NBN Rollout Scrapped

[So_Cynical]

Paul Kerin is Professorial Fellow, Melbourne Business School

Yep ... real political hack job that one ??!?!??!?!??!?

You guys are getting more desperate as the days roll by so he's a professor, robots is a professor do we take him seriously? do we think professors don't have political opinions or agendas?

I actually took the time to google the professor and found one link calling him a Labor voter the guy fancy's himself as a jouro / business commentator...prob has he's eyes on a TV gig sometime in the future.

 

[Julia]

You guys are getting more desperate as the days roll by so he's a professor, robots is a professor do we take him seriously? do we think professors don't have political opinions or agendas?

Even allowing for your maniacal determination to defend all things Labor, this has to be one of the silliest things you've ever said. Robots a professor? Give me a break!!

I actually took the time to google the professor and found one link calling him a Labor voter the guy fancy's himself as a jouro / business commentator...prob has he's eyes on a TV gig sometime in the future.

Well, if you'd taken a little more time you might have found one of several references to this person. Here is just one and it's hardly the profile of a hack.

Faculty staff profile
Paul Kerin

PhD, AM (Harvard) MEc, BEc (Hons) (Adelaide)
Professorial Fellow - Strategy

Paul Kerin's experiences and interests span the gamut of academia, business, media and public policy.

At MBS, Paul specialises in business strategy, corporate strategy and M&A. A Fulbright Scholar, Paul earned his PhD in Business Economics at Harvard University, where he served as the George Dively Research Fellow in the Centre for Business & Government.

Prior to joining MBS, Paul was Managing Director of AT Kearney (Australia and New Zealand). His long consulting career has ranged across strategy development and implementation, M&A, corporate finance, corporate governance and microeconomics. He has consulted in many industries (including private equity, retailing, consumer goods and telecommunications) and nations.

Paul has performed many roles in the business world, including: non-executive chairman, non-executive director, executive chairman, managing director and executive director. He is currently a director of Wheat Exports Australia and a member of funds manager JF Capital Partners' Investment Process and Trinity Best Practice Committees.

He also writes a regular column with The Australian, focusing on the curly issues that key decision-makers - directors, CEOs and politicians - face and is frequently sought for comment by other leading business publications and electronic media.

 

[DB008]

I can't wait for NBN to come to my place, l'll be able to download pr0n in 5 seconds, instead of the usual 5 minutes....LOL.

I personally feel that there are much, much, much better things to spend 40'odd + BILLION dollars on. But hey, that's just my opinion. I won't be voting Labor come the next election. Labor is wasting money like water through a busted sieve.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-grilled-on-tassie-nbn-uptake-339306323.htm

Govt grilled on Tassie NBN uptake

...Albanese later confirmed earlier reports that uptake of the NBN in Tasmania was around 50 per cent.

Addressing calls for a cost-benefit analysis on the $43 billion project, Gillard said significant study of the benefits of the NBN was already part of the 500-page McKinsey implementation study.

 

[trainspotter]

You guys are getting more desperate as the days roll by so he's a professor, robots is a professor do we take him seriously? do we think professors don't have political opinions or agendas?

I actually took the time to google the professor and found one link calling him a Labor voter the guy fancy's himself as a jouro / business commentator...prob has he's eyes on a TV gig sometime in the future.

Just gotta say how disappointed I am in the response there So_Cyclical. Very poor form I would have thought. The guy has a serious amount of letters behind his name in Economics from Harvard and you are comparing him to robots?

Here is his contact details so you can confirm his "desperation" at wanting to be a journo / business commentator.

Ph: +61 3 9349 8135
Fax: +61 3 9011 6215
Email: p.kerin@mbs.edu

Poor form.

 

[NBNMyths]

There, that's much better. Although most of these points are a bit strawman-y.

Myth No 1: ‘The Snowy Hydro Scheme and/or Sydney Opera House were not subjected to cost-benefit analyses, so neither should the NBN be’ etc.

Although there are some people making such a comparison, I'm not one of them.

But I do agree that a CBA of the NBN would be a waste of time for different reasons.

