NBN Rollout Scrapped

[Julia]

The link I provided to the
Senate Committe http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...t/c02.htm#anc4 clearly evidences that The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Labor Govt. Dept) was specifically not directed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis because such analysis was seen as superfluous given that the government had made an election commitment to build the NBN regardless of what a cost-benefit analysis might conclude:

And that is the whole point. The government is determined to go ahead with this project, irrespective of ANYTHING which might be presented which would deem it unwise or impracticable.
There is now way too much loss of face involved should they back down.

If it all falls in a heap after they have lost government, they won't much care.

 

[drsmith]

The government is determined to go ahead with this project, irrespective of ANYTHING which might be presented which would deem it unwise or impracticable.
There is now way too much loss of face involved should they back down.

They have and it's plan B.

 

[NBNMyths]

2.18 Professor Jock Given, Professor of Media and Communications at Swinburne University's Institute for Social Research, has written:

[In the Implementation Study, rates] of return come out at 3.6 per cent for low demand, low price, a cost blowout and no sharing of ducts and poles, or 8.3 per cent if it all goes swimmingly. McKinsey and KPMG think 6–7 per cent is a reasonable estimate.

That's is exactly why we have the Telstra agreement. It gives access for NBN Co to all of Telstras ducts, pits and poles. It also guarantees high demand through the progressive decommissioning of the copper network and the migration of copper and HFC customers over to the NBN.

NBN Co have also since set the pricing of the service to achieve the desired return, and we have had Quigley state that he's happy to slow the rollout if a labour shortage due to flood recovery causes cost blowouts.

NBN Co have locked in their major component pricing (Fibre and GPON hardware) for the duration of construction, and made a deal with unions for future wage increases during the construction.

In other words, the primary risks to the return identified in the implementation study have now been addressed.

2.19 Mr Kevin Morgan, an independent analyst, submitted to the committee that the Implementation Study's findings on the commercial viability of the NBN project have led to the government quietly moving the goalposts on what it means to say that the NBN is commercially viable:

If nothing else the study puts the lie to the initial announcement by the Prime Minister in April of last year that the NBN would be effectively a Public Private Partnership and would attract private sector equity whilst it was being built. That implied the NBN could be justified on commercial grounds. Faced with the obvious finding of the Study that the NBN investment could never be deemed to be a commercial undertaking the government’s rhetoric on the NBN has now changed.

Conroy and Co may well have changed the definition of "commercially viable", but I don't care. I suspect that it was clear from the outset that if it were truly "commercially" viable, then it would be done commercially. They should never have used the term "commercially viable", when they probably meant "viable".

From Professor Joshua Gans, an economist with the Melbourne Business School: "...many commentators have, in my opinion, focussed unduly on the issue of a commercial return. In my view, it is the social return that is relevant as this is a government policy and not a money making venture."

I must admit that I don't understand the anti-NBN 'demand' for the project to achieve a "commercial rate of return". We don't make such demands of any other Government infrastructure project or service. In fact, most Government services produce a negative financial return. Because the Government's job is to provide services, not to make a profit. On this basis, why do some demand such a return from the NBN?

On an aside, I read Morgan's submission, and researched him a little. Seems he's a long-time trade unionist at Telstra, and the majority of his submission deals with his opposition to the structural separation of them, rather than FTTP. He also makes some dubious statements about there being no international examples of either a wholesale-only network (incorrect), or a Nationwide fibre network (incorrect), or structural separation (incorrect).

2.25 The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy explained to the committee that the Lead Advisor for the Implementation Study was specifically not directed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis because such analysis was seen as superfluous given that the government had made an election commitment to build the NBN regardless of what a cost-benefit analysis might conclude

Yes, that's right. The purpose of the implementation study was to identify the best implementation of the Government's policy, find out if the NBN project could be completed within the allocated budget, identify risks to the project and make recommendations to avoid those risks. It was never supposed to look at the value of benefits resulting from the network.

Nothing to do with who chaired the Senate Committee nor the independent analysis from noted Professors in Media and Communications party leanings. SO therefore we have emminent and qualified people ADVISING the Senate Committee that this is not commercially viable and you have the LABOR Govt. Dept. specifically directed to not undertake an analysis because the LABOR Govt. has decided that this is an election promise of NATION BUILDING as per my previous post straight from the mouth of Stephen Conroy with links attached. SHHHHHEEEEEEESH !

