NBN

redandblack wrote:Instead of giving out a press release when launching the NBN, the LNP gave out the Daily Telegraph.

Enough said.

The LNP launched the NBN? I always thought it was a ALP product and does this make the story less relevant?

1 Their broadband policy, as you know. Happy to agree that the NBN is an ALP product. 'Fraudbrand' is going gangbusters on twitter


2 Yes, totally and absolutely. You surely don't believe what the Telegraph says on this is factual.

Do you

redandblack wrote:1 Their broadband policy, as you know. Happy to agree that the NBN is an ALP product. 'Fraudbrand' is going gangbusters on twitter


2 Yes, totally and absolutely. You surely don't believe what the Telegraph says on this is factual.

Do you

Please don't make this personal and play the man. I am only posting links and my opinion.

I stand behind my opinion that the NBN as currently rolled out will take longer than the ALP are saying and will cost more than what they are saying. On the factual evidence to date you would have to say it is a fair assumption as discussed above with HTWWW.

That's called a question, bc.

It was answering your question

redandblack wrote:

Do you

That is not answering a question. I would class that as a personal attack on my beliefs which I have clearly stated above. With the evidence of delays and blow outs in cost to date I don't think anyone can say that the Telegraph article is totally and absolutely irrelevant : please refer to link from the ABC - has Rupert Murdoch got an influence in the ABC and how they broadcast the news?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3732570.htm

EMMA ALBERICI: So what are the chances then that 600,000 premises will be signed up by June of this year?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well we've said consistently that we've had some ramp-up mobilisation issues for the last few months. We announced just a few weeks ago - NBN Co released an update because the contractors that are employed by NBN Co, some of the largest construction companies in this country, were not getting mobilised fast enough to meet targets. And we'd said we'd reach about 340,000. We're now going to reach about 220,000. But let's be clear: NBN Co were the ones that identified the problem. The information being supplied by the construction companies still had them meeting their June target, still actually had them meeting the 340,000 homes. NBN Co didn't believe that. They couldn't see that the mobilisation was going fast enough. So three months ahead of the deadline, NBN Co put out its statement saying, "We no longer believe we can meet that target," that can be constructed via all of the inputs from the companies themselves doing the construction.

EMMA ALBERICI: Can I take you back to December, 2010 when you held a joint press conference with the Prime Minister ... ?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well you can waste the time of - you can waste the time of Lateline. We have ...

EMMA ALBERICI: I just want a little bit of clarification because there's been so much complication around this issue and so many numbers bandied around, you just gave us quite a few of them then - 300,000, 220,000. In December, 2010, some two years ago, you said that 600,000 premises would be signed up. So are you now saying that it's construction delays that are responsible for the quite enormous shortfall?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well now you sound like Malcolm Turnbull, Emma. Malcolm Turnbull keeps trying to talk about the 2010 Corporate Plan which made that forecast. That was a plan that was forecast to be started on a particular date. Because the Telstra negotiations, rightfully, coupled with the ACCC said that we had to build the network with a different design and then the Telstra negotiations took nine months longer, we actually reforecast based on the new starting date. That's not a construction delay. That's got nothing to do with the NBN construction process. That was the Telstra negotiations took nine months longer. The ACCC made a key decision. I've said this over and over again in response to Malcolm Turnbull, who continually tries to pretend that the corporate plan that was produced last year wasn't the document to refer to.

Now, last year we believed that with our construction partners we could mobilise to beat the target - to meet the target of 341,000. It became clear to NBN Co through January and February that the numbers being supplied by our construction partners were not gelling with what we believed was needed to be done to meet those targets. So NBN Co went into discussions with our construction partners, and after quite a bit of discussions, the decisions taken, which you would be aware of, was that NBN Co would take back the construction in Darwin. We recouped about $2.5 million from Syntheo, the company that was doing this construction. So we took money back because they hadn't mobilised in the way that they had said. And we said, "You now focus on Western Australia and South Australia and NBN Co will focus on the Northern Territory."

Instead of that, bc, have a laugh at this


The Opposition Leader promised today that every Australian household would receive a free floppy disk drive and monochrome monitor under an Abbott-led government. Launching the Coalition’s long awaited response to the government’s National Broadband Network program, Mr Abbott denied that providing a floppy drive and monitor without the computing box to plug them into would leave Australian households with a second best solution.

