The NBN may be called a company, making it sound like a free enterprise entity, but in fact it's a government monopoly, a state bureaucracy. As such it is based not upon free enterprise philosophy which underpins Australia's economy, but on China's model of state enterprises run like private corporations - up to a point. One might say "oh, but China's doing so well, why not base our economy on their practices?" Well, if we had a billion people, were starting from a low base, had a strong work ethic, and a hunger to create a middle class and claw our way out of poverty, maybe. But the problems attendant upon China's recent growth - inflation, corruption, pollution, ageing workforce - are now beginning to make themselves felt, and China may lose its position as the engine of world economic growth. So those why say let's abandon the US and go with China are short sighted. Plus, our track record of publicly owned corporation such as the State Engineering Works at Wollongong is not a good omen for such a move. And as for the NBN, in 10-15 years time wireless will do the same job, better.

Labor is on track to build us a state of the art $40bn network for $90bn and about 5 years late, pretty much as they have done with every other project.

We, every thinking understanding Australian, via my beloved ALP,s right wing are going to suffer.
See the NBN was to bring us up to world class.
It is not, sorry to dissuade the few, to make playing mind numbing games faster.
It is was and always will be, a tool to drive the very economy of the world.
Those who love to blame Labor, ever for this giant nation building scheme, should understand just what Abbott is going to do, in putting his steam driven toy, inter net in its place.
If yesterdays road builders, built bridges wider, we would not have spent more than both road and bridge cost, to widen the bridge.
Had Labor not tried so hard, to destroy its self, ignore voters thoughts, we would have seen this magic thing come fully in to use.

Building the fiber backbone is like building the harbour bridge. The fibers to the houses are like the little side streets that can be upgraded as needed.

The NBN as per Labor's model is a financial disaster that will hang like a stinking albatross around the government's neck for decades.

Belly old mate, if you have a good look around the world, you might just decide "world class' is something best avoided.

Even when world class is good, at reasonable cost, becomes rather important.

Although there is also a financial aspect (which is of less concern to me), the most 'Chinese' thing about the NBN is that ordinary people are denied the choice which technologies they want and which they don't.

This is yet another case of the nanny-state forcibly dragging us towards where THEY think is 'good for us' according to THEIR ideology and system of values.

On this occasion Yuyu, I'm with the nanny state. The NBN will quickly grow to be an essential, like glad-wrap, keeping Australia at the front of the pack. What is done should be done properly, all the way. Going cheap will further divide us into the haves and have nots.

Dear Luciferase,

I will leave the economic aspect of the discussion to others who are knowledgeable-of and interested-in economics.

Yes, I too am afraid that the NBN has the potential to quickly grow and become 'essential' - something one cannot do without, but is that a good thing?

"Keeping Australia at the front of the pack" assumes that:
1) We want to be part of a pack.
2) The pack as a whole is heading towards positive territory, thereby being at the front is an advantage.

I am not interested in being part of a pack; and I believe that the existing pack of humanity is heading blindly in a wrong direction straight over the cliff into a deep abyss.

I have a copper connection, which used to be fully-analogue and now, sadly, the only analogue part remaining is from my house to the exchange at the end of the street.

Now I want to retain my analogue phone, having a real phone that does not depend on digital technology, which allows me to somewhat keep that addictive technology away from my house. I am also happy to put my money where my mouth is, even if my analogue service costs more, and there are companies around that are happy to provide me with this service over the existing copper network. Yet the government says 'Niet' (that's Russian - how is it in Chinese?): companies are no longer allowed to provide me with this service and I am no longer allowed to enjoy it (well, at least before thankfully we get our reprieve in September). Instead they insist that this whole beautiful network be dug out of the ground. They will badly miss it once the pack is over the cliff and digital components and spare parts can no longer be produced.

BTW, I have no objection for those who so wish to have their fibre-optic run all the way to their homes, so long as they don't take my copper away. I understand that there are severe economic-implications, but that I leave to the economists among us to discuss.

Turnbull said:

“But for the bulk of Australia’s built-up areas, residential suburbs in other words, we will be taking fibre out into the field but not all the way into the customer’s premise. That saves about three-quarters, at least, of the cost and the reason it saves so much money is because the cost of this network is not in the electronics or in the fibres or in the cables, it is in labour. It’s very labour-intensive, digging holes and trenches and getting guys into cherry-pickers and drilling holes in walls and all that sort of thing. So it’s the civil works that rake up the cost here. So, this is a much smarter approach.”

