For a project that is the single largest infrastructure project in the history of the country, it is inconceivable to anyone in industry that an independent business study would not be done.

Given the vast difference between take up levels in Tasmania that were predicted in the original study, and what is occurring on the ground,
and the continuous appearance of new costs to the NBN such as the requirement for UPSs, and additional installation costs, there can be only one possible reason.

The NBN is slowly spinning into a financial disaster, and the Labor government wants to keep the knowledge away from the public as long as possible, preferable until after the next election.

It is becoming increasingly clear that:
- The installation costs are accelerating and will probably push way past $50bn,
- Whilst many think it is a good idea, fewer than 5% of people are actually prepared to pay for the full high speed network, most prefering to remain with the existing suppliers, or take the cheapest slowest options. This drastically reduces the revenue the NBN will achieve.
- The scrapping of the telstra network and the forcing of ISPs onto the NBN will eliminate all competition, and prices will rise, or the taxpayer will need to fork out the difference.

But as politicians, Labor has never shied away from buying votes. These will just be the most expensive ever.

STRANGE? there was no accompanying statement of what the point is here. Possibly just a computer error.

My thoughts are that this smells of conservative panic (possibly shadow minister or hasbeen). It would seem that now the public mood has been made clear that the NBN is wanted the libs and their lapdogs are trying the business route. No there has not been a cost Benefit analysis done on the NBN. We have a construction costing and the business plan to be released soon. The fact of the matter is that if you do the analysis it will come back negative, but this is hardly the point. This is Australia and if we want to give the economic power house and soul of this country anything that resembles services the cost benefit analysis will always look bad. Rural Australia and its population deserve good services. Currently we get high food prices, third world roads, second rate services and solidly ripped off by the city when something doesn't suit them.

As for the tunnels, they were always winners and will be into the future. The problem with all of them has been the business plan, but as with all infrastructure it will be there for many years to come and the cost will seem insignificant in twenty years. The BER is a product of state issues and is not the issue the lib's would love it to be. they will not get their investigation up because it is a self serving waste of money that leaves no infrastructure behind. As for the batts, yes big stuff up, but i lost all respect for Abbott and the current liberals when they used the deaths of workers under state based workplace laws to emotionally manipulate the population for their own political gain. This is about as low as one can get.

I must confess to be a complete ignoramus on the structure and operation of the NBN.

"NBN Co plans to provide an open-access wholesale-only broadband network that will enable a variety of wholesale or retail service providers to deliver multiple services to consumers"

So, if I understand this correctly, we are spending $50bn or whatever on a relatively modern communications capability. Ok.

And the $50bn investment is actually being spent on that brave band of fearless contractors, whose task it is to build "the best, most cost effective infrastructure across Australia using a combination of fibre, wireless and satellite technologies"

(I'm quoting from the NBNCo website, by the way)

Fair enough, I guess. So after we've spent the $50bn, the government-for-all-Australians then allows private enterprise to buy this capability at wholesale rates. Who then add their (tiny, I expect) margin, and onsell to businesses and consumers, in healthy competition with each other.

So we have an infrastructure owned-by-all-Australians, with services delivered at competitive rates by private enterprise. Seems to make some sort of sense.

The bit that I haven't quite grasped yet is what is the purpose of the wholesale charge? Does it simply cover the cost of maintaining the "fibre, wireless and satellite" technologies, or is it designed to make a profit, like Telstra does?

It does seem to me that since we are already seeing "sticker-shock" from the consumer, how come this maintenance cost is so high, already?

Or is it designed to recoup the $50bn, so that future generations of Australians can enjoy lower taxes? If so - and I have not seen this articulated anywhere, so I'm guessing - why so much emphasis on the upfront cost?

There's more to this than meets the eye, for sure.

Anyone here able to enlighten us on the revenue/cost structure, down the track?

Or are we supposed to take it all on trust?

nairbe:"i lost all respect for Abbott and the current liberals when they used the deaths of workers under state based workplace laws to emotionally manipulate the population for their own political gain."

