in the cities which go faster than walking pace, and some of these new power stations we apparently need to save the world.”
Indeed it would , P.I.N.S, but unfortunately the Howard government took a conspicuously short sighted view on anything we actually needed of this kind, just so Costello could continue to claim the highly questionable virtues of always having a “surplus”. Don’t know about you, but as a Dad, I know its not wise to give in to the whims of clamouring children. On the other hand, however, it pays in the long run to make sure that the house has efficient rain gutters, good drains, even a bit of an extension from time to time so that all the kids don’t have to share the same bedroom as they grow up, even if it means borrowing a bit from time to time to do so.
Unfortunately Abbott appears to follow the old Howard approach to such things. “I’ll probably only be in the job for a decade at best, so let the next silly blighter take care of the maintenance and repairs”!
If you want to rake over old coals, it’s a bit more complicated. Had Costello not spent ten years shoring up our finances, paying off the last of net government debt in FY05-06, we would have entered the GFC in much more on a level with some of those southern European countries people are now looking down their noses at.
In which case, instead of now discussing how big a next-generation broadband plan we want, we would be trying to explain to the IMF how we are going to maintain solvency in the next few years. If you think Rudd’s and Swan’s economic genius would have saved us from that, you’re mistaken.
The biggest economic mistake of Howard’s time wasn’t spending or not spending; it was to distort the fiscal self-sufficiency of the states in the way GST revenue was handed back to them (see Ross Garnaut, p7). This passed up an opportunity to make them fiscally responsible for their own development and continued the old state-federal blame games. That’s why we don’t have the infrastructure we need.
P.I.N.S : Had Costello not spent ten years shoring up our finances…we would have entered the GFC in much more on a level with some of those southern European countries people are now looking down their noses at.
That is one way of looking at it, P.I.N.S. The alternative view is that if Costello had not been so obsessed with this we would have been ten years further down the track when it comes to Infrastructure maintenance and development, and ancilliary processes such as skills development, and that this, in turn, would have put us in a stronger position still to deal with the GFS.
Regardless , we certainly can’t afford to dither about this stuff any longer.
@ Rod Hagen
Yes mate, everyone forgets, the Coalition inherited $96 billion in Keating Labor debt in 1996, left office with a $20 billion surplus in 2007 and already Rudd and Gillard have a bigger debt exposure than Keating left in 1996.
Gillard, Rudd and Swan would be sacked if Company Directors or CEO’s. But as we all know they have never run anything that returns a surplus, so have zero experience.
………”Which of these is the more urgent priority? Julia Gillard is great at promising the world to voters who jump up and down saying “I want, I want.” Tony Abbott is like the party-pooper dad talking about boring things like money, priorities, and compromises, so the children poke faces at him…….”
Think this statement rather trivialises what is arguably the largest and most important piece of infrastructure for this country, P.I.N.S.
My point is that there is ZERO chance of any business consortium in this country EVER building a high speed broadband network in this country………it just isn’t going to happen and you know it……So why let Abbott and his bunch of Neanderthals squander $6 Billion Dollars of our money on almost obsolete telecommunications equipment for almost ZERO benefit???
Major infrastructure projects such as the NBN cannot be viewed in the same way as other business proposals in regard to cost/benefit analysis……..many of the benefits won’t be clear until the NBN is completed……..That’s one of the reasons it the DUTY of govt. to build it.
However, even to a 61yr old retiree like me, it’s crystal clear what will happen to this country and our childrens/grandchildrens future if we don’t get the NBN built. Some of the more obvious benefits to accrue if we do proceed with the NBN include:
* The greater democratisation of information sharing and distrubution.
* The ability to take a whole classroom to many places of learning both interstate and overseas in the blink of an eye and allow real time exchange of knowledge and ideas…
* To assist in overcoming the tyranny of distance in this country by allowing people in regional areas to work from home…….to receive instant assistance in times of need…….to have a medical consultation in real time where both the doctor/nurse and their patient can discuss medical issues in real time…..
* To address the pressing issues of immigration and overcrowding by making it more attractive and practical for small business to set up in regional and rural areas. Thus attracting more people to settle there….
* Accessing smart electricity grids so that our homes are provided with the cheapest electricity at any time during the day/night….
The list is only as long as the limit of our imagination. These wonderful benefits to our great country are within our grasp………lets not go back to the last century……or the one before that……
It is very hard to give a short and precise description, in layman terms, of the NBN and its technology whatever form it takes.
I will give it a try.
Fibre has almost unlimited capacity where a single strand (Core) can be made to carry 10.000Gb/s (Expensive) without to much trouble. It is all up to the equipment at each end. Fibre links are typically symmetrical but do not have to be.
Coax cable also has a very high capacity but in a practice such cables are generally limited to a certain frequency range due to the signal loss at high frequencies versus distance. The coax component of the HFC networks would typically go from 5Mhz to 1000Mhz with a large portion of that used for TV and Pay TV services. It is still possible to carry over 300Mb/s on each node. HFC is always asymmetrical with a maximum upstream of around 100Mb/s.
HFC can be used to provide phone services too. All upstream and downstream bandwidth needs to be shared between users. The number of users on each node dictate what speeds they can get. Expanding the number of channels used can increase total throughput but there is a practical limit due to other services on the cable.
Phone cables (Pairs) are typically “bundled” in 10, 20, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 500 or more, depending on where you are in the network. Every home is connected through an exclusive pair to the telephone exchange. When you approach the exchange, your pair will be one of thousands in a large bundle.
DSLAM equipment is connected to the pair as well as the Public Switched Network, enabling phone calls to be made and Internet to be accessed through the ADSL. Most DSL connections are asymmetrical although symmetrical services exist (Business grade). ADSL are at best 24Mb/s down and 2Mb/s up. SHDSL is up to 4 or 5Mb/s on 1 copper pair. It is possible to bundle pairs to achieve higher throughput on SHDSL or ADSL but it requires more pairs and ports on the DSLAM. To increase speeds and achieve higher throughput the DSLAM ports need to come closer to the end user (Fibre to the node).
Common for all DSL based technologies is the drop-off of throughput once you exceed 400-500 metres of copper. The drop-off is also very dependent on the type of copper cable in place (The gauge) and the general properties and age of the cable.
Fibre to the home uses fibre all the way. There are 2 topologies used, one is where each home has an individual fibre strand back to the node and one where optical taps are used along a fibre, allowing more users to “share” a fibre. Running a dedicated fibre to each home is more expensive due to the need to use many more fibres, the advantage is a high flexibility.
Using GPON fibre deployments generally mean having up to 32 users per node with 2.88Gb/s shared between the users. Downstream is “always on” just like in HFC but the upstream is “chopped up” in time slices so each user (Home) gets a slice at a time. This multiplexing is so fast that it does not affect the user. The technology is so flexible that it allows QOS handling and upload speeds up to 2.88Gb/s although many GPON networks are set up with 1.44Gb/s upload only.
Unlike HFC and copper, the fibre speeds can easily be upgraded by replacing the customer ONT (Termination unit) in the home and the node transmitter at the other end. There is no need to replace the fibre.
Regardless of what network topology is chosen i.e. how the customer gets connected, there needs to be a backbone network that carries the customer traffic, just like free-ways connect major destinations and large feeder roads connect the smaller roads and streets that end up at the homes people live in.
The backbone network needs to be improved and expanded to a capacity capable of connecting everyone to everyone and the World at large. It needs to be built in fibre, there is no other practical or cost effective way of doing it.
The Telstra copper network is degrading in many areas and will need to be repaired/replaced. This deterioration will slowly spread through the network as time goes by. In addition, loading up the copper network with ever increasing speeds (Using DSL technologies) is causing other issues related to adjacent copper pair interference. Through my work in the area we are already seeing the impact of this by increasing difficulty finding a “clean” copper pair that will give even modest speeds reliably. Pushing the very high speeds on copper also requires the users to be much closer to the DSLAM equipment, this is more akin to the Fibre to the Node proposals of the past.
From a strictly technical perspective there really is only one choice. That is fibre to the home or premises.
Trying to get the copper network to do the job is a very short sighted solution and it would only buy us a few years before it proves to have reached its end of life.