What he is really saying:

I don’t want you the Australian people to have access to a superior universal system. I don’t want to create all those jobs to produce fibre to every premise. I don’t want that universal system owned by all Australians where the small can compete with the big. What I want is a fragmented system that small players will find hard to access because the last step is controlled by the big. If you do want to get fibre it will cost you a lot more because rollout is fragmented.

He is just looking after his parasite mates! It’s all about snouts in troughs.

Are Australians like bratish children, wanting everything now irrespective of how much it costs?

The coalition's plan will deliver a far superior broadband to everyone faster than the hugely labour intensive NBN presently. As needed later it can be expanded one house at a time. Of course those playing games want it all, but why demand it for many of us who will never need it?

Shadow Minister – Expanding one house at a time is inefficient, super expensive and really really dumb. It will give power to the big players stifling competition. If Australians want it and pay for it, which is clearly the case and it encourages competition, why would a coalition government not want to proceed. Clearly it does not favour their mates at big end of town and enables them to shift the cost from NBN Co. on to those who can least afford the vastly increased cost. It is a slight of hand Clayton’s reduction when there is in fact an increase to Australians to achieve the same result.

Might I suggest it is Mr Rabbott and his mob that are the brattish children who are playing games!

I hope Australians have the sense to hang both parties this election.

Democratic proportional representation is the only way forward.

Another thing the Kiwi’s beat us too.

Dear Producer,

<<Expanding one house at a time is inefficient, super expensive and really really dumb.>>

But who said that the NBN must be spread one house at a time?

If so many want this thing as you say, then what prevents those neighbours of the same street or two who want a fibre-optic connection from organising together and getting the work done at the same time?

To save costs, they could even shop around and contract a construction company of their own choosing to dig their street.

They could also save costs by electing to forego certain costly provisions which, if done by government, would have to be kept strictly, such as the requirement to maintain car-access to all houses at all times during construction.

To further save costs, whole families could even pull up their sleeves, pick spades and work along digging their own street. What a wonderful way to get to know your neighbours!

One doubt still, once people get to know and appreciate their neighbours as real people, once they had a good sweat out in the sun and fresh air of the real world, will they still want to go inside and re-hook themselves to the games of virtual reality?

Producer,

With the present NBN the expansion from the node to each house has to be treated differently, as for some trenches have to be dug, some can be pulled through in conduits, etc. The "efficiency" savings are marginal at best, which is the whole point.

The present NBN is super expensive and really dumb.

Yuyutsu & Shadow Minister - The reason the production line for cars was so successful is that it is a lot cheaper to build cars that way. To build then one at a time like Rolls Royce was and still is ultra-expensive. This same principle applies to the NBN.

Shadow Minister – I said “If Australians want it and pay for it, which is clearly the case and it encourages competition, why would a coalition government not want to proceed. Clearly it does not favour their mates at big end of town and enables them to shift the cost from NBN Co. on to those who can least afford the vastly increased cost.”

You have weaselled around the question of overall cost, as did Turnbull and ignored the question of competition and the big end of town contained in this comment!

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.

Shadow Minister try not to ignore, side step, no rhetoric or weasel words.

Hard isn’t it!

The provision of national infrastructure is ALWAYS done by government - private sources ares simply unable to do it.

Even New Zealand have admitted that provision of FTTN was a bad move and are now going with FTTH. The cost of going back and extending FTTN was found to be too wasteful.

It's like the dud railway that Howard built from SA to the NT. The cost of adding another line to make it usuable will be three times the cost of providing the original line. It would have been far cheaper to provide what was needed at the start.

Furthermore it's not just a matter of adding to what's expected to be there, it's also a matter of dumping a significant part of the infrastructure hardware. Those FTTN cabinets that will be installed everywhere will become redundant, not to mention retrofitting the hardware at various Points-Of-Interconnect.

Also, for the umpteenth time, wireless will NEVER be a viable replacement for fibre. Figures bandied about are for cell speeds, not individual speeds and the more people on the cell, the slower it gets.
The provision of sufficient backhaul transmission will also mean lots of extra fibres running to each Base Station and there will be hundreds of those needed to get any decent coverage. 3G sites alone need to be 1 km apart. 5G and above will be even closer. Want one in your backyard?

