[release]Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has dismissed concerns over the national broadband network after a high-level report suggested it may not be the most cost-effective strategy.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in its Economic Survey of Australia released yesterday, said the $43 billion cost of the network entailed "substantial financial uncertainties".
"The NBN is financially viable and will deliver broadband to all Australians," Senator Conroy told reporters in Canberra today.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in his Sydney office. Photo: Jim Rice
The minister again refused to take up a challenge from his opposition counterpart, Malcolm Turnbull, to have the Productivity Commission run a cost-benefit analysis across the NBN.
He also rejected concerns the project was installing a public monopoly that could choke off the development of better internet technologies, saying it was an upgrade in existing technology.
"It's like arguing you needed to keep the CDMA network, mobile phone network, open when we moved to 3G."
Senator Conroy used a lengthy and sometimes heated media conference to take aim at the Coalition and The Australian newspaper. The national masthead has been running an "NBN watch" series, which the government has regarded largely as a negative campaign against the NBN.
"You can't get the benefit [of the NBN] by adopting Malcolm Turnbull's patchwork quilt of old and failing technologies," he said.[/release]
[url]http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroy-defends-nbn-after-oecd-report-20101115-17tr6.html[/url]
At lest he isnt going on about internet censorship.
Dickroy
better internet
The NBN, for some reason does not seem like a good thing to me, I don't know why, but I just don't like it.
This has absolutely no impact on me in the slightest.
I still don't understand why people are so opposed to it.
What's the alternative? Let Telstra lay down new cables and charge through the roof like they currently are?
How could a broadband network cost 43 billion dollars
Australia is a big place and we've gotta put a lot of fibre-optic cable everywhere. It's kinda like internet speeds of small countries like South Korea forced to spread over the enormous distances of Australia.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;26087855]Australia is a big place and we've gotta put a lot of fibre-optic cable everywhere. It's kinda like internet speeds of small countries like South Korea forced to spread over the enormous distances of Australia.[/QUOTE]
Exactly this, laying so much fiber has been proven to not be affordable; a study was undertaken and not enough residents replied that they would sign onto plans on the NBN.
Essentially, there's going to be no profit from the NBN at all - it was just a claim the Labor party made in their 2007 election, and they realised they had to follow through with it.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;26087922]Exactly this, laying so much fiber has been proven to not be affordable; a study was undertaken and not enough residents replied that they would sign onto plans on the NBN.[/QUOTE]
We need to upgrade it sometime, technology doesn't age too well. Either do it now and do a good job of it or just let it rust.
Wtf is this about a study? They don't really have a choice because it will become the main framework for everyone. ISPs will rent the network and provide it to everyone, the only change on the consumer side is faster speeds.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;26087922]Essentially, there's going to be no profit from the NBN at all - it was just a claim the Labor party made in their 2007 election, and they realised they had to follow through with it.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, it won't be profitable! Never mind that we're upgrading our infrastructure and it will benefit pretty much everyone, IT WON'T BE PROFITABLE!
Also fuck your partisan "Labor has to do it", most people want it and they're just delivering. Is actually committing to your election policies that strange to Liberal supporters?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26087786]How could a broadband network cost 43 billion dollars[/QUOTE]
I guess they could try and reduce the size of Australia. That could work, yes?
[editline]16th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;26087922]and they realised they had to follow through with it.[/QUOTE]
Since when do political parties feel obliged to follow through with anything?
It costs alot because they're pulling out all the old copper wires and running Fiber through them, this shit is pretty much end tech for this section if infrastructure and will last a very very long time.
[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;26087719]I still don't understand why people are so opposed to it.
What's the alternative? Let Telstra lay down new cables and charge through the roof like they currently are?[/QUOTE]
I think that's actually the Liberals plan (use the pre-existing copper network)
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26087786]How could a broadband network cost 43 billion dollars[/QUOTE]
Cable
Excavation
Permits
Wages
Machinery
Training
Well the legislation that continued the creation of the NBN passed yesterday.
It allows them to use Telstra's infrastructure, which means cutting down the time to create the NBN.
It also split Telstra up, lolz.
[editline]17th November 2010[/editline]
Wouldn't surprise me if it had something to do with internet censorship, snuck in there.
Newsflash: The NBN is a horrific white elephant. It's grossly blown out cost-wise, to the point where the government are too afraid to launch a cost-analysis (surely a standard step for a $43 billion dollar project!) lest it be finally solidified what a gigantic waste of money this is. Aside from that, initial estimates of public take-up are horrific - Tasmania's currently going on 1 out of 10 households. Not to mention the large cost for individual households...
