OCAU Official Poll: Are you in favour of the National Broadband Network?

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Agg, Aug 18, 2010.


Are you in favour of the National Broadband Network?

  1. YES - I think the current NBN proposal is good.

    910 vote(s)
  2. NO - I'd prefer an alternative Government-provided national broadband network.

    118 vote(s)
  3. NO - I don't think the Government should provide a national broadband network.

    75 vote(s)
  4. I don't care.

    26 vote(s)
  1. fileant

    fileant Member

    Feb 10, 2006
    By 1991 a government built ISDN network was widely available, but they kept us on dial up for another 15 years.

    I remember a Telstra guy adding a line to my house in the 90's... "I would connect you to ISDN if I had my way but we are not allowed to."

    Last edited: Aug 18, 2010
  2. impact_player

    impact_player Member

    Jul 12, 2006
    On the plus side, the copper was there that meant that someone else could provide you with ISDN as soon as the market was opened up to competition.

    NBN will provide the fibre for others to provide point to point services, so that sort of a problem shouldn't occur.

    Without NBN, there's no fibre in the ground to provide some sort of funky optical service over, so there won't even be someone telling you that it's possible.
  3. zzyss

    zzyss Member

    Oct 15, 2003
  4. pkatruss

    pkatruss Member

    Dec 18, 2009
    Clever governments only exist if they are run by clever people. Unfortunately there are more clever people outside of government than inside. Those clever people also would rather steer than row.

    Lets not forget that the financial crisis was not caused by governments. It was caused by lots clever people trying to make a quick buck.
  5. kally

    kally Member

    Jan 2, 2002
    lolz, some guy on there called Robert Hawke got the world record for the fastest consumption a yard glass of beer, it just shows that Rhodes scholars don't necessarily amount to anything.


    Another lolz from the tech-whiz. The guy is one long forehead slap on broadband.
  6. Shado

    Shado Member

    Jun 27, 2001
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Part of the cost of the NBN is the purchase of the copper network from Telstra, and the decommissioning of it. This means that almost 100% of people will be on the fibre network, even if just for phone services. Though with demographics that are likely to move out / immigrate / die in the next 8 years, demand for digital services will no doubt increase.

    The shadow minister makes Conroy look switched on. HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?!

    The interview tonight on lateline, they kept interrupting each other, it was like wireless! You know you're in trouble when Conroy is laughing at how dumb you are.

    The last government did a terrible job of steering and we're now up the creek. Time to start rowing while we still have a paddle.

    Why let facts get in the way of imagining? Plans on the NBN, available to people now, start at $29.95. 80% of available plans are less than $100 / month.

    Why should people who are healthy pay for hospitals, why should people without cars pay for roads, why should people without kids pay for schools? These things benefit the country as a whole, even if you yourself do not use them. On the other hand, I'm struggling to see why the taxpayer should have to fork out up to $75,000 for someone to have 6 months off work because they decided they wanted to have a child. This makes the NBN's per person expenditure look ridiculously cheap.

    Better yet, neglect it for more than a decade so that we HAVE TO spend the most money of any country in the world to catch up. Keep in mind that in other countries hundreds of billions are being spent over the next decade on FTTP networks.

    So far, the initial stages have been completed on time and 10% under budget. Note that the most difficult issues and biggest blowouts of any scheme are typically when discovering which processes work and which do not, which mean that it's likely to get more efficient and finish further under budget. The NBN is effectively managed by people with the greatest experience in their field in the world. Have a look: http://www.nbnco.com.au/ourTeam.aspx < If you don't agree that those are the best people for the job, you're barking mad. It would be ridiculous to assume government could carry this out managed by bureaucrats, so they're not.

    'read elsewhere' ? 'sworn' ?

    Have you tried reading the feasibility study by KPMG and McKinsey ? It cost $25m and took a year to produce, it outlines a business case which shows that it will start returning a profit after year 6 and be able to be sold for a profit over the build cost + interest. That means nothing lost. It also means EVEN IF, it blows out by 4x as much as any rushed government scheme, which is virtually impossible, it will still have a lower net cost to the taxpayer than the Liberal plan.