“Second best is the sort of Labor extravagance that is bankrupting this country," he said. "If people want more they can easily spend a few thousand dollars to upgrade to a very fast 386 or even 486 computing box.”

When asked by Leigh Sales what a ‘386 computing box’ was, he admitted he wasn’t "across the brief" but, “Here’s everyone’s favorite! The internet’s Malcolm Turnbull!”

Mr Turnbull immediately deflected criticism of the lack of a computing box, by pointing out that the monochrome monitor was not some old fashioned TRS 80 green screen, but rather a much cooler-looking mandarin-hued model, which was more than adequate for most people’s needs.

Advertisement "WordStar looks smashing on this," he said.

When asked how much input he'd had into the final policy he smiled and insisted it was all Mr Abbott's work, "All of it. Nothing to do with me. Make sure you write that down."

The policy launch, which took place in a futuristic studio setting, and was attended by dozens of the nation’s top technology writers was an accident, sources close to Mr Abbott admitted later.

“It was supposed to be just Tony and Dennis Shanahan,” the spokesman said. “Dennis can’t even read his emails. A secretary types them out for him. We thought he’d be good for us.”

Instead, Mr Abbott had to repeatedly defer to his communications spokesman to handle the demanding technical details of the policy. Mr Turnbull admitted the whole thing was "really just a bag of dicks", but urged the assembled journalists to take note of how much more impressive he looked than his leader when talking about this stuff.

Mr Abbott, repeatedly trying to plug one of the demo model floppy drives into a power point said he "wasn’t really a tech head".

Reaction to the announcement was frothingly positive in the News Limited press, where news that the NBN would not be able to compete with Telstra was hailed as ‘excellent’ by major shareholder and noted Sith Lord, Rupert Murdoch.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/free-floppies-a-policy-flop-20130410-2hldq.html#ixzz2Q6s7D4Am


I'd rather have something good a bit later than a crock a bit earlier

So instead of reading a transcript of an interview with the communication minister I should read an opinion piece. From an writer with this description John Birmingham tells stories. Most of them true

I find it quite amusing that you believe that the ALP can deliver this project.

*Hang on let me insert a smiley to celebrate and validate my point*

bigclock wrote:So instead of reading a transcript of an interview with the communication minister I should read an opinion piece. From an writer with this description John Birmingham tells stories. Most of them true

I find it quite amusing that you believe that the ALP can deliver this project.

*Hang on let me insert a smiley to celebrate and validate my point*

Surely you're not being guilty of what you just accused me of, bc? (smiley insertion banned).

Read my post again, I said 'have a laugh at this".

After reading the lateline transcript I would challenge anyone to come up with a plausible reason as to how they believe NBNco can deliver this job as it currently stands on budget and on time.

$90B dollars is not really a laughing matter R&B.

You're right, bc, $90 billion isn't a laughing matter, but I had a chuckle at the article anyway. It's nice to see the funny side of life sometimes.


$90 billion dollars is, of course, merely a figure calculated by the Liberal Party, bc.

Seeing we disagree, let's have a technology expert website's opinion of your $90 billion.


“… even according to the Coalition’s own working, it’s very unlikely that Labor’s NBN policy will cost anywhere near $94 billion. If you read the Coalition’s background briefing paper to its rival NBN policy, what you’ll find is that the Coalition itself has developed a range of potential funding scenarios for Labor’s NBN, starting at around $45.3 billion. The magic $94 billion mark represents the worst possible case.”


More under a sign saying:

"TRUTH - NEXT EXIT"

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/11/94-billion-nbn-its-a-nice-unproven-soundbite/

Sometimes it's best for people not to take press releases (sorry, Daily Telegraph front pages) seriously.

redandblack wrote:You're right, bc, $90 billion isn't a laughing matter, but I had a chuckle at the article anyway. It's nice to see the funny side of life sometimes.


$90 billion dollars is, of course, merely a figure calculated by the Liberal Party, bc.

Seeing we disagree, let's have a technology expert website's opinion of your $90 billion.


“… even according to the Coalition’s own working, it’s very unlikely that Labor’s NBN policy will cost anywhere near $94 billion. If you read the Coalition’s background briefing paper to its rival NBN policy, what you’ll find is that the Coalition itself has developed a range of potential funding scenarios for Labor’s NBN, starting at around $45.3 billion. The magic $94 billion mark represents the worst possible case.”