Dear Producer,

<<Yuyutsu & Shadow Minister - The reason the production line for cars was so successful is that it is a lot cheaper to build cars that way. To build then one at a time like Rolls Royce was and still is ultra-expensive. This same principle applies to the NBN.>>

But I was not mentioning prices.

At the moment it is (still?) not illegal for me to buy a Rolls Royce, but the existing government want to forbid me having an analogue copper phone line, which is the only product I am interested in and willing to have at home, even if I was willing to pay $1M for it. Fortunately, come September, this draconian decree will be overturned.

Producer,

I was waiting for someone to come up with a silly homilie about how installing lines in homes is a production line. No it is not. Every house is different, with different accesses, different trees, gardens, houses, different occupants with different placement demands etc. Each is a individual project.

The FTTN model will still have regular upgrades with fewer dedicated teams moving from one premise to another. While there may be some efficiency savings, from proximity of houses it is relatively small.

Shadow Minister – congratulations, you did it!

You ignored, you side stepped; there was lots of rhetoric and weasel words.

Let’s try again

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.

Now concentrate Shadow Minister this time there are no distractions. It might require a bit of independent thinking. Try not to ignore, side step, no rhetoric or weasel words

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.

Producer,

Are you functionally illiterate, or just don't bother to read my posts.

To use small words:

1 Juliar's plan runs fiber to businesses, so does the coalition. Thus no difference.

2 Juliar's plan will get fiber to the households by 2020, the coalition will get vastly faster broadband there on average years quicker if it is a home business.

3 What small business in a low income area would need more than 50Mb/s?

If your small business in a low income area involve racks of internet servers worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, then they can get fiber to the premises for a few grand.

So there is no scenario where your "business" is not better off under the coalition's plan than Juliar's and Comrade Conjob.

ROUND 5

Shadow Minister – Just tell me how the low income consumer in Sydney is going to get their fibre connection.

Here we go:

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.

I will even start your answer:

The low income consumer in Sydney will get fibre from the node to their house under the Turnbull policy by ………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Producer,

Still lacking the literary skills to read my answer?

Still smarting from my demolition of your pathetic production line example?

Your posts are simply the most moronic I have seen in years. Any business gets a fiber connection exactly the same whether from Juliar's NBN or Abbott's.

The idiots guide to Fiber installation for PRODUCER.

Step 1 Apply for it

Step 2 The technicians put in the cable and connect it up.

Step 3 switch it on.

Any simpler and I would have to draw pictures

Round 6

Shadow Minister – Well done, we are getting there. I know you must be grumpy and tired. Now get a tight grip on that dummy.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are talking about the low income consumer in Sydney. I notice you haven’t been able to write “low income consumer” in any of your answers. You like to use the word “business” but to speed things up I’m going to pretend you really mean “low income consumer”. We wouldn’t want you weaselling out would we.

Just two itty bitty things you missed out

1. Under the Turnbull model, to who does low income consumer apply.
2. WHO PAYS FOR IT?

Neither of these questions apply to the current model because NBN installs fibre to the home.

Dear Producer,

If a small company in WA is able to offer a service that requires a copper connection to the home (such as an analogue phone service that allows one to hear the voices of their dear relatives overseas directly without being reduced to digital bits on the way) 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 to? If the low income consumer in Sydney does not have copper to the home because of Gillards’s policy, what else can they do other than fly overseas to hear their relatives face-to-face (oops, I forgot they are low-income and cannot afford a plane-ticket either, perhaps work on a cargo ship to finance the trip)?

Producer,

If any consumer who has had his network upgraded from 1Mb/s to 50Mb/s wants to upgrade to the more expensive NBN fiber 100Mb/s then he needs to pay for it.

The question I asked first that you have been continually weaselling out of is why does a low income consumer need 100Mb/s and why 50Mb/s cannot cover everything he needs.

If a low income consumer wants a bigger car who pays for it?

Round 7 (final)

Shadow Minister – I think we might wind this saga up. No doubt it’s boring the hell out of anyone who is still following this thread.

So what you now admit to is, under the Turnbull/Rabbott NBN the low income consumer in Sydney would have to pay to upgrade the service to the level currently being offered by the existing NBN scheme. Your words “If any consumer who has had his network upgraded from 1Mb/s to 50Mb/s wants to upgrade to the more expensive NBN fiber 100Mb/s then he needs to pay for it.”