The much touted wireless alternative is also suffering from limitations in available spectrum. It is almost impossible to get much more out of wireless without increasing spectrum. In Australia there is precious little spectrum available and expanding this can only happen in 3-4 years when analogue TV is switched off. Even with high speeds of say 100Mb/s per tower (Node) there would be many more people on the tower than you would typically get on say the HFC network. More towers would be needed and they would all need a backbone.
People in the debate also need to consider that an NBN, whatever form it takes, is not just a glorified high speed porn download enabler or a vehicle for pirated software/movie downloads.
There are a number of great things that can be done on a network like this, think the power grid.
Personally I think it is a lot of money to spend but I would rather do it now instead of the half baked short-sighted solutions that have been proposed. If managed properly, there is no reason why we can not build such a network.
Consider this an investment like building the power grid, roads or railways.
Just my 2 cents worth of input.
@MARKJS, please understand I’m not having a go here, and before anyone accuses me of being a luddite I am a web developer of about 10 years experience, so I’ve been around.
I keep hearing this scenario and lines like “…what will happen to this country and our childrens/grandchildrens future if we don’t get the NBN built.” But you, like others, fail to put together any coherent reason as to what will happen to this country or how we’ll squander our children’s future without it.
- “The greater democratisation of information sharing and distribution”… how so? Will households who can’t afford the mortgage have the gear at the end of the fibre to contribute or will it remain a resource “for everyone else”? Where will they get the monthly fee to access it? And what happens if the govt of the day, like this one, doesn’t like what’s being shared and distributed? Will they, like this one, just censor it?
- Classrooms getting a real time sharing of knowledge and ideas… if this were to occur on a widespread basis (as opposed to unis etc where it’s already commonplace), I can see a state govt much like NSW justifying 1000 student virtual classrooms or doing away with classrooms altogether and everyone does it from home. Except for households like those mentioned above.
- Regional residents working from home and getting instant assistance and doctors on call in hour home without leaving theirs… all sounds good, but it takes me two weeks to see my local GP and I’m in one of the more affluent areas of Sydney, where there’s a six hour wait at the local public hospital that hasn’t had maternity services for months and now propose they’re going to bring it back with just midwives, no doctors. SO, who’s going to man this instant assistance?
- Making it more attractive to settle and work in regional areas… except for the most regional of regionals, you can do that now. I work with a largeish web based business based in Sawtell.
- Smart electricity grids use a tiny amount of bandwidth. You can do that on a 1.5MBs connection and not even notice it.
And as for “… ZERO chance of businesses doing it themselves”? Internode, my ISP, are based in Adelaide and are currently providing 100MBs FTTP cable to a bunch of new housing developments. Nothing to do with the NBN.
And if you have the business to justify it, anyone can get 100MBs today. Just costs a bit more to do it yourself.
My point is that nobody has convinced me that the govt must do this (with the possible exception of uneconomical regional sites) and even if they do, what the REAL benefit is beyond video on demand. Does Korea or any of the other countries that we’re apparently eating the dust of, have any business or social benefit that we don’t have? Where are their revolutionary leaps forward that are only enabled by their fast broadband and what are they?
And remember, the cable is just one part of the puzzle. We still have to pay to access it and have the gear to use it.
Thanx for that TUX………it’s very clear from what you say that Optical Fibre is the ONLY feasible option if we want to participate fully with others in the digital economy……
……………………………………….THE FUTURE IS FIBRE!!!…………………………………………………….
CID……………you must admit you do sound a bit like a Luddite…..:-)
I’m not going to get involved in a circular and completely unproductive debate withyou………I’ll leave that to our Pollies………..they get well paid for it, and I’m living on a moderate fixed income…
However, I’m not about to dismiss your concerns out of hand either. They are obviously strongly held views……..
I’ll just ask you this question………would you rather drive your car from Adelaide to Melbourne along a well maintained freeway………or a series of unsealed country roads maintained by local councils (or private enterprise) where you have to pull over to let the oncoming traffic get past….??
Regards, markjs
Fair enough MARKJS, maybe I’ve just become the most jaded and cynical of geeks! And I wouldn’t call them strongly held views, I just can’t get anyone to tell me WHY?! I understand the technical side, and completely understand what TUX has to say, but I still don’t understand why WE have to spend this enormous amount of money, especially now, when there are such higher priorities.
And to answer your hypothetical, my level of tolerance would be dependant on why I’m going to Melbourne. If it’s for business and I can justify paying for the existing gorgeous piece of road with no one on it that already runs parallel with the one I’m stuck on, I will, no matter who built or runs it. If it’s such a good business, hell, I’ll build my own road. To torture the analogy, depending on where I start and finish I can have it done in about a week because I only need the back streets to get me to the existing superhighway anyway.
If on the other hand I’m going to a movie, then I’ll find one closer to home or not go or find another way of getting there without demanding that the government, at great cost, get me to Inception quicker. (Great movie by the way, highly recommended.)
MARKJS: “arguably the largest and most important piece of infrastructure for this country”
I agree it’s up there with the large and important pieces of infrastructure. Not so sure about the superlatives. It may amaze some readers, but not everyone in the country wants to live their whole life online, some people still need to move around. Our transport arrangements — not just commuter transport which everyone moans about but freight transport which is the real ball-and-chain of this country — are the equivalent of fetching water from the river every day in buckets instead of building a reservoir and pipeline.
I agree that high speed broadband will open up great economic potentials, many of which we can’t even guess yet. (At the same time I know that many of the younger supporters are looking forward to getting subsidized movie downloads and gaming.) But when the marginal shopping centres begin to close down and more commerce is done online, someone’s still going to have to physically deliver those goods to you. And there are still a lot of Australians who live most of their life outdoors and will use the internet for little more than email, banking, and light reading.
“there is ZERO chance of any business consortium in this country EVER building a high speed broadband network in this country”
True. But this is not an all-or-nothing question. If government built a FTTN network like the original plan, it would be a very different story. Telcos would tear each other to pieces in their haste to bring that capacity the rest of the way to households at the best possible value. Stilgherrian and Trevor imply that this is impossible because of continuing Telstra intransigence over its CAN.
Amazing: the ACCC can basically nationalize the rights to Goldsworthy and Robe railways built privately by BHP and Rio, forcing them to give up the very competitive advantage that motivated them to build those railways in the first place. And yet its response to a bluff by Telstra — in relation to an asset it inherited from the taxpayer — is to up the stakes by around $30 billion. And then to do a whole lot of financial hand-waving and say the taxpayer will even make a profit from the resale of NBN. Pardon me but governments are there for the things that are not profitable, not for the things that are profitable.
“To address the pressing issues of immigration and overcrowding by making it more attractive and practical for small business to set up in regional and rural areas. Thus attracting more people to settle there”
I appreciate the replies to my concerns (above) about financial hurdles for new developments that come after the NBN rollout. I remain unconvinced, and I believe those hurdles would be alleviated if the node-to-premises stage were left to private competition. We would still have all the futuristic advantages you describe, and better value for money.
ROD HAGEN: Yet another way of looking at it is that Commonwealth Bank has just reported a $6 billion cash profit and the Big Four between them may report a total $20 billion profit.
If you google my humble blogs, I’ve been claiming for some time that the government stimulus was done largely for the benefit of the Big Four banks, while the media and the public have been looking the other way at the miners. Classic misdirection, the oldest trick in the book, even down to the bogus CPRS which was designed to have a high chance of failing to get passed. Yes, I accuse them of doing it deliberately, because the banks are extremely influential when it comes to financial commentary on government porformance. Guess who’s paying for all those billions of bank profit?
Here’s the link I meant to put in for that story.
@ROBERTSON: Gillard, Rudd and Swan would be sacked if Company Directors or CEO’s. But as we all know they have never run anything that returns a surplus, so have zero experience.
Rubbish, Robertson. Firstly, one might note, making a “profit” is not what good government is all about. It is about ensuring that the needs of the Australian people are met.
Secondly, if most companies had the same “debt to assets” ratio that Australia has they’d be singing their praises, not sacking ‘em!