More under a sign saying:

"TRUTH - NEXT EXIT"

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/11/94-billion-nbn-its-a-nice-unproven-soundbite/

Sometimes it's best for people not to take press releases (sorry, Daily Telegraph front pages) seriously.

I would say with the start they have had, the worst case would be more likely than the best case.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/15/budde-praises-coalition-nbn-plan/

“BuddeComm’s understanding is that in principle the Coalition agrees that: The NBN is not a waste of money. It is important for the digital economy of this country as a key enabler of productivity. Fast ubiquitous broadband is a ‘must’, not a ‘would like to have’. They also agree that there are good reasons to believe that over time FttH could be the end result and that any technology path chosen should enable this to happen.



If this is indeed the case then we do believe that the future of the NBN would be secure under a Coalition government. No doubt they will skin the cat in a different way, but with these very important principles in place it will be interesting to see what alternatives they can come up with … the Coalition’s broad NBN framework is now more or less in place and the principles that we understand they agree to are providing a good platform to look for alternatives. Of course, if within this framework the Coalition believes it can deliver the NBN cheaper and faster then such a plan deserves our full consideration.”

You accidentally left out the bit before your quote, bc.

Let me help you by posting it


Fans of the Coalition’s rival broadband policy can be hard to find in Australia’s technology sector, with most preferring the Labor Federal Government’s more expansive National Broadband Network policy. However, according to telecommunications analyst Paul Budde, the Coalition’s plan may be better than many people think. In a new blog post entitled “The Coalition’s NBN plan is starting to look interesting”, Budde writes:

Here is an analogy for you R&B.

If you were given a ferrari or a camry what would you take?

If you had the same choice but you had to pay for it which one would you buy? Bearing in mind the cost of both are not set both could cost more than the dealer is willing to say, but the camry is clearly cheaper and readily available.

Interesting analogy, bc, but unfortunately it's not very relevant.

I drive an old Lancer, over 200,000kms, so I couldn't afford either of them.

With the NBN, Telstra have said their copper network will only last about 15 years. That was 9 years ago, so the analogy is more like this:

Would you choose a Ferrari or a Camry, or an old Lancer?

Or, to put it another way, the LNP plan would give you a Ferrari for most of your trip, then you'd have to transfer to the Camry for the last bit.

redandblack wrote:Interesting analogy, bc, but unfortunately it's not very relevant.

I drive an old Lancer, over 200,000kms, so I couldn't afford either of them.

With the NBN, Telstra have said their copper network will only last about 15 years. That was 9 years ago, so the analogy is more like this:

Would you choose a Ferrari or a Camry, or an old Lancer?

Or, to put it another way, the LNP plan would give you a Ferrari for most of your trip, then you'd have to transfer to the Camry for the last bit.

I find it very relevant if the Austrlian technology sector had to fund it would they buy the ferrari or buy the camry?

If they were given it of course they would take the ferrari.

Given both plans are travelling to point B in a ferrari the question is : would you take the ont cost of the ferrari to point C a much shorter journey or save your money and go with the camry. I would take the Camry.

Fair point, but my question would be what would you do in 15 years.

I reckon the Camry would be clapped out and the Ferrari would be going strong.

Still not quite relevant, as copper degenerates and fibre lasts way, way longer.

I think if the technology is available, then why shouldn't we use it?? Why shouldn't we upgrade our infrastructure? Why is it, when it comes to the crunch, Australians lie back on the premise of convenience and laziness. There are many things that I find silly about our Australian psyche. And when they drag it into public policy like this, it shites me to no end.

We cannot discover new seas unless we are prepared to leave the shore.

I think your forgetting the context of which the whole NBN promise came from.

It was when the government had a massive surplus (created by the previous Government) to spend and maybe, just maybe one could have justified spending $90b.

Its quite a different situation now, a big deficit and your trying to tell me we would be better off spending our money on this and not hospitals, etc.

Perhaps they shouldnt have wasted money on insulation and building schools an unwatned library or gym (where builders made ludicrous
profits)

Read the reports on insulation and school buildings.

You'll find that they have been highly successful. The BER scheme had a 90 something percent success rate.

Unfortunately, most people just read the Murdoch headlines.

Ask the schools what they think of their new buildings.

If you don't want any of these things done, bc, then it stands to reason that unemployment would have been vastly higher than now.