So you've never had respect for Labor then?

labor governments are incapable of running anything.
They lack the management skills that enable us humans to count ,quantify and reason.

Infastructure is everything, So get on with it.

nairbe,the labor run governments allowed workers to install foil over electrical wires.
Abbott did not send them to their deaths, and fires in roofs were a delberate act of the Rudd/Gillard governments rejection of the NZ experience of installing bats in NZ roofs.
The NBN with headquaters in the busy melbourne Docklands estate proves that they do not care about the regions.
If they were fair dinkum,the NBN HQ would be built in Mount Gambier or Portland with a 15 minute ride from airport to city centre.
Docklands takes one hour to get from airport to NBN HQ.

What does the HQ of broadband got to do with it.
Portland, Fairy Dell, i am sure they are great places but we are talking about a national scheme.
Expand your vision a little, and you may see something.

The point of this thread is that for all Labor sponsored projects, there have been several factors in common:

1 - The costs have always overshot the original estimates by a long way,
2 - There has been a need to stamp out competition to make it viable. (for toll tunnels alternate routes were closed)
3 - The revenue and benefits, where presented, have fallen far short of estimates, leaving either the tax payer to foot the bill or the private partner to go bankrupt.

The reason that the NBN company has to be entirely funded by the government (read taxpayer) is that no sane business or bank would touch it with a barge pole. And Julia's refusal to allow the productivity commission to review it shows that Labor knows this and are desperately trying to hide it from the Australian people.

The first signs of this come from the trial roll out in Tasmania, where having run fibre either to or close to 500 homes of which about 250 have allowed connection to the homes, and of whom only 30 have signed up to NBN broad band, mostly at the cheaper low speed packages.

Knowing that just about every Labor policy has turned to dung, Julia (Imelda Marcos) Gillard is desperate to maintain the lustre of the last policy that the voters like, and has fought against the release of every piece of information.

So for the expenditure so far of $37 000 000 we have 30 users paying an average of about $60 per month. This does not even cover the administration cost of invoicing let alone help pay off the capital.

I'm just scared that the NBN will be as deadly as the other Labour 'projects'.

I don't want to surf the internet at the risk of electrocution then be charged (no double meaning intended) excessively for the priviledge.

It's simply not feasible to perform a standard Cost Benefit Analysis on a public infrastructure project with an anticipated 50 year window.
It's not a Shopping Centre or a block of flats where shareholders need to get all costs plus profit back as quickly as possible.

How would you do one on a Public Hospital?
If it costs $1Billion to build one today, what's the total cost to the community over 50 years of NOT building it?

Using the same sentiment, it's a wonder that we have any Hospitals at all, let alone roads, schools or railways.
How could you justify any of them in the current political situation?

The Telstra Copper Network was built over decades at a cumulative cost of $10 Billion, plus all the associated switching and
transmission equipment, and is reaching the end of its serviceable life, let alone any technological restraints.

If it's due for replacement anyway, why replace copper with more copper?

"It would seem that now the public mood has been made clear that the NBN is wanted..."

As evidenced by what? A willingless to pay for it voluntarily? Or a belief in getting something for nothing by taking it from someone else?

The directors of a private corporation would be in jail for doing what the Labor ministry is doing with NBN, not to mention the carbon tax.

How can any one cost a NBN. It has got to be an educated guess. Infastructure is a nations wealth, without it you have nothing.

That's a little unfair, Shadow Minister.

>>The reason that the NBN company has to be entirely funded by the government (read taxpayer) is that no sane business or bank would touch it with a barge pole.<<

The problem was that the scope of the project was never made clear to the companies who were in a position to tender. Add to this the government's vacillating attitude to that archetypal 800lb gorilla, Telstra, the barge-pole was more to do with Ts and Cs than the actual project.

A key element of confusion in this project is that everyone is, to some extent, "right".

Given a leveller playing field (which would involve the government coming to terms with said 800lb gorilla), industry would have done a stunning job of delivering speed to those businesses who need it, at a fraction of the planned cost. Those who wanted it could get it, and pay for it in a normal commercial manner. Job done.