While it would be relatively easy to assess the costs of the NBN (as has been done), quantifying the benefits is far more difficult. How do you assess the benefits of an enabling technology that will almost certainly lead to innovation and invention of other things. How can you assess the value of things not yet invented?

I think a far better comparison for the NBN is to the electricity and phone networks. Think back ~100 years to when these things were being rolled out....

When the electricity grid was being built, no-one could have predicted that it would lead to the invention and widespread use of refrigeration, air conditioning, television, radio, telex, fax, computers, email, the industrial revolution etc etc. So doing a CBA could never have assessed the financial and social benefits of these inventions.

Similarly, the copper telephone network was seen as a useless toy with little useful purpose. The bosses of the British Post Office and Western Union both derided the idea as unnecessary. But look at the inventions it has enabled...Telex, fax, email, the internet itself... Video conferencing, automatic fire/security alarms, remote control and monitoring os systems. Again, if one did a CBA of the phone system none of these things could have been included, because they hadn't been invented. It's quite likely that a CBA of the PMG (now Telstra) network would have advised that it never should be built.

The internet is in its infancy, and anyone who thinks that fast networks won't lead to uses we can't yet imagine is deluding themselves. Considering this, how can one possibly value those uses?

Myth No 2 (a corollary to No 1): ‘The NBN is necessary simply because it is a nation-building venture, regardless of the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis’. etc

Pretty much covered above. "Nation building" is a buzz phrase, and while improving national infrastructure certainly has benefits, this one is a bit of a strawman. No-one I've seen is merely saying "build the NBN because it's (undefined) Nation Building. Improving telecommunications has tangible benefits, which have been pretty well documented by the various business and telco groups that are backing the NBN strategy.

Myth No 3: ‘I live in a remote regional community and I have no/very slow internet, therefore the NBN is necessary’. etc

Full and Frank? OK, I'll do my best...

First, it's a very poor analogy. It's not as though people in rural/regional/remote areas could "buy their own car", because often no "car" is available for them to buy.

Second, the cost of an NBN connection (comparable to current speeds) will be the same or lower than current ADSL/Cable+phone connections. If you want the higher speeds of the NBN, then they will cost more. But for remote (Sat) connections, the service cost under the NBN will be 12x faster, and less than half the price of a current Satellite service.

Finally, do we need it over an improved ADSL service? This is a harder one to answer, because the answer depends on what we expect our future speed needs to be. If we accept that ~10-12Mbps will do us for the foreseeable future, then there is no doubt that the NBN is unnecessary and expensive. For maybe a few billion, ADSL could be extended and improved so most people could get 10-12Mbps.

BUT.... Do we really think that will cut it? I suspect it would be a very naive person who thinks it will. In just the last 10 years, our speed availability (in Australia alone) has increased by well over 20,000%. Does anyone seriously expect that this 'need for speed' will not continue to grow, even if it's at a slower rate? The other massive issue (especially for business) is upload speeds. ADSL offers incredibly poor upload speeds (<1Mbps), which rules out remote backups, HD video converencing, efficient cloud computing etc. There is no way to improve this.

So if we accept that 10-12Mbps DL is not sufficient, that's where it starts to get expensive. ADSL is at it's tech limit at 24Mbps, but there are very few people able to get that speed due to two major factors:

a) Distance. All DSL technologies are severely limited by distance. By the time you get just 1.8km from the exchange, there is nothing that will deliver more than 12Mbps.

b) Copper quality: Our phone lines are (in many cases) very old. They have been soaked, boiled, cut, spliced and repaired. Every join slows the speeds, as does corrosion and damage.

Neither of the above issues can be resolved cheaply. To resolve the distance issue, you would (literally) need to construct tens-of-thousands of "nodes" closer to homes. You'd need to run fibre to those nodes, install DSL DSLAMS into them, and power them. To exceed ADSL speed limits (using VDSL2 for example), you'd also need to add a second pair of copper to each house that doesn't already have 2pr available (About 80%).