As for waste, the Howard Governemnt was the biggest waste-spending government in our history. Had very favourable economic conditions and blew it on middle-class welfare.

redandblack wrote:Read the reports on insulation and school buildings.

You'll find that they have been highly successful. The BER scheme had a 90 something percent success rate.

Unfortunately, most people just read the Murdoch headlines.

Ask the schools what they think of their new buildings.

If you don't want any of these things done, bc, then it stands to reason that unemployment would have been vastly higher than now.

As for waste, the Howard Governemnt was the biggest waste-spending government in our history. Had very favourable economic conditions and blew it on middle-class welfare.

If you call starting fires and being linked to 4 deaths successful I would hate to see an unsuccessful policy

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alp-put-stimulus-ahead-of-safety-in-pink-batts-rollout/story-fn59niix-1225939419259


ENVIRONMENT officials wanted five years to implement the government's $2.45 billion home insulation scheme.

They were, however, given "clear riding instructions" to roll it out as quickly as possible, a damning audit report has revealed.

The opposition yesterday seized on the revelation to accuse the government of putting "stimulus before safety" and demanded Julia Gillard come clean about who overrode the request for more time. The Australian National Audit Office report into the insulation program - linked to four deaths, 197 fires and widespread allegations of rorting - yesterday revealed the department did not have the resources, skills or experience to deliver the program aimed at insulating 2.7 million homes. It criticised officials for failing to put in place proper risk management processes and for giving "overly optimistic" briefings to former environment minister Peter Garrett that "contained factual errors".

I'm not denying that many things including hospitals etc still need urgent attention, and that we need to curb our debt etc. Not at all.

I'm just stating as a rural person, I'm sick to death of city people thinking that the world revolves around them.

Whilst the numbers of the NBN look scary, I believe that the rewards of having such infrastructure built will be tenfold.

I remind you, I am a paid up Coalition member. Doesn't mean I stand firm by every policy or fact/figure they produce.

Another anti-Government Murdoch quote, bc.

That's all they do.


Try this one instead:


Hey, big spender: Howard the king of the loose purse strings
January 11, 2013

Peter Martin

Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.

The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.

It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.

The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy.

The Whitlam Labor government of 1972 to 1975 also escapes censure.

Responding to the IMF report, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, who was a minister for financial services in the Howard government, said the Coalition left Labor with a $20 billion surplus and no net debt.

"It was not John Howard and Peter Costello who wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on dangerous pink batts and overpriced school halls, it was this Labor government," he said.

The economists from the IMF's fiscal affairs department found the only other year of profligate spending during the past six decades took place during the conservative government of Robert Menzies, in 1960. It says the Menzies government was notably prudent in 1950.

In the postwar years of 1947 to 1949, the Chifley Labor government was deemed prudent as were the Scullin and Lyons Labor and Coalition governments between 1931 and 1935.

John Curtin's Labor government was profligate in 1942.

The study found that in broad terms Australia's government debt has been falling since 1932, when it peaked at 98 per cent of gross domestic product. Across all levels of government it is currently just above 20 per cent after climbing since the global financial crisis.

The budget balance has been broadly stable for half a century.

........

The IMF study mirrors findings of a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession.

The number of spending decisions worth more than $1 billion climbed from one in the first Howard budget to nine in the last. The proportion of savings measures fell from one-third of budget measures at the start of the Howard era to 1.5 per cent at the end.

In its final year in office, the Coalition boosted the AusLink national roads program by $2.3 billion and announced grants for water conservation and water buybacks worth $10 billion over 10 years.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html#ixzz2Q856YrKu

So much for Labor's wasteful spending.

That finding wasn't reported by News Ltd that I could see without a magnifying glass.

What did the budget look like in the last 4 years of the Howard Government?

Spending is much easier when you can deliver a giant surplus, something the Gillard government has promised the Australian public and hasn't been able to deliver.

bc, it's a bit easier to deliver a surplus when your revenue is much bigger than it is now, in relative terms.

What you say doesn't alter the fact that John Howard was the most wasteful spending Government.

Unless you're prepared to discuss all of this in apple with apple comparisons in terms of ratios to GDP, it's a bit pointless.

However, you're right about the PM promising a surplus and not delivering. Not quite as big a lie as "they have weapons of mass destruction" (so let's kill a couple of hundred thousand), but correct all the same.

With that, I'm exhausted and leave the field for you.

Cue the cheers from other posters