Microsoft Australia Concerned About Turnbull's NBN

Microsoft Australia's managing director has voiced concerns over the fibre to the node strategy currently being considered by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, revealing that it is lobbying the government over the plan.

Speaking at a CEDA Event in Sydney, Microsoft's Australian MD Pip Marlow said that fibre to the home would be superior for upload speeds over the current fibre to the node (FttN) system.

She added that Microsoft Australia is currently lobbying the government to try and understand how people will be using the FttN system in the long run. [AAP]

Image via Shutterstock


Comments

    Good, hopefully a big corp like that will make them listen.

      im just going to leave this here

      http://aussiememes.com.au/media/created/Rupert-Murdochs-new.jpg

        That joke is getting old. In 2007, his news papers were welcoming the change to Labor. Why is no-one recalling that?

        If you do not like Abbott as a Prime Minister then that is your own choice. But I for one am getting tired of this straw man fallacies that Murdoch is responsible for Abbott becoming Prime Minister.

          Please post two headlines from 2007 showing similar bias against the LNP or GTFO:

          http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/7/1375846512734/tele.jpg

          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fwWCnSTipvs/UgJnEGO3bSI/AAAAAAAAH40/1gJ65Oy6c0g/s640/DailyTelegraphRuddAsNaziDay4ElectionCampaignFrontPage.jpg

            GTFO

            If you cannot keep a civil tongue, then keep your comments to yourself.

            Also, if you can find the pictures you have just shown, then you are more than capable of finding pictures that verify my claim.

            I am not going to do your research for you.

            Last edited 07/11/13 1:23 pm

              I believe you made the claim that Murdoch papers welcomed a Labor government. Isn't the burden of proof on you?

              if you expect civility from someone using the handle 'Rude Dude', you're expecting too much :p

                I treat all people with civility and expect it back. Why should I treat Rude Dude any different?

                  Sorry WiseHacker, If you want to state a case then you need to support it, not ask someone else to. The simple answer to your question is that no one remembers it because it was not anywhere near as blatant a bias otherwise everyone would remember it.

              Sorry, but all that says is that you are too lazy to do it yourself.

              If you are arguing a point, you are the one who should be providing the proof to refute their claims.

              Not jumping on a side here, I am just taking an outsider view on this argument and all I see is:

              Person A: They did this, and here are examples
              Person B: They did something else, i'm not going to provide proof to back up my claim, do it yourself

              You need to do the research to back your claims yourself, not the other way around. You don't see the prosecution doing research for the defense do you?

              So you're saying you can't prove it then? Ok cool. So you admit that you're mistaken. Cheers.

                No, I am saying I am not doing his research. Putting words in my mouth does not work.

                And I know I'm right. I saw the papers then. And I found the archived articles on the Sydney Morning Herald Web site. Especially the one where Murdoch said Kevin Rudd would make a great PM.

              GTFO it is then...

              I have done my research, and I cannot produce these 2007 headlines you talk of because they do not exist because the level of bias shown during our latest election is unprecedented.

                I have done my research, and I cannot produce these 2007 headlines you talk of because they do not exist because the level of bias shown during our latest election is unprecedented.

                They do exist. Take another look.

                Last edited 08/11/13 6:19 am

                  If they do, post them... otherwise you are simply talking out your arse!

                  Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims, the onus is on that person to provide evidence if challenged, if they cannot chances are they are lying.

              No, If you're going to say the Joke is getting old, then you need to defend yourself of why Murdoch Isn't somewhat responsible for abbott coming into power. He did His research, Now You do yours or accept defeat.

                I have defended myself. The social media landscape was so convinced that Tony Abbott would *not* be prime minster the participants turned to Murdoch as a scape goat when he did get elected.

                Australian's wanted a change of government and that his what they got.

                Even the 'Vote this Mob Out' headline was not new. It was the opinion of Australian's in the 2010 election.

                  That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

                  It is bad enough that you make a claim, and then provide no proof, and then insult people who ask you to provide proof; but to make increasingly dubious and biased claims without providing ANY evidence is just insane.

                  You may notice that all of your comments have down-votes. Most of them multiple.
                  Does this tell you that you may need to provide some proof of your claims if you don't want to be thought of as a fool?