P.I.N.S,
While I think you are completely wrong with your conspiracy theory, I couldn’t agree more about the need to rein in the banks. The only party that has the guts to say so is The Greens. It is one of a number of reasons why I’ll be voting for them.
Another, comparatively minor, one, to get back a tad more on topic, is that their policy addresses the problem that CID has with internet censorship while retaining the vision of the NBN.
@ Rod Hagen
Rubbish - a good government at least has a balanced budget or a surplus. Governments that rack up huge deficient lead to more problems, just look at the issues the USA and Europe are in. There is a huge chance of a another recession in the northern hemisphere and our government is wasting taxpayer funds all over the place.
I am for targetted stimulus, but not gross mismanagment and waste.
Why is it every time we have had Labor Federal Governments in the last 50 years we have had large deficits? As for NSW Labor, what a joke here, I suppose you defend them as well?
P.I.N.S………….I can’t even begin to get past your cynism regarding the Govt and the Big Four banks, so I won’t even try……:-) However, what I can say is I share your obvious dislike for them and I am a great believer in community banks and cooperative building societies…….also, I have to admit that I sighed with relief when the Govt stepped in to guarantee my moderate investment in a Term Deposit a/c with Suncorp to supplement my super…………
….”Will households who can’t afford the mortgage have the gear at the end of the fibre to contribute or will it remain a resource “for everyone else”? Where will they get the monthly fee to access it?”
CID…….I personally can’t live with your level of cynicism either (no effence intended, but I have a little more faith in our system of Govt…….especially when I consider the alternatives around the world)…..I have done a little reseach to try and answer your questions contained in the above quotes…
* I live in Willunga, South Australia. You may be aware that my small regional town of approx 1000 residents is one of five initial start-up sites in Australia (see the NBN website for details)…workers from Millicent have been working in our town for several weeks, laying the fibre-optic cable. They have finished laying the one which passes our home……..All residents have received an invitation to have a FREE street - premises cable and associated hardware installed.
* iinet (Tasmania) are offering FREE connection/FREE in house cabling/and FREE modem….Link: http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/…..There is no doubt that these prices will drop as uptake improves and competiton puts downward pressure on prices.
* At present I am receiving 1.5mps ADSL via TPG for $60.00/m + Telstra phone line for $30.00/m. Although Telstra have been offering their over-priced ADSL2+ via our exchange for approx 1 year……..my ISP has been unable to to get access to the exchange to install their hardware and can’t tell me when they will be able to offer it to me.
Sorry…..here’s the link again…….http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/
ROD HAGEN: “… the old Howard approach to such things. “I’ll probably only be in the job for a decade at best, so let the next silly blighter take care of the maintenance and repairs’ ”
Yeah, a bit like the Labor approach: “I’ll probably only be in the job for a decade at best, so let the Libs pick up the tab, pay off the debt, and take all the resentment for not being Father Christmas with their own money.”
@ROBERTSON:Rubbish - a good government at least has a balanced budget or a surplus. Governments that rack up huge deficient lead to more problems, just look at the issues the USA and Europe are in.
Labor are NOT racking up a “huge deficit”. The current Australian deficit is trivial. That, really is the critical point. We spent enough to keep things rolling (and could in reality have done so whether we had Keating’s little deficit or Costello’s little surplus in place). Most other countries wish they had followed our lead. They spent too little , too late and now they have to spend one heck of a lot more to get back to anywhere near square one. They have been far, far, less successful at managing this stuff than the current Australian Government has.
Today’s employment figures make this even plainer. I dread to think where we would be today if Costello or , goodness forbid, Abbott, had been in control.
I suspect that Hockey (looking a little sad on the 7.30 Report, but probably considering his options given his hatred of Abbott after tonight’s Morgan result) knows this just as well as you and I do
@Rod Hagen
Borrowing $100 million a day, with the interest cost that brings is an issue.
Thats why they did a grab on the Mining industry, that they then had to back down and change. Then just talking to the three biggest miners (2 of which are overseas miners), ignoring the issues that left for the other miners in Australia that are caught in this tax trap.
What was that there Morgan result Rod?
@Rod Hagen
) but he sure knows how to blow his own trumpet by spinning yarns.
You mentioned the unemployment figures. Are you aware that when adjusted to reflect ‘reduced hours’ and part time job reductions the true under-employment figure is more like about 11% at the moment (based on equivalent annualised hours).
I realise that unemployment of 5.3% looks good on the surface of things, but not if you are one of the many part-timers/casuals trying to eek out extra hours just to make ends meet.
Wayne Swan may not be able to calculate 12 x 14 or 9 x 36 (see his radio interview
Business confidence at all time lows currently and dodgied up employment figures….. hmm, makes me nervous.
APEMAN: “What was that there Morgan result Rod?”
Labor 57.5% Lib / Nat 42.5% 2PP
Primaries Labor 43% Lib/Nat 37% Green 15%
(It is inflated for Labor, of course, as Morgan always is. Probably equates to %52 to 53% 2PP for Labor in the “real world”.
The poll was taken on the weekend, before Gillard’s Q& A performance and before the coalition announced their “internet via string phone and bean can” policy.
@MARKJS - What’s wrong with having a really good public transport system? A fast train from Mebourne to Adelaide would be much better! Help remove our lust for oil! We’re lucky if the federal govt spends a third of the taxes they get from petrol for example on roads? The rest goes into ‘kitty’ - probably pays for big business not paying the taxes they should! They’re virtually allowed to get away with it. The Howard govt was more diligent in going after Centrelink recipients, when their crimes collectively only add up to millions, while business and wealthy individuas owe us billions?
“The broadband battle: what will they really deliver? “
As little as possible.
These are election promises..
There are actually a few sensible comments on Bolt’s blog about broadband, although they are few and are between.
This one is from a regional business owner -
“I’m running a web-based training company in a regional area. If I, like many other businesses, can get access to the NBN and actually communicate with individuals at home then I will have turbo-charged my business. Not just here but overseas as well. I will be employing a lot of people and bringing a lot of overseas money to Australia.
When the last rock is dug out of Australia and sold overseas who is going to make money? It will be businesses like my own that will be making the money for Australia.
Time to get with the program people - trust those that know that fibre is the technology of the foreseeable future - the speed is only limited by the hardware at each end - and the possibilities are only limited by our imagination. How many experts do we need to trot out to demonstrate what a bloody good idea this is?
Time to get with the program and get excited about the future. All you are seeing is the negative risk but the positive risk is off the richter scale. “
Well done that man!
ANGRA - There’s some truth in that, but you cannot run a whole economy in virtual. People do not eat megabites for breakfast, they eat food which is moved around by trucks. If you run an online store, the goods you sell will have to be sent by truck. Architects can send mockups of CAD/CAM houses to customers, but somebody’s still got to freight in some bricks - on a truck - and build the thing before it will keep any rain off. People do sometimes switch off the computer and step outside.
I agree with LIZ45. Both internet and physical transportation are important, but the latter is the real ball-and-chain that’s holding this country back. Fibre internet is a part of the future, but we have a backlog of real-world development to catch up with first. The first priority for internet is to bring the regional areas up to speed with the cities. That Ferrari in the window looks great, but a Holden will do the job.
Then there’s the energy and pollution question which people with short attention spans keep drumming about. The greatest moral challenge of our time, wasn’t it? Priority number one … except when we’re distracted by that Ferrari in the window. There’s a report released today saying Australia could convert entirely to renewable energy over ten years with existing technology. The cost? $37 billion every year for ten years, plus another $92 billion of cabling. That’s $462 billion altogether. Should give you some idea of the scale of the shopping list people are demanding. Do you really need that Ferrari?
By the way, that Zero Carbon Australia 2020 plan is absolutely dependent on more than halving energy demand and phasing out most internal-combustion transportation. From page 13 of the full report:
Great point. NBN and the power required to run it. Wouldn’t power be critical to NBN ? no power, no service?