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26113300]It's grossly blown out cost-wise[/QUOTE]
How so? They've barely even started the project. It can't be a blow out when they're way under what they initially quoted.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26113300]Aside from that, initial estimates of public take-up are horrific - Tasmania's currently going on 1 out of 10 households. [/quote]
Are you serious? This is infrastructure for the future. Currently 24Mb/s connections which are available (only in metro and some lucky country areas) are normally sufficient for current use, but in the future they will not be. You can't expect there to be a large uptake right from the get go.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26113300]Not to mention the large cost for individual households...[/QUOTE]
A project like this is expensive. It has been shown that the private sector is not capable of laying down infrastructure like this, so it as cost that will have to be absorbed in the national budget, as it has.
It's the same reason why Governments lay most roads and light poles - people aren't going to pay for them to get done otherwise.
If it's so affordable, why don't we do a cost benefit analysis for a 40 billion dollar project? That's the predicted figure, so let's see if it's worth it? Hang on - a proper analysis would reveal what a gross waste of money it is!
When we're dealing with this amount of money, you can't just go "oh well people will probably get into it sooner or later". This project needs to actually be VIABLE now, not just so many years down the track.
Difference is, light poles are proven and effective, this isn't.
No-one's arguing that this isn't great technology. However, you need to get over the "wow" factor of lightening fast internet, and deal with the cold, hard facts of finance. Those aren't working out.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26113300]Newsflash: The NBN is a horrific white elephant. It's grossly blown out cost-wise, to the point where the government are too afraid to launch a cost-analysis (surely a standard step for a $43 billion dollar project!) lest it be finally solidified what a gigantic waste of money this is. Aside from that, initial estimates of public take-up are horrific - Tasmania's currently going on 1 out of 10 households. Not to mention the large cost for individual households...[/QUOTE]
Public take-up is fucking irrelevant. There is no need to ask what the public thinks of it because they never see anything about it. All they see is the speeds for internet through their normal Internet service providers go through the roof. The cost for the individual will be minuscule as it will either be bunched in with other taxes and government budget issues or the already absurdly blown out prices of ISPs will take a small rise. The complaints of these issues are ill-founded and only serve to make stupid people think faster internet speeds mean the apocalypse.
[editline]17th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26113739]If it's so affordable, why don't we do a cost benefit analysis for a 40 billion dollar project? That's the predicted figure, so let's see if it's worth it? Hang on - a proper analysis would reveal what a gross waste of money it is!
When we're dealing with this amount of money, you can't just go "oh well people will probably get into it sooner or later". This project needs to actually be VIABLE now, not just so many years down the track.
Difference is, light poles are proven and effective, this isn't.
No-one's arguing that this isn't great technology. However, you need to get over the "wow" factor of lightening fast internet, and deal with the cold, hard facts of finance. Those aren't working out.[/QUOTE]
I'm reminded of the innocent question fallacy. They have already done their own cost analysis's and worked it all out, the Liberals just want to waste more time and bring more doubt about Labor. It's a fucking political play.
Another quality thread from Best4Bond.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26113659]How so? They've barely even started the project. It can't be a blow out when they're way under what they initially quoted.
...[/QUOTE]
Didn't the projected costs go down by like $13 billion when they got access to Telstra's infrastructure?
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26113739]Difference is, light poles are proven and effective, this isn't. [/QUOTE]
What? The point I made was more towards the roads.
For instance, opening a new highway won't be fully utilised straight away until more people are aware of it.
Same thing goes with fibre.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;26113964]Didn't the projected costs go down by like $13 billion when they got access to Telstra's infrastructure?[/QUOTE]
I don't think they ever announced the cost benefit, but as of the legislation that passed yesterday, I'm sure it's substantial.
They don't need to duplicate the fibre highways running between the capital cities for instance.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;26113788]Public take-up is fucking irrelevant. There is no need to ask what the public thinks of it because they never see anything about it. All they see is the speeds for internet through their normal Internet service providers go through the roof. The cost for the individual will be minuscule as it will either be bunched in with other taxes and government budget issues or the already absurdly blown out prices of ISPs will take a small rise. The complaints of these issues are ill-founded and only serve to make stupid people think faster internet speeds mean the apocalypse.