    You're not doing well at collecting publicly available information. Exactly how they plan to bring it back to surplus is in 'the budget' this is a document produced every year by the government of the day, and outlines taxes collected and expected expenditure (as well as contingencies). This is possible without any new taxes. However when the mining tax goes ahead, additional business tax CUTS will happen.

    Have you been living under a rock? Labor are promising a tax on the mining industry, in exchange for business tax cuts. Unless you're buying mining products, this is unlikely to affect you. The coalition is promising a 1.5% business tax RISE. The mining industry is far from the 'only' thing keeping us afloat, the tax is very small, and will only come into affect if they're making a good profit, struggling mining ventures will essentially be given reduced taxes to prop them up. TLDR, it's likely to do the opposite and boost the mining industry on the whole. The huge profits in the mining industry are one of the largest drivers of inflation. Unemployment tends to decrease inflation, so one of the reasons we have inflation is because we all didn't lose our jobs so we money to spend, thus increasing competition for limited resources and so the price.

    I agree, businesses are the most important, which is why I feel the tax cut for them under Labor is better than the tax rise under the Liberals. The liberal tax rise on business will definitely affect me as it has a broad focus, but I'm struggling to see how the labor mining tax has any real impact on the economy, given the very narrow focus.

    FYI, fibre is already capable of over 100,000mbps. The units being rolled out at this very moment in the NBN are capable of 1,000mbps (and faster doesn't require replacing the cable, it requires replacing the units at each end). Wireless is shared bandwidth, and it decreases significantly as more people use it (as each person's wireless modem keeps spending more and more time 'asking' for permission to send data rather than actually sending it). That means your 84mbps wireless connection is going to be capable of about 5mbps if there are 10 people using it. Now work out how many towers you need to get 12mbps for everyone...

    Wireless has its place, in more remote areas (and as a supplemental connection), where congestion isn't as much of an issue and fixed lines are more expensive per residence. This is why the NBN includes 93% fibre, 3-4% wireless and 3-4% satellite. People connecting to wireless are largely doing so in addition to, rather than instead of, a fixed line connection. As you say, hard-lines will always be that step ahead, simply due to the laws of physics. The next 'quantum leap' in 'wireless' technology won't come until things like quantum entanglement can be harnessed. And I wouldn't hold your breath on that for the probably 50+ years it will take, if ever even possible.

    It's funny we had the same wireless / cable debate when Marconi invented it in competition to telegraph cables. We've gone more than a hundred years and the relative advantages of each technology are still the same. !!!

    Yes, this is the problem, they're replacing obsolete technology with nearly obsolete technology, which means it will be an ADDITIONAL cost to an NBN later. If they were just building the NBN as it stands, but only doing the areas which don't currently have 12mb/s etc, it might not be so bad. But the reality is that because ADSL gets slower the further you are from the exchange, there are problems with their approach in reality anyway, even delivering what they promise. I know people on ADSL2+ that are within 20km of the city and still can only get 3-4mb/s due to distance from the exchange. This means in order to hit 12mb/s, they will need wireless or a replacement of last mile anyway, and if you're replacing last mile, you are bat shit crazy to not do it with fibre. Of course you can't if you don't have the rest of the infrastructure for it, which they won't. So again additional cost when they waste all the effort producing nothing of value.

    Please forward that link to Abbott.

    Also note how you could drive holes though the costings. The 3% coverage by satellite will cost $2b under the NBN, the Liberals are promising the same thing for $700m (dodgy costing anyone).

    They're promising to create a national broadband commission, and then review after 10 years..... Tight control they plan to have over project delivery.... They've only costed having it for 7 though.

    The Liberal plan is a complete farce, and not even the most ardent 'NBN is a waste of money' commentator feels the need to support the Liberal plan on its merits.

    Basically, they don't have a plan, the market will continue as always while the formulate a way to spend $6.3b to avoid making a profit on the NBN.