Just returned to this conversation after a while (some have work to do). I noticed @ Rod Hagen referring to the mining tax earlier and it has struck me that the NBN offers a good example of why we should have one. Consider the following:
The gnomes beavering away at NBN Co trying to work out costing etc will no doubt be running sensitivity / risk analysis on their estimates based on industry info on rates for Horizontal boring, trenching through all sorts of soil types, fibre hauling and terminating. If I were the project manager running this ( I have done this in the past) one of my big risk factors would be rate increases due to tradies fleeing to the mining industry. They would have to cost in this risk. This could have a significant impact on the overall cost.
So a direct inflationary impact on Australia’s infra structure projects caused by the mining industry boom which will affect all Australians whether they are benefiting from this boom or not.
For those companies which are doing very well out of mining why should they not help offset this impact. Another bone that I would like to throw out there is that the big companies involved in mining are also very recalcitrant in training up trades people. Very few apprentices. They will send executives off for all sorts of training or pay them to do an MBA but have a look at how many apprentices they train. Then they whinge about skills shortages.
PLANE: “Great point. NBN and the power required to run it. Wouldn’t power be critical to NBN ? no power, no service?”
Power is critical to all broadband systems, Plane. Those thousands of wireless towers that the Opposition want to set up are going to run on electricity, too, you know! If you have wireless router at home, stick your hand on it and you will see that radio transmission requires enough energy to generate a substantial amount of heat. Alternatively turn off the wireless card in your laptop and see how much longer the battery lasts!
No, power usage of either option is a red herring - wireless broadcast wattage vs laying more cable - and eventually full fibre will come anyway. Any increase in bandwidth will allow some physical intercourse to be replaced by virtual intercourse, and to that extent full fibre is better (but probably not arithmetically). The point is you can have world’s best telecommunications, but outside in the physical world we’re still moving most people by car and most goods by truck.
Power is no red herring when it isn’t available because systems stop without it. And I guess somewhere, someone knows the power requirements of an NBN and “thousand of wireless towers”
So query was and still is, is if a new NBN is built across the country will this system need a significant increase in the power required as opposed to exisiting systems, how is that power to be provided particularly in rural and remote areas where people may not be on the power grid and considering NBN is to be “the mother of all network” how much power redundancy has to be included into all this because no power, no service.
@PLANE - Do you need power to use your landline corded phone? Your mobile phone?You need electricity to use your CORDLESS phone(that’s why I have one of each - in a blackout I have my corded phone to ring and find out how long the lights etc will be off?). You need electricity to use your PC but not your Laptop or Notebook. The ‘lines’ for NBN are separate to your telephone line/s.
Businesses don’t stop working re communication in a blackout, it’s just inconvenient. If we had solar or some other renewable, that problem would cease also -except for when ‘lines’ go down or during storms etc!
@PINS - I’ve just been listening to the ALP candidate for HUME - the major city of that electorate, Goulburn only has DIAL UP! How can they compete in business, farming etc with dial up? Hardly any people in that electorate have broadband. The ABBOTT solution is not good enough! It will only hand money over to big business and after 3 yrs what will we see? SFA?
For the savings of not much, petrol to many areas is going by road instead of previous, by rail. More trucks/tankers carrying dangerous commodities on already conjested roads is bordering on criminal in my view. Two serious accidents since last Christmas spring to mind - ACT where a whole family were killed, and one near Katoomba which also resulted in deaths. Imagine if a future government sends waste from Lucas Heights to the NT, ends up in a collision with a fuel tanker? Scary thought! That’s why we need a Federal Govt to build the Maldon/Dumbarten rail link - save a lot of damage etc to roads too!
Planning and foresight can result in a Rolls Royce eventuality. Why not? We’re wealthy enough; we need the will and vision to do it!
@ROBERTSON - Why shouldn’t the mining companies contribute to this? They make billions of dollars out of our resources; combine that with the billions they receive in taxpayers’ dollars, why shouldn’t they put back some of their profits?
Incidently, I’ve just read of the recent stats for Rio Ttinto - “A half year net profit of $6.39 BILLION, up 260% on the same time last year.This huge profit came after the company reduced its net debt by a whopping $27 billion to 12 $billion. X-strata tripled its half yearly profit of $2.5 BILLION.” (GreenLeft Weekly,Aug.11 2010)
This company has been fighting Tahmoor coal miners, who haven’t received an increase in their wages for well over 2 yrs.
For instance, the Olympic Dam uranium mine in SA was getting their water FREE from the South Aust. govt This at a time when Adelaide was almost running out of water, and the people were on severe restrictions. Now the owners(bhp billiton-take a look at their profits)are building a desalination plant - which of course requires energy
Howard changed the tax laws that discriminated against women, by using the taxation system to ensure, that couples on $100,000 or more per year, where the husband/male partner was the sole income person paid less tax than if it was divided 50/50 or 60/40 with their female partner? This discouraged women back into the workforce after they had a child/children. Another example of Howard/Costello’s 1950’s attitude to women, and I don’t recall Abbott speaking up to defend women and their rights? Women rang Talkback ABC radio stating, that after extra petrol etc and childcare, it was hardly worth going back to work - just what the conservatives like, unless of course you’re a sole parent and female???
At the same time, many businesses pay little tax and some pay no tax at all. If govts were as diligent with tax evaders who owe us billions, than the many individuals who were overpaid by Centrelink, who only owe millions(individuals only owe a few thousand - (usually not intentional?)there’d be lots more money to spend on improving services like health and education etc! The Labor Govt has stated that they’re going to go after tax dodgers, and I hope they start soon!
@ELAN - ““The broadband battle: what will they really deliver? “
As little as possible.
These are election promises..”
Not true! The pilot areas in Tasmania were ‘turned on’ yesterday. On time and under budget. Abbott’s response to the probability of broadband being up to 10 times faster was a joke if not a disgrace, he found it unbelievable as “it hasn’t even been built yet”??Amazing!
Kiama Downs and Minnamurra are on target and will be ‘turned on’ soon. That’s only 15-20 minutes from where I sit now! It’s exciting, the most exciting thing in telecommunications since the infrastructure that made long distant calls from home a reality. It’s not 50 yrs since I worked in a Telephone Exchange where you needed a telephonist like me to telephone your next door neighbour??This NBN will be like the Medicare of communications! Awesome!
I send out this challenge -again. Point to one thing that the Howard govt did to impove the lives of people ‘doing it tough’ in this country? Such as, ‘Whitlam govt and Medicare’ for example?
“@ELAN - ““The broadband battle: what will they really deliver? “
As little as possible.
These are election promises..”
Not true! The pilot areas in Tasmania were ‘turned on’ yesterday. On time and under budget. Abbott’s response to the probability of broadband being up to 10 times faster was a joke if not a disgrace, he found it unbelievable as “it hasn’t even been built yet”??Amazing!”
_______________________________
TRUE!! What is happening in Tasmania is good. It really is. But I said they will deliver as little as possible (LabLib)-; and they will.
What about a textbet?
I say that whoever wins Government will inevitably refer to cost blowouts- (if they don’t, their opposition will) - . They will inevitably refer to problems/delays/reshaping the project in an endeavour to save taxpayer monies etc.,-the usual bullshit.
Botty might get his plan up,- with his private mates having an iron grip on our telecommunications. Such a saving to taxpayers!!!….
…………….until they pay through the nose for a profit orientated system,-to keep shareholders and thus Board members financially happy.
Either way the ordinary guy/guyess will get screwed.
I will believe all this ‘you beaut’ stuff when I see it.
I look forward to being proved wrong. A minuscule price to pay for a successful NBN.
(Now: time out to deal with those bloody flying pigs).
@ELAN - The difference is, that there must be some agreement or ?for the work to start. It doesn’t make sense for an organisation/company to outley money and materials for this work without an agreement/contract of some kind. Think about it! Would you outlay money for equipment and workers without it? I’m damned sure I wouldn’t! I think the govt should’ve explained it better and also showed us/took us into their confidence the details. I’d like to think that they’d learn from the past and do this if re-elected.
“Botty”? Is that a pet name for Abbott! I wouldn’t give him credence for being a decent enough human to warrant this! Can’t stand him. He must be so ‘stressed’ putting on this nice guy act - don’t trust him, don’t like him, and he’s lied so many times before!