So we could upgrade our copper network, and maybe get >50Mbps to most premises using VDSL2. But at what cost? I really don't have an accurate figure, but I don't imagine it would be much cheaper than doing FTTP. You're effectively replacing the same amount of cable, plus adding nodes/DSLAMS. And in the end, you're left with a greatly inferior network and in all likelihood one which would have to be replaced with FTTP eventually. Even in the unlikely event that it only cost 50% of the NBN, is it worth it when it may only keep you going for 10 or 20 years?

A better analogy may be:
If you have a beaten up old car, would you spend $20,000 to patch it up for another year, and in all likelihood have to spend $60,000 then to replace it? Or would you buy a brand new one for $40,000 right now?

Myth No 4: ‘Our regional neighbours in Asia are modernising, and if we do not keep up then we will become a backwater’.

....do you see a fibre optic cable stretching into the home of every Chinese peasant?

The thing is that it's not just our regional neighbours who are killing us on this, or planning to do so. We've already covered our regional neighbours. But they are just the tip of the Iceberg. The fact is that there are hundreds of countries around the World, which are bigger, smaller, denser and less dense than Australia, who are all rolling out similar networks, either privately or by their Governments.

It's funny that you should mention China, since they are also beginning their FTTP networks, with a total of 24 million connections planned to be completed by now.

The US has just committed to having 100 million premises covered by at least 100Mbps network within 10 years. Countries that already have larger FTTP networks than Australia include: Japan, SK, HK, China, Czech, Portugal, Italy, Turkey, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Austria, Luxembourg, Poland, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Spain, Hungary, Peru, the Netherlands, Denmark, France and Slovakia.

It's not a matter of trying to "keep up with the Jonses", or take over them. It's a matter of keeping our heads above water, and not being continually left behind, putting our businesses in a position where they are totally un-competitive in a global marketplace. Currently, a fibre connection is prohibitively expensive in Australia. A connection that can be had for maybe $200 a month in the US would cost closer to $4,000 a month here, and that's on top of the tens-of-thousands to actually be connected if you're not in a fibre CBD area. There is no way an Australian business can be internationally competitive with such a massive cost disparity.

The NBN, while not as cheap as similar networks in Asia or more populated countries, will still be orders of magnitude cheaper than current options.

In conclusion, it is important to realise that the debunking of these myths is not in itself an invalidation of the whole NBN project..... By removing the myth of NBN as an absolute necessity, a more effective solution to Australian telecommunications needs is likely to result.

You may be under the impression that I think the NBN is perfect. I don't, but I do think it's pretty close. I would be happy with a compromise that included incorporation of the Telstra/Optus HFC networks as a short-term cost saving (or at the very least, these areas should be the last to receive an NBN rollout). I'd also like to see any existing FTTP incorporated rather than overbuilt. (AFAIK, some of it will be, some won't).

But, the NBN is the best solution on offer. The Coalition policy of 12Mbps for 97% via ADSL, and an "improved" satellite service for the remaining 3% is as good as doing nothing. And nothing is something we cannot afford to do.

So, given the choice of the NBN verses nothing/Coalition plan, there is only one choice I can make. Unfortunately, they have not shown any indication that their policy will receive any serious changes before the next election.

Oh, and continuing the off-topic bit... I've certainly never heard the V12 D34A-MT described as the V10, but whatever floats your boat. But it's a bit moot, since it's been discontinued for 2 or 3 years now

 

[drsmith]

It should be rigorously subjected to a cost/benefit analysis.

 

[NBNMyths]

hmmmm - will be interesting how NBNmyths will explain this one...

Without spin, pleeeeese...

Sure:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/09/eiu_says_nbn_too_expensive/

BTW, I'm no huge fan of Conroy. I like the policy, not the man or the party.

I'm sure Paul Kerin is a very good economist, but his opposition to the NBN has been well known for a long time, after he made a submission against it to the Senate Inquiry last year.

I think I'd prefer to listen to IT and telecommunication experts in relation to an IT / telecommunication project, than to the beancounters. And IT/Telco experts opposing the NBN are few and far between.

 

[NBNMyths]

Lucky you. You appear to be part of the <1% of Australians who live in a new fibre-served estate. Now if only the rest of us could get what you have. Hmmm. Here's an idea, why don't we do that...