              Fine - I'll do it for you.

              The headline of the 15th October 2007 Daily Telegraph was "WHO DO YOU LOVE - PM asks question and sets six-week endurance test":

              http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/polls-apart-but-who-do-you-love/story-e6freuzi-1111114641412

              The headline of the 5th August 2013 Daily Telegraph was "Finally you now have the chance to KICK THIS MOB OUT":

              http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/consign-rudd-to-the-bin-of-history/story-fni0cwl5-1226691046953

              If you can construe the former as support at all, let alone anything like the support demonstrated by the latter, then there really is no convincing you.

              UPDATE: Thought I'd check the second day of each campaign, too.

              16/10/2007 - "HOWARD DROPS $34b TAX BOMB - It isn't subtle and it took Labor by surprise"

              6/8/2013 - "HOW THE WEST WAS LOST - Exclusive: No jobs growth in Labor heartland"

              And the fourth day (the election wasn't front page news on Day 3 in 2007 - though in 2013 it was: "Abbott to slash tax as Reserve acts to protect jobs"):

              18/10/2007 - "HERE'S JOHNNY - Now it's a contest PM's tax-fuelled poll surge - EXCLUSIVE"

              8/8/2013 - "I KNOW NUTHINK! Albo's explanation for German beers with Thomson"

              Last edited 08/11/13 9:15 am

          I still don't see how 2007 goes AGAINST what people are saying. Seems like it gives supporting evidence to the theory that he is extremely influential.

          Rupert wanted Rudd. Rudd won.
          Rupert wanted Abbott. Abbott won.

            Murdoch doesn't write the paper. His editors do. If he did have control, he would be jailed for life by now because of what News of the World did.

            True, he should have been more proactive in making his journalists have integrity but the point of the matter is he is not in control. The work was done by his editors.

            Rudd became PM because Australian's voted for Labor. The Howard government lost its way and introduced work choices.

            Abbott became PM because Australian's voted for the Coalition. Australians wanted the budget restored and were tried of the constant in fighting. While it happens to any party, it was all the Gillard and Rudd governments did.

            A single man cannot influence the choice of government. Murdoch has no hand nor control. His editors reflect what the majority of Australian's are saying.

            Just because it does not match your own personal preference does not mean an ulterior motive is in play.

            Last edited 07/11/13 12:00 pm

              Murdoch may not write it, but he has a massive influence over what gets written and how it gets written...!

                No, that is the role of the Editor in Chief. Murdoch is so far up the chain I am certain that 90% of what goes he has no idea is even happening.

                Seriously, how else would he not know that his own editors were wiretapping and even destroying police evidence?

                No matter what people say, he is a business man at the end of day. Crime does not pay, is bad for business and he likes his money. He is not stupid enough to come to greed and do something that will significant stem his cash flow.

                  as far as NotW & the hacking thing goes... he says he didn't know about it.
                  but so did Rebecca Brooks.

                  They've got an army of very expensive lawyers making sure they can protect their boss.

                  @Shoggoth: Didn't work for Bill Gates so why would it work for Murdoch.

                  @shoggoth: Neither did Murdoch. Australian's who were sick of the infighting, the behaviour of Rudd and other issues voted his party out.

                  Murdoch cannot vote there for he didn't instil anyone.

                  @wisehacker you mean the 'infighting' that was made into a huge deal by the Murdoch press?
                  the constant reports (aka total fabrications) in the Murdoch press about how Rudd was wrecking the economy?

                  if people voted out Labor because of infighting & economic turmoil, it was only because News Ltd. ran a scare campaign turning non-issues into election-deciding centrepieces.

                  @shoggoth: you mean the 'infighting' that was made into a huge deal by the Murdoch press?
                  the constant reports (aka total fabrications) in the Murdoch press about how Rudd was wrecking the economy?

                  Every media outlet was saying that. Even those not owned by Murdoch. As for myself. I just saw the constant unravelling on ABC Question time (a government run channel) and even saw Graig Thompson's tirade in response to his allegations.