@LIZ45, Goulburn only has dial-up?! Complete and utter bullshit. They have better ADSL2+ access than I do here on the Northern Beaches of Sydney - up to 20MBs.
And sure, you can use your laptop for a few hours without power, but you can’t connect to ADSL OR the NBN without electricity. Businesses do indeed stop in a blackout because their PABX or their VOIP system and their network routers and everything else needs electricity.
What any of your comments have to do with the NBN is beyond me, and even the ones that do are so ill-informed it’s laughable. This forum started out as a rational debate about the relative merits of the two options but you’ve helped degenerate it into a half-arsed rant worthy of any shock-jock or News Limited tabloid. Perhaps you should go to the News site forums while the grown-ups talk.
@CID - You’d think that the candidate who travels around the electorate would know what people are experiencing? Do you live there? Prove what you assert! People before me made a variety of comments including those about the tax on mining profits. GO and read what they said and take it up with them instead of being an abusive bully to me! Did you even read them? Probably not! Do you bully everyone? F*** off bully!
Liz, firstly you’ll find this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with the mining tax. My comments in regard to electricity are simple fact borne of many years experience operating in offices and using such equipment and are there merely to address your ignorance.
You would think the local candidate would know, wouldn’t you. Clearly they don’t or are using fear and fallacy to get votes. Wow, that’s never happened before. I don’t have to live in Goulburn to do a little research, unlike you and the local member obviously. Prove it for yourself… Step 1 - go to any isp web site. I used Internode. Collect a variety of Goulburn phone numbers. Enter those numbers in the facility every isp has to determine what equipment the exchange those numbers are connected to have available. My quick check of 4 random numbers from the yellow pages found that they are better equipped than my local exchange 50k’s fom Sydney CBD.
I’m not being a bully Liz, I just wish people would think for themselves and do a little research instead of just parroting lines from a party press release.
@Stilgherrian
You wrote earlier in this thread
As for backup power — yes, the CPE needs power — this is currently being envisaged as an optional extra. That is, if the customer wants backup power for the NBN connection, they can have it, but it won’t be standard. The rationale is that many people already have backup communications in the form of a mobile phone, so there’s no need for the expense of battery backup for everyone.
I am not sure about that
My understanding is that the USO (universal service obligation) for a phone line says that a phone service has to carry a certain voltage so not to be reliant on the person/customer/home to provide power for the service to operate. But a fibre connected phone cannot carry power (needs power from the home) and I don’t think mobile phones are part of the USO?
@liz45
Wow, this thread has really come off topic, but you said “I send out this challenge -again. Point to one thing that the Howard govt did to impove the lives of people ‘doing it tough’ in this country? Such as, ‘Whitlam govt and Medicare’ for example?”
- Howard /Costello paid of $96b of accumulated government debt post Keating. Less interest payments = more money for services
- Brought about the buy back of firearms which reduced the number of guns in society by many 100,000’s
- Abolished the mish-mash of State based sales taxes that were “hidden” within the cost of almost every thing you and I ever purchased including medical, food and costs relating to education.
- To replace these inefficient sales taxes, the GST was introduced to make it transparent as to how much consumption tax is included in each product/service you buy. Consumption tax works by taxing big spenders and rewarding those who save - especially those “doing it tough” as their weekly spend on groceries/health/education is largely GST free (unless you feed your family on McDonalds and pre-packaged food). The GST has also helped to reduce the “cash economy” which you refer to as “tax dodgers”.
- And perhaps the best outcome of the tax reform they introduced is that it allowed for the correctoin of personal tax rates to combat the inflationery effect of bracket creep. The most recent round of tax cuts that you and every other employee in the country recently received is thanks to the previous government.
Ps. All of the above legislation was passed and funded through parliament using due process while Howard was in office.
Whitlam’s legislation (including medicare - passed after a joint sitting of parliament following double dissolution election) had to be funded by $4bn woth of “illegal loans from the Middle East”. Your history seems to be a little light on the detail of how governments actually pay for the promises they make.
A question for you: If Australia commits to the NBN rollout, what happens if in the next two or three years if there are great technological improvements in wireless technologies which make much of the fibre-optical cabling uneccessary? We have a massive switch from landline or fixed telecommunications now, with wireless being more popular. Taxpayers will still be paying off the obsolete NBN, so we will have no capacity to reinvest in the next big thing.
Will you be happy to continue paying fixed broadband fees for a home computer, when all your mates are out buzzing around on their laptops/ipads getting fast internet wirelessly?
“The difference is, that there must be some agreement or ?for the work to start. It doesn’t make sense for an organisation/company to outlay money and materials for this work without an agreement/contract of some kind.”
LIZ45: you’d think so wouldn’t you?
(Given your ‘coal-face’ work, I admire your faith, honestly. Me? I have no faith or trust. I expect nothing. If something positive occurs-what a lovely surprise!! I love surprises).
Unfortunately, the days have long past where a Government will make such checks and balances when it comes to projects ‘for the people’.
Projects that are supposed to benefit society are most often based on snaring a vote; and as such, a lot of these are rushed through with problems arising later..
Now:…if you are talking about something that benefits Government; fiscal policy…weeeellll, such matters are well though out…
….and while we are on the subject…..
____________________________________
F/JOE: What a delightful sweet sugar dumpling was Howard!
He did nothing;-absolutely NOTHING for the working people of this country, the people who in reality are the ones that turn the wheels-whilst Howard and his Regime sit in the carriage.
He made it much tougher for those on lower incomes-and I suspect that like Thatcher-he would have put kids back down the bloody mines ( well; if Thatcher hadn’t decimated that, and the communities around it).
Howard’s achievements are marked by policies that benefited the powerful and adroit and contemptuously spat in the face of those who were far more in need of help.
Happy to have a further chat about this, ducky.
CID , they have invented a generator for the home now, so you can have power anytime, petrol or diesel. I have typed in my number to westnet and others and it said ADSL 2 was available and rang them and they said no , you cannot rely on that for your rant with Liz45. Mining tax would pay off the NBN in 2 years , i say tax the fuc#ers.
BHP -paid $6 Billion tax on $40 Billion of revenue
RIO - paid $2 Billion on $44 Billion of revenue
FMG - paid $153 Million on $1.76 Billion of revenue in the 2009-2010 year
Add about $10 Billion in fuel subs , do you think they are paying their way , when they are digging up our backyard and selling it.
Elan
lowering tax thresholds (particularly those for low income earners), removing hidden sales taxes, shifting tax burdens onto higher spenders through consumption tax (GST), increasing social security benefits for families, implementing a baby bonus payment, increasing the net flow of tax revenues to the States (for spending on health, education, roads - all State obligations) are all examples of why low income earners, as well as all other Austrlians, were made better off under the Howard government.
I suspect from the tone of your response above that you are not a big fan of liberal politicians, and that’s fine. Your opinion is yours.
Can you explain to my how, after 3 years in office, low income earners are really any better off under Rudd/Gillard? Grocery prices, energy bills, child care costs are all up. Part time working hours have been slashed, hospital waiting lists are still out of control (not one sentence of legislation has been put up regarding Rudd’s new health plan yet, just a heap of media spin) and the States are still complaining about not having enough money to fund public transport or infrastructure needs. The tax cuts provided last year and this year were all previously introduced by the Howard governmet. No doubt you have a list of sensible facts, so perhaps you can have a go at putting them forward in a credible manner without having to resort to emotional diatribe?
HARRYBELBARRY - You’re talking financially illiterate nonsense. Tax is paid on profits, not revenues. We had a discussion of these figures just recently with more detail further down that thread.
In summary, going by BHP’s annual report, BHP paid “expenses totalling US$ 38,640, the lion’s share of which goes to wages of other companies that sell things to BHP, or to the wages of companies they buy things from, and so on.” Those expenses are all taxed against the companies and workers who provide external services or goods to BHP.
After paying expenses, BHP was left with US$11,617 million profit before tax. You can look up the financial reports of the other companies as an exercise.
As P.I.N.S. pointed out above, the Commonwealth Bank has just reported a $6.1bn cash profit — that’s more than the $4.5 billion it paid in wages. You’re barking up the wrong tree. And where do you think that great trend-defying windfall came from?