I never said the phrase "nation building" wasn't used, I said "undefined nation building". You quoted one line in a list of expectations that included many others, which you can see here: http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2010/121

And again, the NBN shouldn't produce a commercial return. That's not the purpose of it.

I want an NBN as well BUT not for the sacrifice of the country. Install the damn thing where it is MOST needed. Where population density and commercial viability requires it. Where education (schools), law enforcement (police stations) and health (hospitals)require it. I am sure Mrs Kafoops in sleepy backwater Hicksville could not give a toss if she has superfast internet. It is meaningless when she does not have a computer or a house to live in.

In just 10 short years, the internet has become almost as essential a service as a telephone. As this dependence grows, old alternatives are disappearing (such as phone books). Yet there are millions of Australians who have access to extremely poor, unreliable and expensive internet services, even in urban areas. Commercially, there has been essentially zero construction of improved internet infrastructure for 10 years. There is no sign of this changing anytime soon.

I think you are missing the point of the NBN concept. It is to build a network because commercially it wouldn't otherwise be done. To reduce the gap of broadband availability across the country.

If Government only built infrastructure where it would produce a commercial return, then there would be a good 20% of the population without electricity or telephone services, posting a letter from Broken Hill to Perth would cost $20, and reticulated water would stop at the Gt Dividing Range.

I think it's entirely reasonable that the Govt step in with broadband as they have done with the above, to ensure a reasonable level of parity for the country, instead of just the metro areas.

This Guvmint has a terrible track record of delivering ANYTHING on time or on budget.

I would say that there are very few Governments or private companies that deliver a majority of major projects on time and on budget. So should we just pull up stumps and give up?

I would also repeat that the NBN isn't being built by a Government department. It's being built by a Government-owned company, with an extremely qualified and talented management team.

Now if it were being built by Public Works, I may have an entirely different opinion on how it may turn out!

BTW ...... I hardly believe that 4 to 3 is "dominated" per se. And as Senate Committees can only report the findings of "independent" experts it is highly unlikely that the political leanings had any forebearance on the outcome. :

Well when it comes to a vote or recommendations, then 4-3 is a majority, so the outcome was always going to be against the project.

As for the committee findings representing the opinions of the "independent experts" who made submissions, I'd suggest you actually read them. I've had a scan through almost all of them, and could only come up with a handful that opposed the NBN. In fact, the vast majority were glowing endorsements of the project. The full list of submissions is here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/broadband_ctte/index.htm

There is absolutely no doubt that the committee made it's findings along party lines. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[trainspotter]

It is quite obvious your "bent" for the NBN has clouded your judgement on several points you have made. For instance:

"We don't make such demands of any other Government infrastructure project or service. In fact, most Government services produce a negative financial return."

How many billions did Telstra, Sydney Airports and Commonwealth Bank make for the Government prior to privatisation just for starters ?????

Here is a website itemising the SELL OFF of profitable going concerns.

http://www.caslon.com.au/privatisationnote3.htm

Oh yeah ......... that's right ...... The Government is talking about selling the NBN back to us in 20 years time as well (as per previous post)

I am not going to bother correcting the rest of the statements you have made as I can tell that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water on this one.

I wish you the best of luck with your shiny blue cable and blindingly fast internet. You will need it.

 

[NBNMyths]

I

How many billions did Telstra, Sydney Airports and Commonwealth Bank make for the Government prior to privatisation just for starters ?????

There is a HUGE difference between selling a profitable asset long after the cost of building its assets has been written off, compared to funding the construction of them.

Do you really think that Telstra (AKA Telecom, PMG) produced a "commercial" return during it's network build phase and/or 1st 15yrs? Or Sydney Airport during its construction / 1st 15 yrs?

If you really believe that, then you're off with the fairies!

 

[trainspotter]

"Nothing is infinite, except the universe and stupid people, and sometimes, I doubt the universe." --- Albert Einstein

No one is asking for a return on the "build phase" NBNMyths ....... we are asking for a return on our tax payers dollars ......... period. AND more than 7% BEFORE it is sold back to us ...... wait a minute ...... we paid for it in the first place .... Telstra all over again. OH WELL ......... sigh.

Good luck with your Don Quixote moment. No seriously ..... I am off to the bottom of the garden with The Cottingley Fairies now.