    What they're saying here, is that the government wants the private industry to commit 25% of the money and take all of the profit. How is this possibly lower cost than just doing it all? Why should the private industry take all of the profit if they're only putting up 25% of the cost? Under Labor's plan the profit is proportional to the investment.
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2010
  7. t3h

    t3h Member

    Dec 21, 2007
    Not actually sure if this is a troll, but he was also the PM of Australia...
  8. eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Jun 27, 2001
    Brisbane, Australia
    Exactly, i think if this current labour govt doesn't win and NBN doesn't go through, we won't be seeing such investments in infrastructure for the next 15-20yrs as liberals won't ever put it on the table until it's too late and future labour would be too scared to even touch it until it's too late (where public demand for it reaches desperate situations).

    Governments do need to start to look further into the future beyond just the years of their own terms in office. And Australian folks need to look beyond just their generation. I'd want for my family and future generations to have better roads, health care, and financial opportinuities and don't mind doing my bit in sharing that financial burden in realising that goal.

    Sure, not everyone will use NBN speeds, but who's to say your kids, your sisters' kids and future generations will. Not everyone needs to use hospital or health care facilities, but at some stage you or someone in your family will. By the time you need to use these for a life threatening disease, you better hope the health care system is in a good shape as lack of hospital beds, doctors, nurses etc all take years to build and train up.

    Some folks would think, no i'm not paying my share for something I don't use now, stuff the next generation, they can take the brunt of the financial burden when it's their time. Of course if I'm still around by then, sure I'm happy to reap and share the benefits of better health care and technology improvements etc by then.

    Unfortunately, some things can't be left until the time we need it as by then it will be too late. I remember several years back when Queensland had alot of power outages due to power usage demand outstripping supply due to failures to plan ahead future capacity well before we needed it.
  9. kizzav

    kizzav Member

    Mar 10, 2005
    This is slightly off topic but it'll loop back into this topic, my mum works in a primary school. The same school I went to, between Kindergarten & Year 6. She's been there longer, as a teachers aide, than I did as a student.

    Nothing changed in the school during Howard's years, except for 1 thing, a massive shade cloth over the basketball court. From memory, it took a couple of weeks to build the shade cloth. It served as a brilliant area to hold school assemblies & the like. However, it posed a problem when it rained, because all it was was a shade cloth, not an awning.

    A storm ripped through the area a year or 2 later, twisting & bending the framework & tore the shade cloth.

    The amount of time it to to construct the thing, it took probably only a few mins to partially rip it down. Once the remainder of the shade cloth was removed, we were left with what we started with, nothing.

    In the last couple of years under the Howard government, the deaf & blind school moved location onto the site of an old police station & derelict school buildings that used to be used by the school, many years before I came along. Keeping in mind that all of the land including the police station was the Dept. of Education's/the schools land.

    The deaf & blind school had new buildings built & took over some of the old buildings that were refurbished.

    The deaf & blind school however, didn't have all the facilities needed to complete the school. So, our canteen & library were shared between schools. The relationship between schools has been gold.

    Now, you would think that because the deaf & blind school was built on the original public schools land, the public school might get a look in, into some 'upgrades'.

    Well..... Only in the last 2-3 years has the school actually received something from the government, the Labor government.

    • An awning called a COLA (not sure on the spelling), near the site of the old shade cloth, but no where near the same size, but still, better than nothing
    • An awning over the entire play equipment that was built while I was at the school in like year 1 or 2, paid for by the school, from my knowledge
    • An awning built over a more newer, smaller play equipment in another area of the school
    • A new library, in addition to the existing library (joint use between schools)
    • A school hall (joint use between schools)

    If you compare what the Liberals actually did during their time in government for 10-11 years, to what Labor has done in 2-3 years, as far as Dept. of Education is concerned, it's been like a miracle.

    If the school has been playing catch up during the Howard years, what might you expect when the Liberals realise we should've upgraded the current/built a new telecommunications system, in at least 4 years (a term) time?