Shadow Minister I had a quick look at all your posts to see where you asked “why does a low income consumer need 100Mb/s” I’m sorry I could not find it. Could you give me the time and date of that post please?

It was a hypothetical question and I didn’t have anyone in mind but let’s make one up.

The low income consumer is a war veteran that was injured from Agent Orange in Vietnam and is on a pension. The individual’s condition requires him to be hooked up to machines to survive. The machines are monitored by specialists only located in WA. The veteran also needs a high bandwidth as his only form of communication is video conferencing. He needs at least 80Mb/s. He cannot afford the connection and data costs that the large telecommunication companies are charging to upgrade to fibre.

Yuyutsu – You might still have copper but you do not have an analogue phone. The analogue system was switched off during the Howard government which included Mr Rabbott in the late 1990’s. They put you on digital and you didn’t even know.

Now you have to vote Labour as per your previous post. Can I suggest you don’t, Vote independent if you have a good one. Keep away from the god bothers because they have imaginary friends and don’t deal with reality.

Thankyou it’s been fun.

Dear Producer,

<<The analogue system was switched off during the Howard government which included Mr Rabbott in the late 1990’s. They put you on digital and you didn’t even know.>>

Correct, so that's why I bothered to write explicitly (above):

"Overall, it seems to me that AT THIS POINT IN TIME, of the two, the red team is more fanatic about that 'progress' thing."

That's why AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I'm going to give my preferences to the blue team. I'll keep an open mind, so if the tiger changes its stripes and Ms. Gillard (or whoever replaces her) promises to let me keep my copper phone-line while Mr. Abbot (or whoever replaces him) threatens to take it away, then surely I will vote the opposite.

Producer,

You are exactly right this is a question that is so hyperthetical that it is impossible. Please explain how your war vet needs more than 50Mb/s as the functions you describe could easily be met by present capabilities of 1Mb/s. Unless you required HD video conferencing, 100kb/s covers basic video conferencing, and 400kb/s covers standard services, and full HD video conferencing requires only 8Mb/s so stop talking out of your backside.

You have invented a need that does not exist that you want the taxpayer to fund for everyone.

All I see is someone who has no clue of what is speaking about. I would guess you are a liberal arts nerd.

As for your weaseling please refer to:

"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."

SM says: "The coalition's plan would raise connection speeds from about 1.5Mb/s to 50Mb/s". The LNP claim was a 25Mb/s 'minimum' at the launch of the proposal and the latest Turnbull claim is his hybrid network would be 'capable' of reaching 80Mb/s in download speeds! Better adjust, SM, Malcolm has outbid you! Fibre to the premises works at 100Mb/s, unquestionably, but Malcolm wants us to live on faith while clearly his job is simply to remove the NBN as an obstacle to Abbott's pathway to The Lodge.

Also, according to SM's LNP songsheet: "Labor is on track to build us a state of the art $40bn network for $90bn...."

It's worth listening to someone qualified to comment on these statements. I have posted the following link elsewhere with SM dismissing it simply as biased (i.e. differing from his LNP viewpoint).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/experts-criticise-coalitions-internet-plan/4619506

Mark Gregory, a senior lecturer in electrical and computer engineering at RMIT and quite capable of comparing the alternative proposals. He has something very significant to say on both SM/LNP claims above.

Over time, all node-to-premises copper will have to be replaced with fibre, so why not just do it cheaper in bulk instead of more expensively piecemeal? It will become like a triaged public hospital queue that becomes a national equity issue with some having to wait a decade or more for fibre to reach them than than do others (unless they pay for the privilege at piecemeal rates. Bulk buying is always cheaper, despite SM's false assertion to the contrary just to strengthen his case).

Crikey, why do we have to endure the LNP stupidly playing politics with this just because it wasn't its idea? It really hasn't come very far from its original position of opposing the NBN outight given that copper to-the-node has to be replaced soon enough anyway.

Dear Luciferase,

<<Over time, all node-to-premises copper will have to be replaced with fibre,>>

That is an ideological statement, not a technical one.

Every cable breaks down one day (fibre too!): what (if any) it is then replaced with, is a human decision reflecting one's values, not a technological necessity.

If my phone line breaks down while I'm still alive, I'll be happy to pay to replace it with another copper cable.

