Rache – I should have said this earlier, I agree with you, a balanced and factual post.

Yuyutsu – I didn’t want to respond in the same post as shadow minister. The less distraction shadow minister gets the better chance of keeping him/her on subject.

“It is not illegal to buy a Rolls Royce” - never said it was

“The existing government want to forbid me having an analogue phone line” – If you want to build and pay for an analogue phone system I’m sure you can. There are many examples of private communication companies in this country under this franchise and the previous franchise. Our copper phone system was digital prior to the current franchise coming to power, so you should give your advisors a good growling for misleading you. Digital technology has nothing to do with politics, they call it progress. A public system should cater for the public as equally and fairly as possible, not cater to individual whims like yours.

Do you realise you are contributing to this forum using digital technology no doubt over a copper wire.

Do you go to the neighbours?

Yuyutsu – You will find if you remove the eye patch on your left eye you will see a lot clearer. You are obviously having an issue seeing clearly with the right one. If you do this you will find there is very little difference between the red team and the blue team.

Hang them both!

Dear Producer,

<<If you do this you will find there is very little difference between the red team and the blue team. Hang them both!>>

That would be ideal, but is not in my power.

Apparently, what is a little difference for them and for you is a big difference for me: the red team intends to deny my use of copper-phone and the blue team declared they will allow me to continue using it - hence I must vote (eg. to give my preferences) for the blue team. Had it been the other way round, I would have to vote for the red team.

Overall, it seems to me that at this point in time, of the two, the red team is more fanatic about that 'progress' thing (fortunately, they are also so clumsy that they only manage to talk about it).

<<If you want to build and pay for an analogue phone system I’m sure you can.>>

How will that be possible if the government orders Telstra to dig out the copper cables. Am I going to have permission to dig up the streets?

<<Our copper phone system was digital prior to the current franchise coming to power>>

I know. Sigh! I am very unhappy about it.

At least it doesn't reach my own home and at least once digital technology will no longer be available (because it requires global resources to produce), it will be somewhat easier to restore an analogue service if the copper wires are still in place.

<<A public system should cater for the public as equally and fairly as possible>>

And was the public ever consulted? Did the silent majority ever expressed a wish for a faster baud-rate (and was willing to pay for it)? Do most people want their children to have access to even more games and be pressured by their kids to bring it home because it is available?

"Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind" [Leviticus 19:14]

Producer,

I see you were unable to respond to what I said and had to bluster.

You have moved from saying the FTTN is far more expensive to saying that we need to spend the extra $60bn to keep all the IT companies (who are the biggest users of 457 visas) to employ people.

What a load of bollocks.

ROUND 3

Shadow Minister – congratulations, you did it yet again!

You ignored, you side stepped; there was of rhetoric and weasel words. The latest tactic was an attempt at verballing.

Let’s continue to try.

If a small company in WA is able to offer a service that requires fibre to the home to a low income consumer in Sydney more efficiently, cheaper and offers a superior service that employs Australians rather than cheap offshore labour why shouldn’t they be able too. If the low income consumer in Sydney does not have fibre to the home because of Turnbull’s policy, how would Mr Rabbott’s mob resolve this?

This scenario is not an issue with the current model.

Seriously this time you really have to concentrate Shadow Minister.

Deep breaths close the door and make sure there are no distractions.

Independent thinking may be a big ask, but I have my fingers crossed for you.

Remember don’t ignore or side step, no rhetoric or weasel words. Definitely don’t try to shift focus by verballing me.

Producer,

Muddled and incoherent thinking seems to be your forte. I assume your evasion of my comments on the installation costs of fibre to the home means that you have conceded defeat on the costings issue.

As for your small company in WA, that "needs" fibre, there are two fatal flaws to your hypothetical scenario:

1 The coalition's plan includes running fiber to business premises, so your question is a dud from the start,

2 The coalition's plan would raise connection speeds from about 1.5Mb/s to 50Mb/s which should cover all the needs of a small business. I work for a large company with dozens of engineers and racks of computer systems connected to the outside world with a 100Mb/s fiber connection that very seldom sees anywhere near full capacity useage.

Clearly you have no idea of either networking or data transmission.

ROUND 4

Shadow Minister – This is going to be a long one

The low income consumer in Sydney still hasn’t got their connection.

Let’s continue to try.

If a small company in WA is able to offer a service that requires fibre to the home to a low income consumer in Sydney more efficiently, cheaper and offers a superior service that employs Australians rather than cheap offshore labour why shouldn’t they be able too. If the low income consumer in Sydney does not have fibre to the home because of Turnbull’s policy, how would Mr Rabbott’s mob resolve this?

This scenario is not an issue with the current model.

Getting a relevant comment from you is like getting a response from Telstra.