Except that...

Those businesses would be in major population centres, where the per-subscriber cost of delivering fibre and wireless is substantially less.

But there is somewhere in the small print the need to give all Strayans the same benefits.

In which case the folk who say "the cost to deliver to the remote corners of Straya must be borne by all Strayans" have a point: it simply would not be an attractive business proposition to invest in the technology that reaches the four high-speed subscribers in Outer Woop-Woop, if they are the only folk who will ever pay for it.

But hey, be that as it may - does anyone have any clue as to how the wholesale cost will be arrived at? It seems such a big question to leave unanswered.

A NBN may well be the top notch communication technology now but we all know that technology out-dates itself just about every year now. So, if the Government throws 49 Bn Dollars at that technology over the next few years what safety net is there for when better technology overthrows this infrastructure ? I can fully appreciate Business needing more speed but do we really need to hand out that much money for teeny poppers to download dumbcrap music ?
The other thing that worries me is that a whole country can be exposed to a lot of danger by relying too much on such technology with no manual back-up so to speak.
Some 16 year old hacker could bring down a nation with one stroke at the keyboard. Digital is absolutely fantastic but so are the possibilities of abject failure by total reliance on such a system. Let's make the NBN about 30 Bn Dollars & split the rest among well deserving pensioners.

"How can anyone cost the NBN"

You must be kidding! Telstra and its subcontractors know how much manpower and cabling is required for different types of cable installation.

Telstra has details on the network, cable routes, lengths etc. It just takes time to put the figures together. Any competent engineering firm could do it. The estimate has already been done, however, the government refuses to release the estimate and the assumptions on which it is based.

Similarly, hospitals are all subject to a cost benefit analysis, with the cost of service per bed etc.

The cost benefit analysis is easier and cheaper to do than most of the project work so far. Labor just does not want to hear the answer.

Shadow Minister I hereby dedicate a fourth wise monkey in your name.
It refuses to see, hear, or consider others ideas.
I can not get radio linked, nore more than 15 kbs via wire.
The government spent 4 grand on me with satellite, and I get far less than city speeds.
No evidence, none, exists that this proposal will be over budget.
I fail to under stand why any one, me too responds to your threads.

Dear Belly,

If you live in the country, then certainly you deserve a better connection - but why should everyone else suffer? why must you drag along the majority which are city-dwellers and already have more than their healthy share of bandwidth?

SM...good thread.. and probably just one of MANY to come.

Pericles... you say:

"I must confess to be a complete ignoramus on the structure and operation of the NBN."

Much as it is out of kilter with our discussion on another thread..I must entirely agree. I don't really have much of a clue about so much of it.

SM.. you seem good at digging this kind of info up.

Howwwww about:

1/ Look for the 'Labor/Union sweetheart dollar deals'
2/ Look for the 'well connected Labor politicians (current and ex parliament) who have fingies in the financial pie.
3/ If you can get some hint of how MUCH $$ it might cost and how they might run it.. 'bandwidth limits/excess usage fees.. speed roll back' etc..I'd love to know.

IF... we don't have an international connection by under sea fibre optic cable which can cope with the traffic... methinks we might not get as much of a deal as we'd like.

Final Thought. Seems like it's a bit of a ploy to 'Nationalize' i.e.. 'Telecom II' the comms situation.

I'm not exactly against that.. I've had a gut full of mind numbing 'choice' from the uncompetitive competitors out there.

Oh..IINET is supposed to be really GOOD (my boy says so) service.. talk to an Aussie... efficient.

BROCK,
The former first term Rudd labor government failed totally to administer their projects efficiently. This cost them a leader and majority government. This by no means dictates that future nor past labor governments could or would, have or could implement good policy. Your statement shows that you have little objectivity and even less ability to see good policy from bad.

Antiseptic,
You may wish to clarify your statement as without question labor have always fought for workers rights even though at times they may have gone to far in doing so. Responsibility for certain areas of work place safety lay within different levels of government. If you would like to debate the reasoning of riding ourselves of the pointless and expensive state governments then let's do it, but don't proportion blame for cheap political gain.