Labor wants to push the digital way of life on us by hook or by crook. I can see at least 4 reasons for that:

1) It's part of their communist ideology to "destroy the old world".
2) Analogue technology could possibly be used subversively to connect people bypassing the official, Big-Brother's all-knowing network that never loses a bit.
3) Internet addiction, gluing people to their chairs and removing them from the real world, tend to make people docile and obedient, less inclined to revolt.
4) It provides jobs for their comrades and their families.

Yes, if they have their way and stay in power they will have all copper replaced - using police-force if necessary to break and enter people's premises and forcibly replace their copper connections, arresting those (like me) who would try to oppose them. It is in that sense, and only in that sense, that your harrowing statement is true.

Geez, Yuyu, you've got the makings of a great sci-fi movie right there! Copper Luddite Saviours vs The Optical Fibre Monster, coming to a non-digital nickelodeon near you!

Thanks for the laugh.

LF

Why do we have to stand for labor stupidity?

The assumption that doing all the fiber to the premises now would be cheaper is generalization that is only true in ideal circumstances. As I showed above, assuming that labour costs are fixed, each house is a small project in itself, and both plans have teams doing this, with fewer teams on the Lib side. The difference in efficiencies is small.

However, what is clear is that already the NBN huge demand for cable installers has pushed up labour costs immensely. The consequences are that the cost per installation is far higher under the Labor plan, and the delivery time is far longer.

The FTTN plan is far smarter, more efficient, and does not saddle the taxpayer with and additional $60bn of deficit.

<<The FTTN plan is far smarter, more efficient, and does not saddle the taxpayer with and additional $60bn of deficit.>>

Not to mention the cost of bringing fibre-optic cables even to those homes who do not want it and of sending the police after those who refuse to have it installed on their premises.

Luciferase – you can’t win with Shadow Minister. SM is totally incapable of a logical discussion, makes things up, distorts things and constantly resorts to personal abuse. I suppose thats what shadow ministers do. I hope SM never goes to America because over there they go left around a roundabouts.

Yuyutsu – seem nice enough. I get the impression Yuyu believes in fairies (winged ones).

Have come across Spindoc. Spinner displays similar traits.

Pity really I enjoy a robust debate with an individuals that are open to explore another concept and is able to modify their thinking if convinced. I have over time change or modified my philosophy and will no doubt continue to do so.

Good post by the way.

Producer,

When debating installation of networks with an electrical engineer who has spent more than two decades installing electrical and communications networks, don't be surprised when you pronounce trite "factoids" that you have gleaned from talking with other non technical people, and I fail to accept them as fundamental truths.

I think I hit the nail on the head when I guessed that your background has nothing to do with networking. Your reluctance to accept anything other than the labor spin as fact is an indictment on your reasoning.

SM: "When debating installation of networks with an electrical engineer who has spent more than two decades installing electrical and communications networks......"

Why on earth then, if you are so expert, do you toe a party line that is so patently false? Please don't lower your dignity to Turnbullian depths by claiming we'll all have 80Mb/s downloads under the LNP plan. At this rate, by about July I reckon, we'll be told it will be twice as fast as full fibre and half the cost.

Crikey! A pig just flew past my window!

LF,

It is actually because I have years of experience that I know that the Labor system is a crock. Having been a project manager for large projects the costing and payback assumptions for Labor's NBN were extremely "courageous" given that many of the assumptions were unlikely given ignored other world wide trends. Such as:

a) There was an unlimited pool of installers that could be mobilized to meet installation deadlines. Obviously there aren't and existing demands for their services has not gone away, leading to the project completely missing its deadlines.

b) Labour rates for installation would remain the same in spite of demand pressure on wages (as happened with the school halls). Already they are accusing subcontractors of gouging because they can.

c) Their profit is based on a 70% take up. This assumes alternative technologies like wireless are going to remain static. Wireless already supplies 25% of households in the US (these have no fixed lines) and the number in Aus is already 16% and growing faster than any other connection.

The projection of $90bn for the existing model by Macquarie bank is far more believable than Labor's meeting the existing budget of $37bn.

As for the speeds quoted by Turnbull, they are entirely possible, for houses close to the nodes. Cat 6 twisted pair cable can get easily 1GB/s at 200m. The twisted pair telephone lines cannot do this at 12km runs, but at short runs i.e. in block of flats with one node, can get very fast speeds.