 

[drsmith]

2.25 The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy explained to the committee that the Lead Advisor for the Implementation Study was specifically not directed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis because such analysis was seen as superfluous given that the government had made an election commitment to build the NBN regardless of what a cost-benefit analysis might conclude

Yes, that's right. The purpose of the implementation study was to identify the best implementation of the Government's policy, find out if the NBN project could be completed within the allocated budget, identify risks to the project and make recommendations to avoid those risks. It was never supposed to look at the value of benefits resulting from the network.

Just because a cost/benefit analysis wasn't done in the first place (on whatever gorunds), it doesn't mean it shouldn't subsequently be done.

It's this sort of voodoo socialist economic nonsense that wrecks ecnonomies and impoverishes the people subjected to it.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Just because a cost/benefit analysis wasn't done in the first place (on whatever gorunds), it doesn't mean it shouldn't subsequently be done.

It's this sort of voodoo socialist economic nonsense that wrecks ecnonomies and impoverishes the people subjected to it.

Doc,

It's been done by the ALP and they are ignoring it publically.

As I said in the first post of this thread, it has been decided at a higher than elites level, that it is to be scrapped. "We just need the NSW election out of the way for this to happen" Quote, unquote from my highly placed source.


From today's Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...and-network-plan/story-e6frg9hx-1226005989633

Headline : Wireless threat to National Broadband

THE growing popularity of wireless internet could have a "significant" impact on the economics of the National Broadband Network, according to Labor's own corporate advisers.
And they have warned the government that the risks associated with the taxpayer-funded NBN rollout warrant extra layers of scrutiny over the $35.9 billion project.
As Telstra prepares to unveil a massive upgrade to its mobile network to increase capacity and provide download speeds comparable with the NBN, a government-commissioned review has found competition from alternative technologies is a key risk to the NBN Co's ambitions to rapidly sign up homes.
Telstra will today announce plans to usher in the nation's first commercial release of super-fast 4G mobile technology, which will be deployed in capital-city CBDs by the end of the year.
The telco giant will roll out the so-called LTE, or Long-Term Evolution standard, which is capable of peak download speeds as high as 150 megabits a second, although speeds fall rapidly as more people use the network.
The NBN promises a network capable of delivering 100mbps to most Australians, with the potential to hit 1000mbps.
Next-generation wireless is at the heart of President Barack Obama's plan to make wireless available to 98 per cent of US homes.
The move by Telstra comes as a review of the NBN Co's business case by corporate advisory group Greenhill Caliburn identifies the preference of some consumers for mobile services as a risk.
Labor's policy is for the NBN Co to roll out fibre to 93 per cent of Australian premises, with the rest to be served by a mix of fixed wireless and satellite.
"Trends towards 'mobile-centric' broadband networks could have significant long-term implications for NBN Co's fibre offerings, to the extent that some consumers may be willing to sacrifice higher speed transmissions for the convenience of mobile platforms," the Greenhill Caliburn report warns.

gg

 

[trainspotter]

One last time for comedy purposes.

NBNMyths wrote "And again, the NBN shouldn't produce a commercial return. That's not the purpose of it."

So here we go…we are building the NBN and everything is great. Taxpayer money flows like a river after the dam broke. Telstra still has one asset that everyone’s overlooked. Data. The bottom line is the NBNco is a business that needs to give a return. In the Telco business the 80/20 rule applies also. There is a large, very profitable base of customers in Australia and Telstra knows where every single one is. They also know where the un-profitable customers are. With the NBN, Telstra can still lay fibre themselves. At a cost but, they don’t have to re-wire all of Australia. If 40 billion is the price tag to do 90% of Australia. 5 billion seems a respectable guess to re-wire say…the CBDs or business parks, where the most profitable customers are?

Do you think Telstra will watch it's profits evaporate? They have shareholders to answer to !! No brainer .... of course they are going to be in competition to NBNCo. And they already have all the aces up their sleeve.