                  But you are right. Rudd was not wreaking the economy. Wayne Swan was. He kept promising a bumper surplus yet instead said this is a deficit we needed to have rather than owning up to his own mis-management.

                  Then there is the carbon tax. People think Murdoch has a hand in this because his interest lie elsewhere. This is not the case: the carbon tax was not welcome because it cancelled itself and nullified any disincentive it was suppose to administer.

                  The main reason why it went in was because Labor made a pact with the Greens. The Greens mandated the tax and threatened to with draw their support. If they did, Labor would be lacking the numbers needed to form government and would have to call for a fresh election.

                  Finally in terms of Rudd. Again, he did not wreak the economy but he did wreak something else. From behind the scenes, he orchestrated the infighting. He did not like being taken out of the top job so instead used his position to teach Gillard a lesson. This is Gillard's biggest mistake. She should have kept a close eye on him but failed to do so.

                  Your naivety is astounding WiseHacker if you think Murdoch does not control his media.

              sorry, but that is a load of rubbish.
              The owner of the company gives a directive to the editors that they have to push an angle, so they do. Murdoch appointed an extremely conservative New York Post editor to News Corp. a few weeks before the election specifically to give his papers a more right-wing spin.

              and its ridiculous to think that voters weren't influenced by the News ltd outlets.
              people vote based on what information they have regarding parties & their policies.
              people get that information from the media.
              if the media has an agenda, then they selectively publish information to sway the electorate toward voting the way the media (in this case, Murdoch in particular) wants them to.

                people get that information from the media.

                That is one source. That is not the only source. If a person choses a specific media outlet exclusively then it is the person's fault.

                  in Brisbane & Adelaide, there is no Fairfax newspaper in print.
                  So, other than a few minor independent papers, News ltd. has almost 100% of the hard-copy newspaper market.
                  That is a huge influence over the electorate. & look what happened in Qld with Newman.

                  A true journalist reports facts, they don't spin. If News Ltd did that, there wouldn't be a problem.

                  but instead of leaving the spin to page 6 opinion pieces, its on the front page.

                  But that argument doesn't work as well as we want it to.

                  Australia has compulsory voting, therefore there are a LOT of uninformed and uninterested voters. These people will make up their minds in most cases without even researching what each parties policies are, instead they pick up their morning cuppa, open the newspaper and consume whatever is in front of them. This then sticks in their minds when they turn up later to vote.

                  We just have to accept that there are a lot of people who will blindly follow the pack, however the media does a good job at times giving the illusion that there is a pack to follow.

                  PS. Is it just me or are others curious about the price tag of LNP's ad campaigns? It seemed like they went a bit overboard this year....

                  Or you know, it's the media outlet's fault. Any person who can accept a reasonable amount of logic can see that. Let me guess, you don't 'believe' in climate change or evolution.

                  Or you know, it's the media outlet's fault.

                  @cardiacunicorn: So the media forced the person to believe everything as gospel? That is not how the real world works.

                  Any person who can accept a reasonable amount of logic can see that.

                  No, reasonable logic states that everyone is a product of their own actions and has to accept the consequences there of.

                  Thus, it is not the media's fault if it is the only source of information. It is choice of the consumer to limit his or her consumption of the media.

                  Let me guess, you don't 'believe' in climate change or evolution.

                  As I said before. Personal attacks do not work on me. And neither does reaching.

                  But in response to your claims:
                  * Climate change is real, but not as bad as the Greens are making it out to be, and
                  * Evolution is real, otherwise neither of use would be in this forum now.

              The Howard government lost its way and introduced work choices.
              Lets not forget the GST, Iraq, Afghanistan, selling all our government owned assets and taking away our guns.

              Your level of naivety is almost childlike. Of course Murdoch sets the editorial direction of his newspapers. No one is saying he writes, reads or proofs each article, however he does choose the editor in chief and he hands them his editorial direction. This was never more evident than during the election period when he hand selected Col Allan to return to Australia with the sole purpose of using news corp's influence to remove Rudd from office.

              And again your naivety in relation to the influence of the media is staggering. Like it or not, the media has a huge influence on public opinion.

              Would labor has lost without news corp's obvious bias? Probably.
              Does this justify said bias? Not in my opinion.