Shadow minister,
"But as politicians, Labor has never shied away from buying votes. These will just be the most expensive ever."

When i first viewed this thread your post was not evident. But this statement would be the most laughable. When it comes to buying votes the former Howard liberal government would lead the way. The family tax benefit, the family tax benefit bonus, the disability bonus, the baby bonus and the lack of tackling business tax reform. On top they introduced assistance payments to the unemployed for petrol and many other costs involved in "searching for work". Get it together, The NBN will seriously increase competition in the telecommunications market by putting all competitor on a level playing field. I know that is unwanted by many but it will improve the situation for rural Australia untold. You clearly don't get the current and unfolding market in ecommerce and marketing available through a markedly improved delivery system. You are the type that will claim great victory as your government makes good from the labours of others in the future. We are desperately suffering now for the failure of the past governments to invest in the infrastructure the sees us currently suffering across the board.

I too knew very little about the NBN until I watched 'Insight' on SBS last night. The show gave many pros and cons about this network, and was quite heated at times! I enjoyed the program and suggest others read the transcripts (or watch the replay) on the link below if they want to be better informed on the issues.

I was particularly impressed with Tony Windsor's very wise response to the issues involved (as he always does)-

<"TONY WINDSOR: I have doubts about the Productivity Commission. I am a supporter of the national broadband network. I think it is the one piece of infrastructure that I've seen from a country perspective that actually can negate distance as being a disadvantage of living in the country. We talk about paradigms in this particular parliament, the changing paradigms. I think this is the one thing that can do that in terms of doing business, health, education and a whole range of things."

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/332#transcript

I was a fan of the NBN by the end of this program, mainly because I believe the health needs of country Australians should be met at the same levels of service as those in city areas.

The only way this can happen is by providing high speed broadband into country health centres and GP surgeries, so that improved, widespread teleconferencing by Medical experts located in cities can assess patients in far-flung areas without them having to incur huge expenses to go to the medicos in the nearest city.

If the proposed NBN only achieved improved health and education outcomes for country people, and nothing else, I would be happy.

Suzeonline,

Sure, why not bring fast networks to regional health centres if it's not there already, but you should realize that for individual households in cities, the existing technology is already more than capable of video-conferencing with doctors.

The NBN promoters obtain your sympathy by talking about health and education, but their only real interest is to drug people with more entertainment.

We seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the NBN here, and especially about the motives for providing it. But how many of those assumptions can be supported by evidence?

1) That it is all about buying votes?

2) That it is all about drugging us with entertainment?

Neither seems to be supported by anything more than suspicion. I, for one, support the closing of the gap between metropolitan and regional Australia. I choose to live in a regional centre, and must accept the consequences of that choice - shoddy infrastructure, lack of representation at the state level (1,400km away) and at the federal level (even further), the list goes on.

However, my state (Queensland) seems determined to push people out of the metropolitan area and into the regions. Bligh wants to turn Townsville into a 'second capital'. She wants enormous population growth and economic growth. This will have implications not only for Townsville, but also for the Burdekin, for Ingham, for Charters Towers, for the Bowen Basin ... much as I would like to see Townsville and the surrounding region remain a small, provincial area, I think that if the government wants to push people into my neighbourhood, it needs to back it up with some infrastructure upgrades. The NBN could make distance in this sleepy hollow more viable. It could make educational divides less noticeable and, yes, it could lure people with easier access to entertainment.

All of this, of course, is a state initiative. But does the push for a 'big Australia' really foresee enormous growth in the cities with little growth elsewhere? Again, this push is something I don't like, but it seems likely to stay with us for some time. If we want to ease the strain on the cities, we need to build infrastructure - including IT infrastructure - in the regions.

As for the argument that it will go out of date too quickly - are we really expected to sit on our already out-of-date technology while we wait for that ultimate and insurmountable technological development that cannot be outdated?