It's not difficult to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations to work out what the access price can be. The Government has said that the entire $43 billion enterprise will be sold to private investors five years after the network is built, and those private investors will want a commercial return on their money. Picking a number out of the air, 8% of $43 billion is about $3.44 billion per annum. Divide that over the 8 million premises expected to receive an NBN service to get $430 per household per annum, or about $36 per month. That's assuming that the network costs nothing per annum to operate, never needs to be maintained, and carries no additional debt which needs to be serviced from operating income, so perhaps bump it up to $50 per month per service to be conservative and bump it up again if take-up isn't 100%: What if commercial returns must be yielded from 4 million premises instead of 8 million? 50% connectivity is more than likely citing Tasmania as a reference point. So therefore it is going to cost $100 per month to return 8% on your money. Factor in some maintenance and debt servicing arrangements and "Viola" ...... $150 per month is not that hard to calculate. This is for a private enterprise to own the NBN. Unlikely IMO.

Please tell me WHICH International investors are going to want to take up this wonderful opportunity to shell out 43 billion dollars for a lousy 8% return?

So therefore this must be a NATION BUILDING EXERCISE NBNMyths ....... Just like Senator Conroy said. And just like you have eluded to as well.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Wireless broadband is already prohibitively expensive. What will 4G cost? Anyone?

 

[NBNMyths]

Wireless threat to National Broadband

THE growing popularity of wireless internet could have a "significant" impact on the economics of the National Broadband Network, according to Labor's own corporate advisers.
And they have warned the government that the risks associated with the taxpayer-funded NBN rollout warrant extra layers of scrutiny over the $35.9 billion project.
As Telstra prepares to unveil a massive upgrade to its mobile network to increase capacity and provide download speeds comparable with the NBN, a government-commissioned review has found competition from alternative technologies is a key risk to the NBN Co's ambitions to rapidly sign up homes.
Telstra will today announce plans to usher in the nation's first commercial release of super-fast 4G mobile technology, which will be deployed in capital-city CBDs by the end of the year.
The telco giant will roll out the so-called LTE, or Long-Term Evolution standard, which is capable of peak download speeds as high as 150 megabits a second, although speeds fall rapidly as more people use the network.
The NBN promises a network capable of delivering 100mbps to most Australians, with the potential to hit 1000mbps.
Next-generation wireless is at the heart of President Barack Obama's plan to make wireless available to 98 per cent of US homes.

gg

Oh, man. The wireless thing again? This really has been done to death. Although at least they quoted the most important issue:

There are some important things to consider from the above report:

• NBN co have already factored in that 15% of homes will take a wireless-only option. Greenhill Caliburn have not made any mention that such an estimate is in any way suspect. Read the report for yourself.

• The 150Mbps speed of LTE is per cell. Not per user. So with just 100 users on the cell, and you're down to 1.5Mbps! Bearing in mind that Telstra currently have ~7,000 towers in Australia, that would mean an average of 2,800 people per tower. So if only 10% of the population were on the net at the same time, then LTE will give each of them a speed of just ~500kbps. This is why there are no telco experts saying you can replace a fixed network with a wireless one. There's also the cost factor, of course.

I'm on a "42Mbps" Telstra NextG connection right now, so I thought I'd run a speed test for you:

Hmmm. 42Mbps is really 1.1Mbps. And there, my friends, is why wireless can't replace fixed.

• The Telstra NextG network already covers >98% of our population, at theoretical speed of 42Mbps. This is miles ahead of the US 3G system, which only covers 75% of their population and offers theoretical speeds of 7.2 to 21Mbps. This is why Obama is targeting funding at wireless. It's not to replace their (generally excellent) fixed network, it's to supplement it.

If only newspaper reporters would consult people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to telecommunications.

 

[bellenuit]

• NBN co have already factored in that 15% of homes will take a wireless-only option. Greenhill Caliburn have not made any mention that such an estimate is in any way suspect. Read the report for yourself.

Of course it could be that the NBN figures have no credibility as they are based on starting with the result wanted and then working back to find data to generate those results.

The 150Mbps speed of LTE is per cell. Not per user. So with just 100 users on the cell, and you're down to 1.5Mbps! Bearing in mind that Telstra currently have ~7,000 towers in Australia, that would mean an average of 2,800 people per tower. So if only 10% of the population were on the net at the same time, then LTE will give each of them a speed of just ~500kbps. This is why there are no telco experts saying you can replace a fixed network with a wireless one. There's also the cost factor, of course.

We have already seen that the technology might make big towers redundant in the future, so 7,000 towers may have no bearing on what eventually may be in place.