                Your level of naivety is almost childlike

                This coming from a guest user who swears like a sailor?

                This was never more evident than during the election period when he hand selected Col Allan to return to Australia with the sole purpose of using news corp's influence to remove Rudd from office.

                No, Labor Caucus removed Rudd. And they are an internal group inside the party. Murdoch has no control over them.

                And again your naivety in relation to the influence of the media is staggering.

                I will tell you for the last time, transference does not work on me.

                Like it or not, the media has a huge influence on public opinion

                No, because then it would be a media opinion, not a public opinion.

                  This coming from a guest user who swears like a sailor?
                  Yes because anyone who swears is automatically unintelligent.

                  No, Labor Caucus removed Rudd. And they are an internal group inside the party. Murdoch has no control over them.
                  Perhaps become informed before replying. Col Allan was sent to Australia after Rudd was returned as leader (This has zero relation to the Caucus removing Rudd as you claim). As I said "Col Allan to return to Australia with the sole purpose of using news corp's influence to remove Rudd from office."

                  Again I am not claiming that News Corp's bias is what lost Labor the election. But I am claiming that News Corp have a clear bias (clear to anyone with intellect anyway) and I completely disagree with your naive statements that Murdoch does not control the editorial direction of his papers.

                  No, because then it would be a media opinion, not a public opinion.
                  So you believe nothing can influence public opinion?

                  Guess what, if you are so blind to the media bias\influence I think you may be one of the public who have had their opinion influenced!

                  Time to change the username I think?

          theres a big difference between 'welcoming a change of government' (as seen in 2007), and 'actively campaigning in favor of a particular party' (as seen in 2013).

          and now Murdoch has his PM in his pocket, he's now lobbying to have foreign ownership / monopoly laws changed so he can control even more of the media.
          http://www.smh.com.au/business/murdoch-wants-his-pound-of-flesh-20131105-2wzhs.html

            and now Murdoch has his PM in his pocket

            He does not. Even if he did it would be a conflict of interest (this will get Abbott expelled) and if he did contribute he is not entitled to any reward.

              You tell Murdoch he's not entitled to anything & see what he says.

              Lobbyists have always been part of the political landscape, but I can almost guarantee that in the next 12 months, Murdoch's representatives will have a very easy time convincing the government to make the any changes they want.

                You tell Murdoch he's not entitled to anything & see what he says.

                I already know his response. "OK, I'll take my money elsewhere. You're not worth the effort of buying off."

                That's the kind of man he is. He is not going to get a return on investment if he controls the election so why is he going to put anything in?

                Blame his editors, not the old man.

                Lobbyists have always been part of the political landscape, but I can almost guarantee that in the next 12 months, Murdoch's representatives will have a very easy time convincing the government to make the any changes they want.

                You can throw whatever you want. At the end of the day, Murdoch has not strings to pull. The only group I know of is the Australian Christian Lobby and already their strings are being cut.

                Does because he has a significant share of the media does not mean he is in control. Both Labor and the Coalition know one thing: if they bow to the likes of Murdoch, it would make November 1975 a picnic by comparison.

                Last edited 07/11/13 1:32 pm

                  "OK, I'll take my money elsewhere. You're not worth the effort of buying off."

                  translates to "don't do my bidding & i'll rip you apart at the next election."

                  @shoggoth: translates to "don't do my bidding & i'll rip you apart at the next election."

                  Which would only work if he was able to clone himself a few million times, make the clones Australian citizens and then have them all vote.

                  He is one man with a lot of money and a media empire. But when it comes to deciding elections, all that and a quarter will leave Murdoch with 25 cents.

                  The people have decided for themselves. Murdoch has not decided for them.

                  @wisehacker democracy relies on the electorate being informed of the issues in play. if you control the spread of information, you have far more influence over democracy than just a single vote.

                  if you misinform the electorate by selectively reporting only the facts that support your agenda (I don't want to use the word propaganda cos its a bit too strong, but its the same principle) then the electorate will act accordingly come election day.

                  @Shoggoth: You claim only works if Murdoch has full control of the media. He does not.