“No doubt you have a list of sensible facts, so perhaps you can have a go at putting them forward in a credible manner without having to resort to emotional diatribe?”
_________________
The usual eh? Such a familiar and boring little tactic.
‘Can I explain’ ?? You think you can set the agenda? !!
Allow me to: How about we turn it around?-( that after all will deal with causes not effects..).
You tell me-how those on the so-called lower levels of society benefited under Howard (don’t give me the ‘tax break’ officialese bullshit;-TELL me how people benefited under Howard? I mean the real ‘on the street’ stuff..how?
Tell me how those on the so-called upper levels benefited through Howard? Meat and potato stuff — -who came out best??
___________________________
What disgusts me about conservative philosophy is the notion that indulging those who need it least, will inevitably have a flow on effect to those who should be grateful for the success of those ‘above’ who are thus able to benefit those ‘below’.
(A bit convoluted, but you know what I mean).
This philosophy has failed. Consistently failed.
Those with more, want even more. That is blatant.
The conservative philosophy also contends that those ‘below’ should help themselves, and not be assisted.
How do you match those two things? -they are oil and water. If only for the fact that once those who have made their wealth- largely on the backs of their workers- have got all the cash!!
Never mind that they become greedier, and greedier.
___________________________
How much more evidence do you people need? The divide is ever increasing. The wealth of corporates/banks is increasing. When workers are off-loaded, they are frequently left without the entitlements to which they are due.
(Unless the company is run by a fella called Howard, who increased his income, and that of his Board when the company was in trouble).
So this is not much different now? WTF did you expect?
Labor tries to be a Party of the people- whilst on their backs to the high end of town.
Are we any better off? (See ‘WTF..’etc.,).
Still, give me the pretenders any day.
________________________
Over to you ducky.
There is something in that, ELAN. Governments on both sides seem to be working for the big four banks and those who own residential land in the cities.
Corporate leaders sometimes lobby for genuine economically productive policies. But they also sometimes lobby for the taxpayer or shareholders to underwrite the downside risks to their own yachts at the same time as they lobby for the upside risks to be left alone. Cabinet either has trouble telling the difference or they don’t care. Advice from Treasury and the RBA is cherry-picked to pieces. The Productivity Commission has become a white elephant, not because of the quality of its advice, but because it’s been routinely ignored since being created in 1998.
Most of the informed financial commentary in Australia, on which government performance is judged, comes from the big four banks. They don’t tell fibs — in fact the main reason they give commentary is to compete for credibility, so they try very hard to get it right — but their objectivity on things like mining tax or whether the high price of housing is good or bad for Australia’s economy, is highly questionable.
However, FARMERJOE is substantially correct about the benefits gained by the workers of Australia during the Howard government. It’s not all down to Howard — much of that benefit was reaping the seeds sown by Keating and Hawke. But Howard’s improvements to the efficiency of both tax and industrial relations did produce real material benefits for the workforce. Even the hated unfair dismissal laws, if we’re honest — though they were sometimes abused — mostly opened up jobs held by bad workers to make vacancies for better workers.
Also there are sometimes two sides to “the notion that indulging those who need it least,” or “middle class welfare” as it’s often called. In many cases these are just tax breaks for reducing the burden on the taxpayer in things like health insurance or education, making a net gain for the taxpayer.
When it’s done right, “indulging those who need it least” is really a way of modifying the behaviour of those who have already paid the most tax. I’m not suggesting it’s always done right, but when it is done right, it’s fair legitimate social policy.
“Even the hated unfair dismissal laws, if we’re honest — though they were sometimes abused — mostly opened up jobs held by bad workers to make vacancies for better workers.”
________________________
You lost me right there! And I am honest…..
(That statement shows an attitude of mind very clearly!)
Anyway,-‘bad workers’ vs ’ good workers’ is wide open to abuse of process. Howard made it so.
You put your case quite eloquently JMC;-I mean that. But you and the Farmer won’t convince me that todays business principles are in any way structured toward fairness for all; they are not.
Government and business ethic/philosophy is structured toward ‘minimal outlay/maximum return’. Prima facie-as it should be. But the implementation of such has paid little regard to those who actually sustain it./ and those who receive it.
Government philosophy for years now, has turned a blind eye to the ‘cost’ of MO/MR. And that cost has been jobs/ failing infrastructure/ lack of service/ defective product..
BUT: marketing says everything is lovely! Shareholders benefit. If they are happy-then inevitably Boards/CEO’s are rewarded.
It is all so bloody ludicrous!
Keep on until you are blue in the face!!
BUT you will never convince me that those that turn those wheels have benefited by this farce.
You will never convince me that the ‘ordinary’ worker is not constantly concerned about job security.
You will never convince me that products are better.
That service is better.
_______________________________
God knows what this topic was originally about!!
I’m just sick to bloody death of this Party faithful crap about how one side is better than the other.
One side has been worse than the other, is the realistic observation!
And above all else-unless one has sufficient resource in todays society- then bloody hard luck!It’s your own fault.
Like hell it is.
@FARMERJOE - You convenietly omit to mention, that Howard introduced the GST after promising, that the ‘GST was dead - wouldn’t happen’ or words to that effect. He lied about WorstChoices leading up to the 2004 election. For example; unfair dismissal laws would only affect workplaces of 20 employees - after the election he changed that(without a mandate) to workplaces of 100 employees. This affected women and young people the worst. If you don’t believe me, go and read some of the many reports re the effects of Worst Choices! Barbara Pocock, John Buckingham and the ACTU are just some of the indepth surveys undertaken. Study the impact of those dangerous industries where Howard removed the right of the Union to visit workplaces re safety. The workplaces that have the least workplace deaths and injuries, are those where the Union is involved in workplace safety. Howard almost destroyed that, and the increase in deaths and injuries was the result! How many people in the building industry die each year? How many are injured? What are the stats re deaths and injuries among workers 16-25?
Howard always insisted that he wouldn’t increase the pension for those people who were(via several studies) living below the poverty line. He was the first PM to tax pensioners on food, services and utilities. That,when a pensioner went and still goes to the supermarket, they pay the same GST as does James Packer or a person who receives $1 million per year via income. You probably don’t even know what a single pensioner receives each fortnight. That is obviously OK with you? Not me! There’s no justice/fairness in that?Howard only ever suppported less than a handful of workers’ claims for modest wage increases? How much money did he take from our taxes for the luxury of his standard of living? Used his plane(OURS) to take his kids to the Boxing Day test???
While this was happening, $10 Billion was/is being handed over to the fossil fuel industry via subsidies etc. Then there’s the tax system that adds thousands of dollars to the incomes of the wealthy. That CEO’s incomes increased by 150-300%? Profits increased by 5% while incomes decreased by the same amount. There are $$$billions of monies that businesses and the wealthy don’t pay and aren’t made to pay. The more money you have, the more money the govt(Howard and Rudd/Gillard - although at least the Gillard is going to go after - not before time??)
allows you to keep. It was Kerry Packer who once stated, that every Australian should pay the least amount of tax possible. How disgusting was he? We contributed to his state funeral? How disgusting?Millionares are in receipt of family benefits. Church organisations(including wealthy ones) don’t pay the same taxes as ordinary Aussies, in fact, they’re more likely to pay none! How just is that?
I’m a passionate supporter of a nationalised health system. I can still remember Gough Whitlam’s campaign launch in 1972. This is what ‘got me’? I was 27 with 2 chn. My second child had been ill as a 9mnth old baby. I was told he could die. We were on a low income; I’d also been very ill, and we got bills from 9 different doctors and specialists. I used to cry when I heard the postman’s ‘whistle’? If you’re ill, and particularly if you have a sick baby/child, you shouldn’t have to worry about money too. Thankfully, that baby is a healthy man with a very responsible job - happily married and paying tax?