Cell Phone Towers to be Replaced by Tiny Antennas

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_822332.html

Additionally, your figure assumes that if only 10% are on at the same time, they are all transferring data to/from the net at the same time. I am on the net now and for the duration of composing this reply, my data transfer has been negligible. The same will apply to those on line that are reading this reply, unless they are running some background net task at the same time.

Perhaps the reason no Telco expert is saying you cannot replace a fixed network with a wireless one is because no one is suggesting that. The opponents to the NBN are arguing that the net in Australia should be allowed to advance based on the demands of users, not on the dictates of a central bureaucracy. It could, though very unlikely, end up as a complete fixed network with minimal wireless connectivity, but let that be based on how technology evolves in this area, rather than a bet using enormous public funds made by some ideologue who thinks he can foretell with accuracy where the net will be in 15 to 20 years time.

Its hard to think that this clip is just 17 years old. That the internet was a complete unknown to even those in the media industry....

What's The Internet?

http://www.openculture.com/2011/01/whats_the_internet_thats_so_1994.html

 

[Knobby22]

Of course it could be that the NBN figures have no credibility as they are based on starting with the result wanted and then working back to find data to generate those results.



We have already seen that the technology might make big towers redundant in the future, so 7,000 towers may have no bearing on what eventually may be in place.

Cell Phone Towers to be Replaced by Tiny Antennas

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_822332.html


Perhaps the reason no Telco expert is saying you cannot replace a fixed network with a wireless one is because no one is suggesting that. The opponents to the NBN are arguing that the net in Australia should be allowed to advance based on the demands of users, not on the dictates of a central bureaucracy. It could, though very unlikely, end up as a complete fixed network with minimal wireless connectivity, but let that be based on how technology evolves in this area, rather than a bet using enormous public funds made by some ideologue who thinks he can foretell with accuracy where the net will be in 15 to 20 years time.



http://www.openculture.com/2011/01/whats_the_internet_thats_so_1994.html

Its a good point but there is also the counterpoint being the country will be comparitively left behind.

Look for an example at fast trains :- go to Europe and Japan, fast trains everywhere.
The USA have just announced they want fast trains - really, they should have had them before anyone. In Australia, we will never get one between Melbourne and Sydney without government help.

The result, we have an antiquated train system.

 

[NBNMyths]

More acclaim from international telecommunications experts. This time it's Professor Tim Wu, a senior advisor to the US FTC on telecommunications:

Headline: NBN is 'visionary', Congratulations: Wu

"I think it's a daring and fantastic plan, and yes, if it works out the way it's supposed to I think it'll be fantastic and will set a model for the rest of the world," said Tim Wu, US-based telecommunications policy advocate and author of The Master Switch: The rise and fall of information empires. "I think the countries that go forward with these kinds of things are going to have the advantage in the 21st century."

Speaking on this week's Patch Monday podcast, Wu dismissed concerns that spending billions of government dollars on a centrally controlled network went against free market principles and was out of proportion with US spending.

"Give me a break! You see America, it's all talk here, because I mean how many hundreds of billions does the American Government spend on roads? The military infrastructure built by the United States is massive. The truth is, the United States spends enormous monies on public infrastructure. They just spend it in ways that are different from other countries, and spend comparatively little on communications for reasons that are completely mysterious to me," he said.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/nbn-is-visionary-congratulations-wu-339309182.htm

 

[DB008]

I wonder who the person behind "NBNMyths" handle is?
Is it Mr. S Conroy? Someone in the Labor party? Or just a punter who loves Labor and really does like the NBN that much?

So much support for a scheme that l honestly think is a waste of tax payers money. Hey, when is the Pacific Highway between Sydney-Brisbane getting upgraded?
You all know the one l'm talking about, every time there is a horrible accident on it, all the pollies jump on board and make another promise of upgrading it....but nothing eventuates.

K. Rudd did make it an election promise, if l recall correctly.

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/story/2010/02/19/rudd-pledges-pacific-highway-upgrade/

 

[sinner]

This thread stinks.

Your behaviour ****s me trainspotter. I honestly find it disgusting.

However it has spurred me into providing my own input:

As an IT/data ops with ongoing experience in high throughput connectivity in the Parkville area of Melbourne (this area is slowly turning into one giant medical collaboration campus) transferring lots and lots and lots of high-res MRI data:
I can say and see we as a country need a revamp of communications network to bring us in line with the rest of the developed world *NOW*.

However, with that said.