I expect it from Shadow minister.
But read every post here.
I just have again.
I know nothing of the NBN is a common theme.
Followed by an opinion.
One histrionic, [ that is the impact on me] post said if I am in the country why should city folk suffer for it?
Most people, by now I was giggling, live in city's it said.
The NBN is nothing less than the first roll out nation wide of telephone.
An an tempt to give better, sometimes only communication, to? all this country.
It is true, one day, maybe soon, some thing better may/will come along.
Also it may be generations before it does.
Are we Luddites?
Do we truly say forget the bush, the need to have equal communications nationwide.
Maybe its time to tell Matilda to leave, bury the billy tin, have our holidays in city's give the 4x4 away and catch a tram.
Hey! lets give the bush to the boat people! its not Australia, not in by back yard give them strings and tin cans

I think all agree that a NBN is great technology. No-one has a problem with that. The problem lies in the $43 Bn plus. I tend to agree with Yuyutsu & the drugging entertainment. That in itself is not a mere problem, it's an actual danger. We already have people who can't think without an LCD screen in front of them. Do we really want to make it even worse ? For business & technology & progress in general I'd say yes, NBN is good but it will be detrimental to wider society from a social aspect. We already have even teams of thinkers vs morons. Do we really want to take the risk & dip the scale even more in favour of the morons ? We need to think about what so much fantastic technology is doing to us socially. We need to separate business technology from social technology. Are we so lost already that we need superfast 20 Gigabyte dumbing of society ? Technologically the benefits of NBN are superb, socially the dangers are even greater.

Belly,

Having spent several years living in the rural areas, I sympathize with the additional cost of services. When I build a house outside town I had to pay for the cost of the conduit for the telephone which was far from cheap, and for the electricity line, and there was no gas or water. (I had to use rain water.)

However, I did get a large 4 bedroom house on couple of hectares of land over looking a river for less than the price of a 1 bedroom flat in Sydney.

The trial run to supply NBN to the small towns in Tasmania cost $37m to bring the fibre to the doorstep of 500 homes and connect to 270 of them. This is an average cost of $74 000 per house, and much more for actual rural communities. If the actual take is considered this blows out to $140 000.

On top of this has been added about $300 a house for battery back up and $300 a house for incentive to take up NBN broad band, which was not included in the original estimate.

Considering that the take up in these communities of the high speed broad band is about 10%, what will it be in the cities. For example I get 200GB of download at speeds between 10MB/s and 20MB/s on relatively new coaxial line at a fraction of the cost of the published NBN prices. I can watch streamed video and download movies in minutes.

Considering that 90% of people live in the cities and most have access to this existing technology, they are facing being forced onto the NBN when Telstra is paid to scrap their new coax system, and paying higher prices.

To summarize, NBN might deliver better service for rural dwellers, but it does very little for the vast majority of the population in the cities except increase prices.

Dear Belly,

I think you have misunderstood my post: I was not suggesting that the country should not get a good network - I think it should. Shadow Minister just clarified what I said and I wholly agree with him: bring a good network to the bush, but don't implicate the cities. If city-people are glued to their entertainment devices, surely they won't have Matilda, the billy tin and many other things on their mind.

For me, for the world, it improves communications.
I have never played a game, watched a movie, wasted time on my PC.
My family lives in just about every state we use this to communicate.
My work, now over saw every member get at least one industry report a week.
I would rush to get the dish of my roof and not fear the costs.
I still think Luddites are in this thread,self interest rules here and that it is a feeble unbalanced attempt to slander Labor.

feeble unbalanced attempt to slander Labor.
Belly,
please give us a break with this unquestioning loyalty to your political party. There is incompetence in all parties & most of us accept that, so it would be good if you too could accept that Labor just happens to be at the top of the list. So far as bigger, better, faster networking is concerned-yes, it is fantastic technology which enables the criminal elements to gain even faster access to peoples' accounts etc.
Just remember also that too much knowledge in the wrong hands is not healthy for the rest of us. Just look at some of the other great inventions. Dynamite, gunpowder, electricity, cars etc. etc. To what percentage are these inventions still misused to this day. NBN is no different.