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I really regret having started this thread.

The NBN will be scrapped.

It has been decided by fat old men and baron (sic) women in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, who control the ALP's destiny.

Once ole Kennealy takes it on board it will be gospel. Jeez, she needs all the traction she can get, not to have the ole Greens outvote the ALP in NSW.

I digress.

The NBN is dead.

Its method of internment is all I was suggesting we discuss.

gg

 

[NBNMyths]

I really regret having started this thread.

The NBN will be scrapped.

It has been decided by fat old men and baron (sic) women in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, who control the ALP's destiny.

Once ole Kennealy takes it on board it will be gospel. Jeez, she needs all the traction she can get, not to have the ole Greens outvote the ALP in NSW.

I digress.

The NBN is dead.

Its method of internment is all I was suggesting we discuss.

gg

Umm, if it's dead what will we be doing with the 100,000km of fibre we've already bought, not to mention all the other bits and pieces? I'm pretty sure the satellites will be ordered soon too.

And I think someone had better tell Conroy, since he's still tabling bills in Parliament for it. Oh, and Telstra. They'd better not use the money Conroy gave them yesterday to retrain for fibre...

The only thing that will kill the NBN is a change of Federal Govt. So I can only hope that in 3 years, the ~2 million premises connected (~4 million voters) will have it past the (political) point of no return. :

 

[bellenuit]

And IT/Telco experts opposing the NBN are few and far between.

Just as accountants wanting to simplify the tax system are few and far between. Ditto farmers wanting import restrictions relaxed, CEOs wanting remuneration votes by shareholders to be made binding and religious institutions wanted their tax free status removed.

 

[IFocus]

Just as accountants wanting to simplify the tax system are few and far between. Ditto farmers wanting import restrictions relaxed, CEOs wanting remuneration votes by shareholders to be made binding and religious institutions wanted their tax free status removed.

You forgot those that oppose everything being objective.........sorry couldn't help it, NBNMyths has put up some pretty compelling arguments

 

[trainspotter]

Unfortunately I do not have enough time to cover all the responses posted by my learned adversary but I will retort with this gem,

NBNMyths wrote this "Pretty much covered above. "Nation building" is a buzz phrase, and while improving national infrastructure certainly has benefits, this one is a bit of a strawman. No-one I've seen is merely saying "build the NBN because it's (undefined) Nation Building. Improving telecommunications has tangible benefits, which have been pretty well documented by the various business and telco groups that are backing the NBN strategy."

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Senator Stephen Conroy said the Statement of Expectations puts in place the final pieces of how the NBN will be implemented.

“Today represents another significant milestone in the delivery of the NBN and it means we can get on with delivering Australia’s largest nation-building project in our history,” Senator Conroy said.

http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2010/121 .... for the Guvmint Statement of Expectations.

And this by NBNMyths "You may be under the impression that I think the NBN is perfect. I don't, but I do think it's pretty close. I would be happy with a compromise that included incorporation of the Telstra/Optus HFC networks as a short-term cost saving (or at the very least, these areas should be the last to receive an NBN rollout). I'd also like to see any existing FTTP incorporated rather than overbuilt. (AFAIK, some of it will be, some won't)."

I concur with this rationale. A true modicum of sense has been displayed.

 

[DB008]

Lucky you. You appear to be part of the <1% of Australians who live in a new fibre-served estate. Now if only the rest of us could get what you have. Hmmm. Here's an idea, why don't we do that...

No.
Lower North Shore (Sydney) in a 40+ year old house. Internode ISP, l think that Internode use Optus lines or something. Try making a phone call and you can hear cracking in the background.

As l also proved in another thread, when l was in Perth, l also had the same speed.

 

[NBNMyths]

No.
Lower North Shore (Sydney) in a 40+ year old house. Internode ISP, l think that Internode use Optus lines or something. Try making a phone call and you can hear cracking in the background.

As l also proved in another thread, when l was in Perth, l also had the same speed.