[editline]17th November 2010[/editline]
I'm reminded of the innocent question fallacy. They have already done their own cost analysis's and worked it all out, the Liberals just want to waste more time and bring more doubt about Labor. It's a fucking political play.[/QUOTE]
What. How on earth is public take-up irrelevant, or the opinions of the public who will be paying for all of this? Should we spend $40 billion dollars on a system very few people will use?
Rubbish - if Labor have done their own cost analysis that shows the NBN is a fine project, it would be all over the news, and they wouldn't have to fight off the Liberals' demands [i]for[/i] an analysis. I don't believe that.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26114139]What. How on earth is public take-up irrelevant, or the opinions of the public who will be paying for all of this? Should we spend $40 billion dollars on a system very few people will use?
Rubbish - if Labor have done their own cost analysis that shows the NBN is a fine project, it would be all over the news, and they wouldn't have to fight off the Liberals' demands [i]for[/i] an analysis. I don't believe that.[/QUOTE]
Here's what I'm talking about, EVERYONE WILL FUCKING USE IT! The only people who won't use it are the ones who don't have internet. Public take up is flawed and irrelevant as they practically have no choice.
Read a few of the articles on it. They have done a report with the ACCC already and the opposition is still asking for another more comprehensive report. It's not on the news because most media outlets either don't support the NBN or think it's boring. I don't think they've released the full report yet but you know for a fact that if there was anything in there then the Liberals would be screaming it at the top of their lungs.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;26114204]Here's what I'm talking about, EVERYONE WILL FUCKING USE IT! The only people who won't use it are the ones who don't have internet. Public take up is flawed and irrelevant as they practically have no choice.
Read a few of the articles on it. They have done a report with the ACCC already and the opposition is still asking for another more comprehensive report. It's not on the news because most media outlets either don't support the NBN or think it's boring. I don't think they've released the full report yet but you know for a fact that if there was anything in there then the Liberals would be screaming it at the top of their lungs.[/QUOTE]
If take-up is compulsory, then why is there any argument about it? Because it's not - in Tasmania, figures show that only 1 in 10 households have opted for the NBN. That's public take-up. That's bad public take-up. That's why the NBN isn't working.
ACCC's old news - media release I just looked at was from '09, unless there's a later one. Question is, why not the Productivity Commission one which so many people are calling for?
[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/independents-block-broadband-cost-analysis/story-fn59niix-1225954661199[/url]
E: Also, check this out - possible results like these are probably why Labor's running scared:
[url]http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/coalition-wants-uncensored-nbn-red-book-20101117-17xfu.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26114262]If take-up is compulsory, then why is there any argument about it? Because it's not - in Tasmania, figures show that only 1 in 10 households have opted for the NBN. That's public take-up. That's bad public take-up. That's why the NBN isn't working.
ACCC's old news - media release I just looked at was from '09, unless there's a later one. Question is, why not the Productivity Commission one which so many people are calling for?
[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/independents-block-broadband-cost-analysis/story-fn59niix-1225954661199[/url][/QUOTE]
Because they're doing useless fucking surveys to try and show that people don't support it. It's infrastructure, it's like asking if there was a huge fucking highway and asking if people would use or prefer the shitty old roads. At the current state the NBN is just a media war and because so many media outlets are biased as fuck, it seems like they're winning. There's nothing wrong with the NBN, it's just they have enough media stations to broadcast that they disaprove.
What the fuck has changed that makes the old report useless? It's the same plan and if anything, the changes made since then have just lowered costs. Nothing has changed and seeing as it's a several year plan they would've taken changes into account. The only people calling for the productivity commission are members of the Liberal party playing follow the leader. It doesn't count as a lot of people if they are all part of the same partisan political faction.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;26114204]Here's what I'm talking about, EVERYONE WILL FUCKING USE IT! The only people who won't use it are the ones who don't have internet. Public take up is flawed and irrelevant as they practically have no choice.
...[/QUOTE]
Eventually it will replace the existing copper network, so everybody who has either a phone or internet will use it.
That's why these uptake numbers are fairly meaningless, they're only for early adopters and even that's a subset of people who know the difference between copper and fibre.
Edit: It's similar to asking how many people use Aluminium vs. Copper wires for electricity.
$2000 per australian person
[QUOTE=abcpea2;26114499]$2000 per australian person[/QUOTE]
With that being taken into account with normal taxes, the same sliding scale of rich to poor and the fact that it's over several years, it's not noticeable.
What else are they gonna spend our money on? They may aswell fucking do something with the country, rather then sit around on their asses and debate about bullshit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