TheWhitlam Labor Govt was treated by the media in the same manner as the Rudd govt was, and now Julia Gillard! Disgusting! The Libs believe that they have the divine right to rule. That they’re the ‘automatic governors of the country’ and any Labor govt is an aberration. Whitlam did not borrow the money from the middle east or anywhere else - he was sacked before he had a chance!!!Now we and many other countries including the US borrow from China? When you borrowed money to buy your house or use a credit card, where did you bank borrow the moneytolend to you! Every Australian has borrowed money!Almost every Australian has at least one credit card. Too many Australians owe more than 3% OFtheir income. Nobody seems too concerned about tha! But the bullshit by the media about our meagre debt borders on the hysterical - it’s just media nonsense, as was/is the bullshit over taxing the wealthy mining companies who are squealing like stuck pigs? Take a look at their latesst profits???
As to the Internet, Broadband, Laptops, Notebooks etc, how many businesses do their business via laptops? My eldest son who has his own business, who’s just given me my latest computer - a you beaut one with a HD widescreen uses PC’s in his business, and he kindly pays for my Broadband, but I’m pretty sure he’s embracing the NBN? I can recall the first computer he gave me only 7 yrs ago - it had 64mb of RAM and Dial Up-I now have 4GB - just a few yrs later?Because we’re so isolated both within and outside the country, we need to invest in this technology to enable us to compete, communicate and utilise in areas of health and education!
I read today(Saturday) that Abbott’s attitude to the NBN is the same as saying, we should bring back the steam engine for train travel, as we have 100 yrs or so of coal to use? Let’s just stay with that mode of transport. Look what the Snowy River Scheme did for this country. Started by Chifley, but Menzies had the vision to continue with it? But, the Libs want private enterprise to pick the ball up and ‘run with it? Well we’ve already seen via the GFC what a great job they can do for us and the world at large? Funny how it’s the ‘little people’ who’ve lost their jobs, lost their home, and it’s those lucky enough to still be in receipt of a wage who’ll pay back the $7 TRILLION that the govt has handed over to take care of the shit! Those who caused the horrors insisted on paying themselves obscene payments, using their compatriots hard earned. IF Obama hadn’t given them a ‘tongue lashing’ they’d have kept on - using the misery of others to maintain their you beaut lifestyle? How many of them are homeless and wondering about their next meal for their kids?
If I’ve gone off topic” then I’m just joining others before me!
@ JAMES MCDONALD - “However, FARMERJOE is substantially correct about the benefits gained by the workers of Australia during the Howard government. “
Profits went up by 5% while wages went down by the same amount. As Ii’ve said previously, CEO’s
incomes increased by 150-300%? Unfair dismissal laws affected women ad young people, like most of the unfair and unjust IR laws via Howard;equal pay rates now are back to the 1980’s, thanks to the Coalition. However, in some cases they ‘shot themselves in the foot’ as those with a sound basis for their unfair dismissal took their employers to court and due to where it was heard(asopposed to the IR court) they were awarded higher sums in compensation. Howard’s support for his greedy mates came back to bite him and them ‘on the bum’? Serrved them right???
Howard’s creed, was that employers had the right to operate their businesses 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, and to hell with the workers’ rights to rest or leisure -so much for his spruiking about “traditional family values”? Only the families of the white and well heeled were entitled to that. What about the plight of sole parents? Mainly women? They were forced back to work when their youngest children turned 8 yrs of age, regardless of whether they could access child care or public transport. If they failed to take a job, any job, they’d lose 8 wks income! That sounds like a good result for workers???NOT!
@ELAN - agreed!
Sadly, the ALP also worships at the same place as the Coalition, otherwise we wouldn’t still have the ABCC, the racist Intervention, the demonising and hateful racist attitudes to aboriginal people and asylum seekers, and they’d recall, that they argued against the racist policy of a nuclear waste dump in the NT!Theyjust throw a few ‘sweetners’ around, and in some areas show some vision, like th NBN!
I’ve read letters etc from several people who believe, that not only will the NBN help them to grow their businesses, it will mean that they won’t have to drive around the city so much - this will lessen traffic ‘snarls’ pollution and time. More people would be able to either work from home all the time, or at least spend less time at work/travel/polluting/paying more child care etc etc? Possibilities are endless!
The Coalition are the last ones to accuse this govt of waste and extravagance - they’re task masters at it, as they are for media manipulation, lying, cheating and taking us for mugs! People should read ‘Not Happy John’ and ‘Still, not happy John’ by Margo Kingston. They’d be shocked as I was by how Howard ran the govt? Threw OUR MONEY around like drunken sailors?
ELAN: “But you and the Farmer won’t convince me that todays business principles are in any way structured toward fairness for all; they are not.”
No they’re not, and what’s more, they’re not supposed to be “structured towards” anyone’s interests, because those “interests” usually get embezzled by special interest groups who do not represent most workers.
In another thread about house prices, I argued that in a perfect world, government would understand everything and would always do the right thing, then everyone would get a fair price for what they do.
Experience shows that when government thinks it understands what’s happening out there, it’s usually been listening too much to lobbyists, who are very eager to make them see the light, often very educated, very convincing, and very well paid.
Either that or they just get it wrong. The high-teens interest rates of the late 1980s and the “recession we had to have” were brought about by the RBA grossly misreading the inflation signals. If government can’t even read inflation accurately, how can it be relied on to control every aspect of the labour market?
An analogy is government interventions in ecosystems, like introducing the cane toad to control the cane beetle which was doing what cane beetles normally do when sugar cane is introduced.
The natural labour market is not some perfect thing which left to its own devices will guarantee the fairest outcome for everybody. But if government interventions — which in practice are usually on behalf of narrow interest groups — are limited to just enough for ensuring safety, civil rights, and basic living standards and no more, then history shows the outcomes for most workers tend to be a lot better than under any alternative system government can design.
Back to the NBN discussion: this morning on ABC’s ‘Insiders’ Tony Abbott was asked a couple questions about the proposed NBN. When answering he referred to the cable as “high fibre”!! I’m guessing that he meant fibre-optic… but could hardly believe my ears. Fortunately, I’d recorded the interview and was able to replay it. Yes, Tony doesn’t believe the nation needs high fibre.
Yes, he said high fibre, yes, he meant optic fibre and I thought it was funny also.
But he was asked quite a few questions about NBN and the Coalition’s proposal also. The whole interview needs to be listen to because he does say why he’s concerned about NBN, whether you agree him or not. And that is better than him saying he’s not technically minded and moving on.
Both the Govt and the Coalition have not communicated well enough on this. And as the length of this thread shows, there are more than a few people who have views on it
Here is the transcript of that Abbott interview on Insiders yesterday. And here’s a part of his argument, including the “high fibre” slip:
Of course Abbott isn’t technical. But then neither is Gillard or Conroy. None of them give particularly inspiring interviews.
Then again, governing is not the same as doing interviews. Australians in their obsession with the theatre of interviews and debates, think that it all comes down to a prime minister knowing the answers to everything off the top of their head. Any candidate who tries to point out the stupidity of this will be accused of making excuses for his ignorance, so they play the game and do the best they can on live interview.
A more realistic debate would allow entire cabinet teams one minute to discuss each question before answering. I’d find that a lot more interesting than the vapid celebrity-show appearances on which we have to judge candidates.
The difference between governing and speaking off the cuff became blurred in the last term, because Kevin Rudd did in fact govern in the same way politicians do interviews - coming up with the answers off the top of his head, without consulting anyone.
That’s exactly how the NBN plan was born in the first place. Kevin Rudd - possibly after a discussion with his kids at home, who knows? - just suddenly announced it at the end of the tendering process. The biggest worry about Gillard is whether she’s picked up the same habit - such as this “citizens assembly” thing which blindsided the entire caucus.
It sure is an atrocious campaign on both sides … now they’re spending half their time having a debate about a debate.
If either side had any respect for the public, they would use their own media appearances to ask serious policy questions of their opponents, which their opponents could then deliberate and respond in their own media appearances.
“ELAN: “But you and the Farmer won’t convince me that todays business principles are in any way structured toward fairness for all; they are not.”
No they’re not, and what’s more, they’re not supposed to be “structured towards” anyone’s interests, because those “interests” usually get embezzled by special interest groups who do not represent most workers.”
___________________________
JMC: Oh yes they are! ALL Government policies are structured in appeasing one group or another. All Government policies as such, are structured to securing votes. However….