Dear Belly,

If you live in a city or its suburbs, then existing copper technology easily allows each member of your family to simultaneously speak with the rest of your family, all over Australia and the world, even with video. The fact that the same is not available in the country should indeed be corrected.

As for Luddites, yes, I proudly believe that excessive technology is harmful, that mankind is not mature enough to use much of it wisely and that the fact that something CAN be done does not imply that it SHOULD be done. Using technology for entertainment, which is what the NBN is really about (because almost anything else can be done with existing copper technology), is disastrous. As if people, especially the younger generations, are not already isolated in virtual cocoons, missing on real-life itself, forgetting even that they have a physical body and to interact with even their own family, this gloomy fibre technology to the home will excacerbate it further.

As for the Labor party, I actually considered giving Labor my preference (due to its better treatment of refugees), but it was due to the NBN that I could not do it, not vice versa.

the..national broadband..ADGENDA...seeks to use fuzzy logic..to reverse the error of privatisation..of what is a community resource[worse a SERVICE...as basic today...as schools]

everyone has the right to hear..or be heard...but because of commercial intrests...that means to be seen/and to see..has been restricted..by enron..paternalistic slowing-down of the tubes..carrying our vital info

we should be living in the age of plenty...costs to exchange and store info has never been more cheap...but instead..costs go through the roof...as the service gets ever more slow..due to proffiteering..of the plunder...stolen from us all..

just as bankers stole control of the federal reserve...charging intrest[ursury]..to govt issueing its own moneies...then allowing bankfees..instead of intrest..on our meager savings..

[let alone the tax...on wages,,[when only income}..meaning..proffit made..;sans value adding]..is rightfully income...[wages is not income...yet ignorance only makes it taxable

govt neded to install..INCOME[not wage tax]..to pay-off..the ursury..to the bankers...there is so much colluded deceit in all these issues..[like removing death-DUTIES...and taxing our basics instead]...and soon the big-new tax on carbon...when we got real polutants to get rid off

but back to the nbn...all being made more slow..via high-definition...clogging up the pipes...just so those with energy hungry..big screen ego..tv..can watch their fill of murder and mayhem...and cooking shows and sport

well sport..im sick of paying for all that..its bad enough govt opens the tax payer..cash-trough..to these sporting elites...[and media mogals..just to get payback at voting time..by the sport-club handing out how to vote for my party at election time..and the media giving us opnion instead of news

lets not forget the gift of specrum...the broad spectrum..clogging our internet...as well as hogging..all that free-to-air..broadcasting spectrum.../cutting out the competion...

as well as holding their selective franchise..[if you doudt that then..see the fruit of the loins...of the media moguls..buying ten]

its a sure..'gamble'...because its a sure thing..
set in train by their patriarches...way back when the heavey spectrum was being planed...bah...hope you enjoy this user pays...as your tv costs ever more to run...than it cost

this nbn...lert the user..[pay]
but let basic acces be free...[we are paying for it]
not you rich tax..;minimisers'..lol..avoiders more like it

multinationals should be paying double taxation..in both juristictions

INDIVIDUAL! I challenge, one of the most one sided and biased people I have met you.
Not only to prove I am biased toward my party, but prove to me, PLEASE, you have any idea any understanding of how child like your post is.
How can you, come please, not remember my threads questioning my party, my Prime Minister.
How did you miss my thread on NSW power without glory.
Labors first term mistakes
I can not mate credit you with any understanding any idea of open debate.
Surely after re reading your last post and mine you have to concede you charge me with your crime.
Others who charge me with one eyed bias, please considerer befor getting rid of the family dog.
The house hold IQ average could drop markedly if you do.

So we want a full cost benefit analysis in private business terms, of a government infrastructure program whose development stretches for a decade and provides non-commercial service benefits and social benefits.