As for speeds required, I have built large industrial plants with thousands of control points that ran off a 1MB/s back bone, and then Producer says 50Mb/s is insufficient to monitor the medical condition of one war vet. What a pile of bollocks.

SM, A little sad on the response to the speed question (and we haven't yet discussed throughput) while top-heavy on matters that will affect any government trying to move things along rather than letting things politely evolve. Why do you not respond to Mark Gregory's (and many other experts') points where you disagree instead of impressing away with your authority, real or imagined? I seem to recall that when the LNP position was "no NBN", so was yours.

To boil it all down, the position hasn't moved much past let's not be too excited about an NBN because everyone has the speed they currently need or can buy fast enough to meet it if they're fortunate enough to be able to throw enough money at it. Meanwhile, lets evolve into fibre to the premises almost as we would have naturally, with a combination of public and private money.

Sorry, I don't trust the LNP, which has been dragged along kicking and screaming to this point, to move this matter along. Once elected it will manufacture whatever justifications it needs to stall as it sees fit.

The fact remains, folks, if you want a fibre NBN vote Labor. We are already behind the world on this and the debt to get things done will repay itself many, many times over while natural evolution will cost us many times more.

<<Sorry, I don't trust the LNP, which has been dragged along kicking and screaming to this point, to move this matter along. Once elected it will manufacture whatever justifications it needs to stall as it sees fit.>>

Amen, I join your prayers Luciferase.

<<The fact remains, folks, if you want a fibre NBN vote Labor.>>

So if you want to stop that madness, you need to vote LNP, even if you happen to like Labor's other policies.

<<We are already behind the world>>

`Already`? thankfully we never were there! We are STILL a tiny bit behind the world's digital madness as it rushes down the gurgler, not keeping a distance far enough behind as we should.

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.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 27 April 2013 8:10:02 AM

When debating installation of networks with an electrical engineer who has spent more than two decades installing electrical and communications networks
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 29 April 2013 11:32:55 PM

Luciferase – Told you, SM is not capable of logical debate.

Above are a couple of excerpts from this thread. I reckon SM might have a vested interest that he/she isn’t declaring. Perhaps this large company has something to gain from the Turnbull option?

Based on the time SM spends on OLO not much work is being done.
The other option is that SM is an artist whose medium of choice is male cow faeces. Of course only right leaning cows!

Producer,

You get the tin foil hat award for conspiracy theories. This will go some way to make up for you complete lack of technical qualifications. Sorry if you didn't understand my arguments, next time I will use small words suitable for people with an IQ of a squirrel.

LF,

The coalition has always advocated installing a fiber backbone to supply "nodes". However, it has inherited the Enron like NBN Co which is really a cover to hide debt, and short of selling off the stuff up that is the NBN, the better alternative is to reform it in more logical, but suboptimal form.

I can't wait for this incompetent government to be thrown out, and be left with a handful of seats.

SM: "The coalition has always advocated installing a fiber backbone to supply "nodes"".

This obfuscates the fact that only Labor has prioritized a NBN and its full extension to all premises rather than watching grass grow. "No NBN" meant what it said in the last election and now we are to LNP has seen the light.

LNP's broadband proposal is simply there to stave off the issue as an obstacle to election. Like all decent infrastructure it will take Labor gumption to prioritize it and make it happen while the LNP prefers counting pennies and watching our future crumble. Costelloe thought giving millions to rich superannuants was a greater investment in the future than building something that would generate future wealth. Labor lost vision for awhile but a NBN and a NDIS are something the LNP would never deliver in a fit if things were left to it.

The thought of Australia's infrastructure suffering under Abbott sickens me as much as it did under Howard. God help us.

Correction: "... and now we are to stupidly believe LNP has seen the light?"

LF,

What you mean is that Labor saw it as an opportunity to buy votes with a populist spending spree. They knew full well that it would be panned by the productivity commission, and refused to let the commission, which was set up specifically for this purpose, review the most expensive project in Australian history.

Assuming you represent the LNP view, your statement confirms that its NBN policy is just a ruse to confuse voters.

I reiterate, folks, if you want a NBN vote Labor. If you don't, vote LNP. It's that simple.

The correct conclusion is that smart people think Labor's NBN is a ruse to buy votes.

To reiterate folks if you want an NBN in this decade that does not come with a $60bn budget black hole, vote Liberal. If you don't and are simple vote labor.

Geez, SM, do you write your own stuff?