To get the speed your test shows, you must either be on fibre or HFC. It's possible internode have an agreement with Optus to access their infrastructure. You can't get that speed over ADSL no matter where you are.

 

[DB008]

To get the speed your test shows, you must either be on fibre or HFC. It's possible internode have an agreement with Optus to access their infrastructure. You can't get that speed over ADSL no matter where you are.

I'm on the ADSL+2 Easy Broadband Classic option (I don't know if they offer that plan anymore?) with Internode. More here...
$49.95 per month, 50gb download. Super Fast for my needs.
Happy with Internode on ALL FRONTS.

Anyways, there is a huge discussion on the NBN over at Whirpool with some 300+ replies, broken up into 3 parts.

http://michaelwyres.com/2011/02/nbn-interesting-tidbits-from-quigley/

NBN: Interesting Tidbits from Quigley

Following up on my previous post in regards to the shape of end-user NBN services, I thought I would discuss a few interesting comments made by NBN Co CEO Mike Quigley at the morning Q&A session at the NBN Customer Collaboration Forum last week in Melbourne.

While I will be presenting his comments as “quotes” – they are not exact word-for-word quotes, only regurgitated from my notes and I’m not the best shorthand note taker in the world! The content is however 100% accurate. Comment number one was about volume pricing, in which he stated:

“No single service provider will receive any wholesale volume pricing from NBN Co.”

This is a very important result for the industry. In simple terms, on a connection by connection basis, the wholesale price of NBN services to Retail Service Providers (RSPs) will be the same across the board. An RSP with 1,000 customers requesting an end-user service of a particular dimension from NBN Co, will be charged the exact same price for that service as an RSP with 1,000,000 customers requesting a service of the exact same dimension.

Size of the RSP will not be a factor.

What this does for the industry is allow every RSP to compete on equal wholesale customer access terms with every other RSP.

The big players will no longer be able to squeeze the smaller players on wholesale price – a practice currently common in the industry. Telstra – (as the incumbent dominant wholesale provider) – has a record of ACCC intervention when presenting retail pricing to Bigpond customers that is LOWER than their wholesale pricing to other ISPs. Most recently, Internode has had a very public spat with Telstra over wholesale pricing.

The structural separation of Telstra, and the common wholesale pricing structure under the NBN should eliminate these unfair practices forever.

Next up was a statement in response to a question from the floor about extending the reach of the fibre footprint beyond the 93% coverage in the current plans. Quigley confirmed:

“We are open to extending fibre beyond 93% coverage to interested groups willing to share the cost.”

The specific example he gave in responding to the question was that, for example, a group of farmers along a road who might be in the 94th percentile of the total NBN footprint, might be able to get together and provide the gap funding.

That is, NBN Co would look at funding the build for their situation as if they were part of the 93rd percentile, and as a group the farmers would need to fund the gap to get the build completed. This will interest a lot of communities just outside of the 93% fibre footprint who would otherwise receive wireless or satellite service from NBN Co.

Finally, one for the financial boffins, and what would be done with any “profits” generated by NBN Co:

“Any ‘profit’ above the expected IRR of 7% will be used to push wholesale pricing down, and not used as ‘profit’ as such.”

Quigley was quite strong on this point, reiterating that NBN Co are not interested in profits per-se – their primary goal is to deliver the IRR of 7% to the government to repay the debt funding used for the NBN build, as described in their corporate business plan, released late last year.

As long as the 7% IRR is reached to repay the debt, the “profits” over and above the 7% will “fund” lower wholesale pricing to the RSPs – in real world terms, this means as more and more usage develops on the network, the wholesale pricing will be able to be reduced.

With an announcement today that Telstra and NBN Co have agreed to commercial terms for the decommissioning of the Telstra copper network and the migration of existing Telstra customers on to the NBN, the question of just where NBN uptake will come from has been largely answered.

Prepare for the future.

 

[trainspotter]

Not sure what to make of this ??

From Post #60 by NBNMyths - I am all for the NBN spending being scrutinised to ensure value for money.

From Post # 105 by NBNMyths - But I do agree that a CBA of the NBN would be a waste of time for different reasons.