So name the genius economist / accountant who will tell us reliably how to calculate all the figures involved for the next 10 years plus extra decades of planned usage. Give us a run-down on what future costs will be, in the context of GFC recovery/non-recovery, climate change factors, movements of international currency, and "known" / estimated take up rates at different projected levels for each of the component traffic, commercial and governmental. Get the same genius to advise on the business case benefits related to things such as health service improvements, education improvements, as well as regional business productivity improvements over the 10 or 20 year periods, and increased efficiencies arising from enabled services which are not yet known, allowing for rises and falls in peer to peer operations, entertainment services, savings in transport costs, pollution reduction and savings in housing costs arising from relocation of remote workers

Then ask the same genius to tell us what the Reserve Bank will do with interest rates next week, hope he or she will get it better than last month, and ask them to throw in the winner of next Tuesday's Melbourne Cup.

They've got a chance with the cup -- there are limited runners.

CBAs for large government infrastructure projects of this size and extent are a wank. All you can do is look at some projected benefits, some projected costs, and then toss a bloody coin.

See http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/09/17/cost-benefit-delusions-of-the-nbn/comment-page-2/ for a few details.

"So we want a full cost benefit analysis"?

No, all we want is to stop the NBN in order to protect our children from its bad influence and to allow us to keep our copper connection.
As this is not essentially a matter of money, we have no real need for a cost-analysis, but if that's what will get sense into the heads of ministers, so be it.

The opposition has suggested the most sensible alternative - that fibre would run to the exchanges, at the end of every street, then those residents who wish to have it, for whatever reason, will take it from there. Though unfair, I would even concede that they do so at the tax-payer's expense, but even that would not satisfy the government - they are determined to force the NBN on us and even take us to jail if we refuse to have it installed in our homes, or perhaps even shoot us when we attempt to obstruct the workmen on our own property.

The opposition (which I don't side with on other matters) is using legitimate democratic tools - should they use machine guns instead?

What I find amusing in the whole NBN debate is that people who know and understand networks know that fiber to each house is far from optimal. on the other hand, those who know very little, think fiber is the answer to everything, and on top of it then think that the engineers and technicians are Luddites.

Contrary to common understanding fiber is not necessarily faster than copper (CAT6 cables routinely run 1GB/s and can now reach 10GB/s), and unlike copper fiber has some serious drawbacks that are expensive to rectify such as:

Fiber cables are notoriously fragile, and a single knock can fracture the fibers requiring the entire cable to be replaced. As result the Fiber cables are far more expensive to install, as they need specialized handling, and termination.

Fiber cables only carry light signals and unlike copper cabling, cannot carry power with the signal. The obvious result is that the home owner has to ensure that there is power to the media converter / modem to ensure that he has any communication outside the house.

For health and safety reasons the NBN now has to supply UPS battery power to these modems, at a huge cost and just the maintenance of these battery supplies is going to cost an estimated $150 000 000 p.a.

Considering the Tasmanian experience where only 10% of those with access to the NBN were actually prepared to pay for the 100MB/s, whilst the other 90% preferred either the slower cheaper packages or simply to remain with the slower, but still cheaper and perfectly adequate copper connection.

The only reason Labor is blocking a cost benefit analysis is that then everyone will see that Labor's jewel in the crown is another complete waste of money.

Let me see,yes it is 9klm to the end of my street.
Well not really but that is how far from the exchange I am.
It floods after rain, sometimes 3 days before the phone works.
My fellow non Australians, after all non city dwellers are not aren't they?
May be 50 klm from it.
INDIVIDUAL, stand by your words, show me My bias tell me why you have none.

INDIVIDUAL, stand by your words, show me My bias tell me why you have none.
Belly,
In your case not so much a bias but something rather less flattering. In my case I have lost & continue to to lose everytime Labor makes a major policy change. Not to mention the increases in registrations & rates.
Anyhow, no amount of evidence will make you admit that Labor religiously stuffs up. NBN will prove no exception.