1. I don't think the current Govt or even Opposition are the right people for this job. We need real visionaries willing to change the business landscape of this country. Not career politicians.

2. The whole NBN plan seems f*n stupid, start to finish. I'm not sure exactly who is barracking for it, and are they doing it only through a sense of "oh this is the best this Govt could possibly offer, let's just take it". The Parkville area of Melbourne will be undergoing it's own "mini NBN" type transformation over roughly the same timeframe and guess what: the plan is impressive, forward looking, robust, sustainable, inexpensive (relatively) and actually meets defined requirements of a user base. NBN itself ticks none of those boxes. FTTH would have been forward looking 10 years ago.

I would say the NBN plan is more like grandoise, unsustainable, expensive (relatively) without meeting a single defined requirement of any userbase.

3. Seriously. Wasn't it only a year or two ago we were up in arms about douchebag Conroy trying to unfeasibly filter the internet? How the hell are we trusting this same idiot to implement a giant ubiquitous network with an even more giant "Govt" sticker slapped on the front?
3. a) Buttplug Conroy is probably drooling at just how fast the NBN will allow him to see who is complaining what a douche he is on twitter so he can have them arrested for sedition under our anti sedition laws.
(excuse the profanity here, I really hate Conroy)
3. b) The Govt has done nothing except portray itself as the most backwards looking technical luddite possible. We had to get a list of what ACMA blocks from wikileaks, that's right, as an Australian citizen you can't even know you're breaking the law. Are we supposed to rally around this portrayal as the Govt to lead us into a new technical age?

Yeah right! This Govt can't even work out how to set the clock on the DVD player and even if they could would make us turn the TV off at 8:30pm before the adult movies start.

4. Take a look at: Japan, Sth Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, France, Iceland, etc.
4. a) Take a look at our NBN implementation plan, and compare to the implementation plans of these countries. Leave your comment. If you haven't, then STFU because you have no idea of the historical basis and are talking out of your ****.
4. b) Corollary: population density is way higher. We as a country aren't idiots. Hell, I actually worked at the CSIRO lab where 802.11 was invented (you know, that wireless protocol that the whole world uses), I am pretty sure we could come up with an ingenious solution fitting our population density that acts as an example to the rest of the world rather than a follower.

5. Here is the thing, Govt. In 2008, there was a GFC (even though in 2007 you said it was all good). Central Banks and economists around the world encouraged Govts like you to spend. Print some money and spend. Best way to kick start the economy you said (we had no choice in agreeing or disagreeing it seems).

What did we ask for, as the people of Australia? Almost unanimously, we asked for infrastructure. Spend our money which you borrowed from our futures, on our futures.

What did you do? F***. You basically wasted it. In 10 years time there will be no way anyone will be able to point to a building or road and say Govt was wise to have built that during GFC for our futures.

Now you are trying to implement this futuristic infrastructure project , after spending all the money that should have been spent on stuff like this in the first place.

Maybe someone needs to show you this website:
http://www.debtclock.com.au/

Just in case you missed it.

 

[todster]

I wonder who the person behind "NBNMyths" handle is?
Is it Mr. S Conroy? Someone in the Labor party? Or just a punter who loves Labor and really does like the NBN that much?

So much support for a scheme that l honestly think is a waste of tax payers money. Hey, when is the Pacific Highway between Sydney-Brisbane getting upgraded?
You all know the one l'm talking about, every time there is a horrible accident on it, all the pollies jump on board and make another promise of upgrading it....but nothing eventuates.

K. Rudd did make it an election promise, if l recall correctly.

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/story/2010/02/19/rudd-pledges-pacific-highway-upgrade/

Do you want a cost benefit analysis with that too

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Wireless broadband is already prohibitively expensive. What will 4G cost? Anyone?

Bueller? ......Bueller?

 

[So_Cynical]

If only newspaper reporters would consult people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to telecommunications.

I doubt that would sell many papers.

 

[Julia]

(excuse the profanity here, I really hate Conroy)

So do I. He outdoes all his colleagues in terms of cherrypicking stuff to quote and paraphrasing to suit his own ends.

In 10 years time there will be no way anyone will be able to point to a building or road and say Govt was wise to have built that during GFC for our futures.

Exactly so, and why the Australian electorate is presently to reluctant to trust any project the government now comes up with, including the NBN.

Great post, sinner.