    Apologies for going off track, but I had to share it to get the idea across.
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2010
  10. eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Jun 27, 2001
    Brisbane, Australia
    Exactly, that 10yrs of Howard government neglect has made things alot worse (yes previous governments probably contributed) and hence the spending spree we have now under Labor.

    There's good and bad debt. Spending on education, health and NBN are good debts to have :) Return on investments for such should be measured in decades !
  11. Talleh

    Talleh Member

    Oct 25, 2005
    Desu, Sydney
    Has anyone stopped to think that there are more important things this country needs other than the NBN?

    Just a thought.
  12. demaar

    demaar Member

    Jan 19, 2003
    Kind of baffled that anyone on this site of all places couldn't be entirely pro the NBN. But hey. Everyone has a point of view...
  13. stevo4

    stevo4 Member

    Jun 27, 2001
    Interesting reading, that might wake up a few as to just how good the Howard government really was.
    That to think going back to a liberal government driven by one of his underlings would be a good thing.

    Yes they have.

    And funding those things ongoing is not going to be provided for, by thinking that you can hang onto what was done in the past forever.
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2010
  14. [KEi]SoVeReIgN

    [KEi]SoVeReIgN Member

    Feb 20, 2002
    NBN = government foresight and planning for the future.

    That impresses me more than the prospect of 1000mbit fibre ! :thumbup: (And 1000mbit fibre is mighty impressive :) )
  15. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Member

    Sep 16, 2006
    I'm against the current NBN proposal.

    1. The budgeted cost is massively expensive. $43,000,000,000.
    2. The projected time for building the project is very long. 8 years.
    3. The scope of the project is massive - the entire size of this country.
    4. In project management, project chance of success is inversely proportional to the sizes of the items specified in points 1, 2, and 3. (Project success is defined as being completed on time and within budget for the specified purpose.)
    5. Governments (all sides) have shown they are incompetent at managing most projects, all of which are far smaller than this one.
    6. By points 4 and 5, the project has an extreme risk of failure. A risk so high that any rational project manager would kill the project during the feasibility study.
    7. We had a government run monopolised telecommunications network once. They used to be called Telecom. They were renowned for charging as much as they could get away with whilst providing the worst possible customer service - customer service that, even in Australia, was embarressing.

    I do want a faster network. I do not want a project almost certain to fail to be forced upon us at exhorbitant cost and end up with yet another behemoth government organisation that is more interested in padding their mates pay packets than providing any kind of service.

    The most likely outcome is that the budget will blow way out, the project will be delivered many years late (or never completed), and we'll end up with something which doesn't work properly, serviced by a bunch of good ol' guys that don't give a rats ass about your patronage.

    That doesn't sound like something I want to pay for.
  16. zzyss

    zzyss Member

    Oct 15, 2003
    You concerns are valid, but they have been individually and roundly addressed already in this thread. Hopefully although you are against the NBN, it doesn't automatically make you pro-Liberal's policy, because that thing stinks even worse than the NBN.
  17. tin

    tin Member

    Jul 31, 2001
    Narrabri NSW
    Except in government, where projects are defined as successful when they have something they can show the media that makes people feel nice. The cost, timeframe and quality is not important to anyone but the opposition leader, who will be painted as an idiot by the media anyway.
  18. Nerb

    Nerb Member

    Mar 2, 2006
    You should read this whole thread.
    1. No its not a massive expence
    2. No its not a long time
    3. Yes it is
    4. No problem with regard to 1 and 2
    5. That why we have NBNCo
    6. Less than you might think
    7. Read the thread again.

    This project might be a lot bigger than the ones you run, but that doesnt spell doom.
  19. raX

    raX Member

    Dec 26, 2004
    Good thing the govt is only investing 27 billion, and will get a return on that.

    Also good thing that the govt is only investing this money, they are not controlling the rollout.

    NBNco are controlling the rollout.
  20. Jay

    Jay Member

    Jan 7, 2002
    National Broadband Network Implementation Study | Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

    Chapter 8
    Chapter 7
    So no.

Share This Page