We are falling here in OLO, maybe in the country.
Once I was proud of the way we could speak about politics,we no longer can.
Your inference individual ,,that I am not intelligent enough to know, that is what it is,drags me into ground I do not wish to walk over.
Aussie males however can not avoid conflicts like this,even if they know it would be better to walk away.
Bloke I doubt you can understand this.
But your words again question your understanding not mine.
Do you truly think,any one with an opposing view is wrong?
You not me put a charge you now agree was wrong in to this thread.
You after seeing my reply said it was not true.
This mornings trip to OLO has more than one needless confrontation, more than one insulting of the opponent, for? thinking differently.
However bloke you again and again show me in posts you are not capable of insightful unbiased comment.
And that you give no value to free speech, truth, fairness, after a time ,after trying for so long to let you find a mirror and look in to it mate you are not the fountain of knowledge you think you are.

Belly,
No one's said that anyone with an opposing view is wrong. What I am saying is that someone who refuses to acknowledge mismanagement & misappropriation is wrong. NBN is a 43 Billion Dollar gamble & sensible people are questioning the viability of this spending. I haven't heard anyone to be opposed to NBN only the amount of Taxpayers money being spent. I for one find it far more pressing to improve services like water, transport, health etc rather than make it easier for frivolous internet downloading to get even faster. Also as I stated before, a faster internet will also speed up the misuse of it & also aid the criminal elements even more. I'm sure when Malcolm Turnbull is expressing his opposition to the plan he is talking about the widom of so much taxpayers money being spent rather than oppose improving the network. My concern is that our society has now become so dependent on networking that whenever a breakdown occurs they're just utterly at a loss. Just look at your average check-out when the power goes off. Is that how stranded we want to be when networks fail ?

Belly,

That you even claim to be slightly unbiased is a joke. Your unwavering support of the NBN is mostly due to it being a Labor vote buying exercise.

That it will improve telecoms is not in doubt, but neither is that this could be done using other more appropriate technologies for a tiny fraction of this cost.

While the voters thought this was a great idea at election time, already, as more information emerges, its popularity is waning.

INDIVIDUAL read only your last three posts, then mine, your hook is firmly in your mouth.
Your words convict you.
How after reading those posts can I not think you your self are unable to be believed in any post.
Shadow Minister, you know that is silly, you understand the NBN has just started.
On what evidence do you claim over spending? or any of your wild UN focused claims.
You do understand do you? I at least have done some thing you are not brave enough to, given my party a bashing often.
IQ is not related to education, but your posts, those that do not give me the right to think as I wish are at the lower end of the range.
Do poor fella you truly think my comments are from biases? then read my post before this one it may help you.
I think mate you are in need of some advice, I believe your self confidence is miss placed.

Isn't it amazing how things can happen so close to a debate. I only mentioned a network failure earlier on & this afternoon the lines went down in our community. There were quite a number of customers at the shop just standing around waiting for the re connection. Just imagine if that happened in major industry or during one of those celebrated internet surgical operations ? Is there a plan B for when NBN is down ? Or is that an optional several billion dollars ? Have we passed the point of no return where thinking & practical action is required in such a scenario of network failure ? I don't suppose even the most vehement supporters of NBN would dare to suggest that NBN is beyond breakdown. So, what is plan B ?

Belly,

If you bothered to read what I posted before, there are lots of additional costs that were not included in the original business plan, such as the battery back up and the $300 incentives. This already adds about $3bn before we even start.

You individual are now ranting.
I can see in my minds eye readers ROTFL all over the country.
Having lurched in to the thread like a drunk you now say you lost service so what do we do, replace the system with the NBN?
Sorry still unable to see any straws for you to grasp.
Shallow Minister goodonya bloke expand on how the federal government got the tunnel wrong.
You will enjoy another trip to your sand box and it will make me smile.

Belly ache,

I challenge you to try and provide even a smidgeon of information that contradicts me. I seriously doubt you have the know how, and the only reason for your support is because the NBN is last fig leaf of respectability for Labor policy.

NSW Labor stuffed up the tunnels, Federal Labor completely botched the BER and pink batts. Two pieces of the same rotten apple.