Why is it the NBN Senate Committee reccomended a CBA but the Government has refused?

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. When the long-term bond rate is around 6 per cent, that’s enough for the government to declare it 'viable' – though it’s plainly not for the private sector, from which 'significant investment' was anticipated when the policy was announced a year ago. McKinsey and KPMG deliver this message unflinchingly, though they are only stating what most observers knew from the outset. Despite a lot of talk about spirited investors taking a stake in the country’s broadband future and particular companies 'vending in' certain assets in exchange for equity in NBN Co, this is not even close to a commercial proposition given the level of risk

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/broadband_ctte/report/c02.htm#anc4

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:

f 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.

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:

And all this from the Governments own Senate Committee ??? GOSH !!!!

No wonder they do not want a CBA ....... eh ???

 

[boofhead]

I'm on the ADSL+2 Easy Broadband Classic option (I don't know if they offer that plan anymore?) with Internode. More here...
$49.95 per month, 50gb download. Super Fast for my needs.
Happy with Internode on ALL FRONTS.

Anyways, there is a huge discussion on the NBN over at Whirpool with some 300+ replies, broken up into 3 parts.

The speeds in the speedtest are not possible on a single ADSL2+ connection. MMC and others from Internode will also say so. Try the Internode 100 MB test file without any fancy features enabled like Opera's Turbo feature. Also I'm sure you modem's line sync speeds will say the Speedtest result isn't right.

 

[NBNMyths]

Not sure what to make of this ??

From Post #60 by NBNMyths - I am all for the NBN spending being scrutinised to ensure value for money.

From Post # 105 by NBNMyths - But I do agree that a CBA of the NBN would be a waste of time for different reasons.

Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I wrote.

By "value for money" I mean that, within the objectives of the project (rolling out a FTTP network to 93%, Wireless to 4% and Sat to 3%), that spending of NBN Co should be fully accountable for the decisions they make in regards to equipment selection, tendering, process etc etc.

This has nothing to do with a CBA.

Why is it the NBN Senate Committee reccomended a CBA but the Government has refused?

And all this from the Governments own Senate Committee ??? GOSH !!!!

The Government's Senate committee

Considering the membership, should the result really come as any surprise?

Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald, Chair, Liberal, QLD
Senator Fiona Nash, Deputy Chair, National, NSW
Senator Simon Birmingham, Liberal, SA
Senator Mary Jo Fisher, Liberal, SA
Senator Scott Ludlam, Green, WA
Senator Kate Lundy, ALP, ACT
Senator Glenn Sterle, ALP, WA

You really think a committee dominated by the parties that have pledged to demolish the NBN would produce a finding that recommended it go ahead?

Perhaps the funniest recommendation was the final one, where they state that the Govt should accept the "generous offer" of Henry Ergas (Who is employed by the Liberal Party through the Menzies institute) to do a CBA "free of charge". I wonder what the outcome of that would be?

 

[trainspotter]

Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I wrote.

By "value for money" I mean that, within the objectives of the project (rolling out a FTTP network to 93%, Wireless to 4% and Sat to 3%), that spending of NBN Co should be fully accountable for the decisions they make in regards to equipment selection, tendering, process etc etc.

This has nothing to do with a CBA.



The Government's Senate committee

Considering the membership, should the result really come as any surprise?

Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald, Chair, Liberal, QLD
Senator Fiona Nash, Deputy Chair, National, NSW
Senator Simon Birmingham, Liberal, SA
Senator Mary Jo Fisher, Liberal, SA
Senator Scott Ludlam, Green, WA
Senator Kate Lundy, ALP, ACT
Senator Glenn Sterle, ALP, WA

You really think a committee dominated by the parties that have pledged to demolish the NBN would produce a finding that recommended it go ahead?

Perhaps the funniest recommendation was the final one, where they state that the Govt should accept the "generous offer" of Henry Ergas (Who is employed by the Liberal Party through the Menzies institute) to do a CBA "free of charge". I wonder what the outcome of that would be?

Granted. Misrepresentation duly noted.

Ummmm now it is my turn for misrepresentation 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:

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

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. :