I would LOVE them to say "We think Labor are managing this project badly. We will take over and build it more efficiently.
But that isn't what they are doing. Of course it's faster and cheaper to build a tent instead of a house. Doesn't mean it's sensible.
(My bolds)“Tony and I are inheriting the NBN Co. But we're not about just moaning and groaning about the bad decisions made preceding it. What we are going to do is get this job done.
“And we will bring very fast broadband to all Australians sooner, cheaper and more affordably.
“We would not have gone about it this way, and there will be billions of dollars that Labor has wasted that we cannot recover. But we will save many billions of dollars.”
But that isn't what they are doing. Of course it's faster and cheaper to build a tent instead of a house. Doesn't mean it's sensible.
Actually to stick with the roads analogy the coalitions plan is the equivalent of building the bridge with 4 lanes but having a gravel road leading up to the bridge (a gravel road with no maintenance). Like I say build it once and build it right or don't build it at all.
I'm curious to those of you who have rigorously opposed the NBN from the outset, how do you feel about the coalitions policy? Do you support the coalitions policy or is this simply a matter that you believe broadband infrastructure should be left to the free market to decide, in which case naturally you'd support the cheaper option between the two parties?
Except that to suggest that one has to purchase the fibre service from the node to the home to get any landline based service is just plain wrong.Speaking of bridge analogies:
If the copper is fine well into the future, then the cost and time savings of the Coalition's plan seem preferable, but not if they're going to have to backtrack and replace the copper in the foreseeable future.
LEIGH SALES: Are they still then responsible for maintaining the copper?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is a matter that would be the responsibility of the NBN Co and may well contract Telstra to maintain that copper. And what you do, just to go through the mechanics here, if you've got an area, this area in front of us is a portion of a suburb, you will form a judgment about the quality of the copper in that area. There may be some that you will remediate, that you will upgrade with copper. There may be an area that perhaps is very wet ground that floods a lot, you've had a lot of maintenance problems. And so you might say alright, we'll run fibre through there. So what you do is you make sensible, cost effective decisions about the upgrading the network and so that you can do it in a speedy and you've got to remember, under our plan, I mean Labor's got an ad out there saying connecting to Labor's NBN will be free. Can you imagine a bigger falsehood than that? It will be $94 billion to the taxpayer and as we've demonstrated in our policy documents today, it's considerably, on average, at least $300 a year more for people to actually connect to it.
Malcolm Turnbull did address this at least in part. It doesn't detail the proportion of sub-standard copper in the network as a whole, but it does address the Coalition's approach to managing it.
If we assume a worst case scenario that all the copper is in poor repair, then the Coalition would effectively be building Labor's NBN at the obviously greater cost. This is obviously not the case, but it does help to illustrate their approach of minimising cost by using existing infrastructure for the remainder of its useful life wherever possible. In a policy context, it's now really the only substantive difference between the Coalition's and Labor's NBN.
Tech/speed/need criticisms aside, there is one other gaping hole in the policy which is worth addressing. They claim that they will deliver minimum 25Mbps to every Australian by 2016.
1) Conduct a cost-benefit analysis (6 months?);
2) Renegotiate the Telstra deal (which took 2 years to be agreed upon);
3) Design a network to deliver 25Mbps to everyone (would require accurate maps of current network, which often don't exist);
4) Tender and let equipment contracts;
5) Negotiate with power utilities and councils
6) Tender and let construction contracts; and
7) ...finally, construct several 10's-of-thousands of FTTN node cabinets, power them, run fibre to them, and deploy VDSL2 equipment into them and make about 10 million fibre-copper connections.
...all in less than 3 years.
Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Minor details no problem at all, I agree there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Labor could achieve that.
It's simply a matter of who has more credibility on broadband - Conroy or Turnbull. I would love to see them debate the issue.
The government hasn't been able to borrow at such low rates of interest in generations. I say build a decent network that will still be scalable (is that the right IT term?) in 20, 30, 40, 50 years' time. No point building another Spit Bridge, or M5 East. And I'd much rather my money was spent doing something that benefits the country than being squandered on property tax breaks, propping up the super balances of millionaires or being handed out to middle class families so they can afford their annual trip to Bali.
Can one of the Liberal party experts here please explain to us all the devil-in-the-detail surrounding Turnball's claim that Labour's NBN will cost $94 billion. I'm sure it's a real zinger and a lesson in utter credibility.
Turnball's own press papers indicate that it is a worst case figure based on a number of scenarios, all happening at once. He, of course, never mentioned that, nor was he questioned on it. The media don't give a **** where the figure comes from because it's easier to just quote it and assume it's reality. The public gobbles it up because it's an understandable number. Who cares, really.$94 million might be a conservative figure.
Turnball's own press papers indicate that it is a worst case figure based on a number of scenarios, all happening at once. .
The worst case scenarios aren't dependent on the Labor party. Thanks for proving you haven't read it.Oh... I needed a good laughif you haven't noticed the Labor party are certified specialists in achieving the worst case scenario on everything they touch, this would be an easy one for them.
The worst case scenarios aren't dependent on the Labor party. Thanks for proving you haven't read it.
The Coalition's background paper on the NBN,
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Background.pdf
Their comparison between FFTN and FFTP is on pages 14 and 15.
The assumptions outlining the Coalition's higher costings are also outlined in the latter part of the report.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?