Zuts made a pointed reference to staying on the topic. He’s right.
But if YOU want to deviate from same and address me-I’m happy to respond.
@PINS - Yes, and if the media had any respect for journalism, they’d report the election campaign in an unbiased and informative manner. The media has a lot to answer for. You, like many others are falling for the trap - that is, judging the campaign on what the media portrays. Except for forums such as the Q & A program or the Rooty Hill town hall type forum, what we see, hear and read is what the media decides. Even then, the main strident questioner at JULIA Gillard’s appearance at RH was a member of the Young Liberals, and there was a suggestion that the audience was not full of ‘swinging voters’ or the ‘undecided’?
Over the many years of following election campaigns, the SMH for example has always supported the Coalition. In 2004 they wrote, that they weren’t going to do this any more - they wouldn’t ‘suggest’ that people vote for either major party. TheMurdoch camp have no such policy. However, it’s all very well for the SMH to say, that on the day they won’t recommend who to vote for, but if they don’t engage in this attitude throughout the 3 yrs in between, that’s a pretty hollow commitment.
The problem with the public and climate change was/is partly due to a lack of communication by the Rudd govt; partly due to the labor machine, but a lot to do with msm - a robust and negative campaign that featured cost to us of a CPRS, but little to no coverage of what the cost would be if we kept on ‘stealing our grandkids fresh air’!
It was a disgraceful and irresponsible campaign to remove public support - after all, we can’t have renewable energy as it would interfere with the vested interests of those who executed the lies and negativity - the wealthy mining companies, of which the owners of msm have big interests in also!
Kevin Rudd should’ve kept on with his message and answered all the bs that came from the media. He should’ve also done this in relation to the disgraceful media campaign against decency and asylum seekers also! An address to the nation would’ve been a good start! Perhaps a few of them, and use Aunty for our benefit! We pay for it, the govt of the day should use it for our benefit!
Instead of castigating Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard, people should be demanding a non-biased media - some of us have been calling for it for years. I’m constantly amazed at the small but well known things that people just aren’t aware of - eg. Howard/Costello are no longer in charge of the money! (Insight SBS, last week?)I often hear people just parrot stuff that’s been on one of the so-called current affairs programs of commercial TV? Why do people not read, listen or watch during the 3 yrs between elections? It’s embarrassing!
If people are so stupid as to still believe that we have a free and robust media in this country, they’re dreamin’?We do not! Crikey is just one small exception! GreenLeft is another, and overseas independent, sometimes small media outlets/essays etc. Even the ABC/SBS repeat much of what comes out of the US, via the Pentagon or the Washington Post etc?Frustrating!
ELAN (just briefly): “JMC: Oh yes they are! ALL Government policies are structured in appeasing one group or another. All Government policies as such, are structured to securing votes.”
I completely agree. So does Ross Garnaut. He expresses his disgust in general terms; I could give chapter and verse about both sides, but this is not the thread for it.
That’s why I’ve given up hope of good policy, and reluctantly come to the conclusion that choosing federal government is a question of which one will interfere less in society, thus offering less porkbarrels for sectional interests and doing less damage. If I had any esteem for them, I’d be looking for the same sort of big reforms that Labor voters hope for.
What I would really like someone to put to Tony or his minister is: who did the modeling and the design for their NBN alternative? It is astounding that they continue to bang on about it being a lower cost alternative while escaping scrutiny on the technical issues by claiming they dont have to understand the technical intricacies.
Fair enough, but surely someone somewhere actually came up with a plan for; what technology would be used where, how many subscribers would be on each platform, how much they were planning to spend on each platform. This type of information could then help the technical analysts provide informed opinion that Joe public could evaluate.
I think I know why the libs dont want to make this information public but I cant understand why the media are not hammering them for it. It seems they were able to nominate a budget then just put some techy words around it they hope no one will scrutinise.
I’ve watched most of Julia Gillard’s speech, and was particularly impressed with the promise of money re Medicare as it’s utilized with NBN. Anyone who’s had a very ill child knows how horrific, scary and isolating it can be. I had 2! Both times it would’ve been great if I could’ve had face to face communication via the internet. One was suffering from peti mal seizures, the other was getting weaker via asthma/croup. The child with the croup was ‘diagnosed’ over the phone by a radio doctor and her recommendation removed the crisis; the other took over 3 months of tests etc, where I was told that he could die. They are both men in their 40’s now, thank goodness! Scary! I was sold on politics via Gough Whitlam’s then Medibank, now Medicare,and I think this initiative has vision and is much needed in this country for anyone not close to large hospitals, and sometimes you just need practical advice(like fill the bathroom with steam, and wait until breathing is normal)and reassurenc. In one case I was only 20 and the other about 27 - it was scary indeed!
Abbott doesn’t have any vision, no imagination, and the Coalition do not include these things in their column labelled, ‘priorities for citizens’ particularly children. My mate had a total knee replacement. With NBN and this funding, he’d have been able to catch a bus(15-25 minute trip) to see his GP, and then they’d have an Online consultation with the surgeon in Sydney - no getting up at dawn to catch a train in the cold for a brief consultation to say, all is well! There are people further down the south coast who sometimes have to travel 4 hrs each way for both consultation and/or treatment. With the Cancer Centre via Labor, plus GP clinics and now this initiative, their lives will improve markedly. These people’s chance of surviving 5 yrs with cancer is lower than those near the major hospitals. If we’re worried about population and traffic jams, these are the types of initiatives that will make a major difference. Working from home, either permanent or part time, allowing people to live away from major centres, but still having the necessary services at hand!
I’ve always maintained strongly, that in a country as rich as ours, nobody should have the added burden of cost or accessibility in order to save either their lives, or unnecessary suffering, either physical or emotional! I can still recall that terror of nursing my sick babies, with fear and dread in my heart - should not be allowed to happen! NBN + improved health care and access! Good move! I’m impressed!
PS. Incidently, I can’t follow the rationale of the Coalition. If they’re soooooo worried about this terrible debt(hysterical nonsense?) then why are they going to spend another $30 BILLION? Oh, they’re spending money from savings, so called! Stupid! If I’m worrying about my impending electricity account, and pay some off every fortnight(which I do off gas & phone too) and its less than I thought, I dn’t go out and blow my next pension cheque on an expensive dinner, or drive my car to Sydney - I breathe a sigh of relief that I’ve contributed to the cost of my next bill - then I add to this over summer, ready for next winter???
The Coalition frequently refers to ‘households etc’ when talking about spending!They’re speaking out of both sides of their mouths at once! Nobody has challenged Abbott on this! It’s irrational bs!
Where will the savings really come from? Apart from GP clinics and other initiatives like the NBN - which is $43 billion over 6-8 yrs, not in one go! The fossil fuel industry gets the same amount in subsidies etc over 4yrs (about 10billion per year - no hysteria over that)! How much for superannuation lerks and perks! Howard removed the $2.3 billion per year that those on $100,000 or more per year pays in super charges - now adds up to over $10billion at least! It goes on and on! Who reminds/challenges Abbott about this? Nobody!
JMC: Yes, I can see that we do indeed largely agree.
Your last line though:
BOTH sets of disciples can hope as they so wish. Personally I prefer to avoid disappointment.
LIZ45:
Medical specialists can sometimes make remote diagnoses by X-ray, pathology, etc, together with q&a, but often they need to observe using a variety of instruments and tests, as well as by touch, by smell, and by observing signs that the patient may not notice or think to mention.
You can’t transmit very much information by online videoconference. If you could, then a lot more remote medicine would be done by digital photographs, which already can be emailed very quickly in high resolution.
Bloggers here have made a compelling case for the NBN as a piece of nation-building infrastructure. Let’s stick to that, and not get carried away here calling NBN a medical diagnosis tool. Online consultation is no substitute for getting doctors out into the regions. If it’s used as an excuse to let doctors keep on avoiding regional areas, then it will be a negative for regional medicine, not a positive.
The government is the Medicare paymaster, so what’s wrong with adjusting incentives? Pay 140% of Medicare scheduled fee for consultations in the bush, pay 100% in fringe areas, and pay only 60% in the posh suburbs.