                  Despite his reach, Murdoch does not have the magic 51% control of anything. From what I can tell, Murdoch only owns 28-43% of news papers in Australia and at best 50% of some television networks. He is not in a position to dictate the terms and as far as I am aware the ACCC is what's barring him from the 51% threshold.

                  @wisehacker its not the percentage of shares he owns in the media, its the percentage of the market the Murdoch controlled press reaches.

                  if he owns 50% of one company that reaches 70% of the population in an area, then that 70% are going to be influenced by his agenda.

                  if he owns 50% of one company that reaches 70% of the population in an area, then that 70% are going to be influenced by his agenda.

                  @Shoggoth: I'd be careful with the number. That's what Kevin Rudd used and it turned out to be false.

                  70% of the papers in circulation (on the stands, etc) are indeed from the Murdoch media. But that doesn't mean that 70% of Australian's take it as gospel.

                  Australian's are more than capable of doing their research and deciding for themselves. This idea that Murdoch decided the election implies otherwise.

                  @wisehacker i was just making up numbers to illustrate the point that its not a matter of owning the majority of a company, its owning the majority of the readership that influences opinion.

                  Edit: but where are the majority of (non-political junkies) Australians gonna do their research?
                  Newspapers & news websites. Which in most cases happen to be controlled by Murdoch.

                  So even if the electorate does their research, its got the Murdoch spin on it.

                  Last edited 07/11/13 2:16 pm

              Hey, you hear about the tax changes that give the top few percent bonuses to their super And Let's everyone else suffer? I even have a link!
              http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/smokers-lose-out-as-abbott-tweaks-tax-20131105-2wzuw.html

              Come join us lefties, It's so much more nicer trying to help everyone then just a few :)

                Come join us lefties, It's so much more nicer trying to help everyone then just a few :)

                No thanks, I like being on the fence. You see the whole picture then.

                Last edited 08/11/13 6:16 am

                  For someone on the fence, your feet sure are sticking far out to one side.

          also, its not a fallacy that News Corp (on behalf of Murdoch) at least was actively trying to influence the outcome of the election. (not the first time he's done it either, [getting the conservative into power in the 1992 British election])

          the ratio of labor-bashing articles vs pro liberal articles in News ltd outlets is way too high to be anything other than an active campaign. (also, these number were verified by an indipendant report which I'm trying to find a link to)

          http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3844761.htm

            Just wanted to add.. Im sure that if this was Microsoft against labor's NBN plan it would be front page news, not a sub section article on news.com.au.

      Yeah right. What would Microsoft know? Our almighty rulers know best.

      Seriously? You mean MS the company that won't listen to its users about Windows 8?

        Yeh! give us our start button back! ...hang on

          They did. Problem was, Microsoft took them literally and did not restore the Start Menu with it.

          For those who prefer it, there is a $5 USD app out there called Start8.

            There's also Classic Start Menu, open-source (free).

          What's dumb is the start button was always there, it just wasn't a button, but same corner.

        You mean that all around faster, more stable system that improves on its predecessor in almost every way?

        Not liking the UI is a matter of taste. 8 is objectively better in just about every way.

          You mean that all around faster, more stable system that improves on its predecessor in almost every way?

          That was Windows 7. Windows 8 is like Vista all over again but with its interface instead of driver support.

            Except driver support was undeniably bad. The Windows 8 UI is a matter of taste. Personally I think the Windows 8's UI is pretty awesome. Needs some tweaks but the core is brilliant. It's different but after using it on a Surface Pro I'm not going back to the mid-90's with Windows 7.

              All the changes are designed for tablets like the Surface. Try using it on a desktop with no touch screen; the whole Metro UI is a pain to use efficiently with a mouse, and just gets in the way.

                I do have a touch screen on my desktop, but I don't use it that often (mostly because it doesn't have Surface style touch borders). I would love for Microsoft to release a Surface style touch screen for desktop use. Something easy to spin with borders.
                I think part of it is that I got used to using Windows 8 on the Surface's touch screen, so now when I use a mouse to do it on the desktop it works smoother than when I go back to Windows 7.

                I see too many 'there's no Start menu, this is stupid!' comments when the Start menu has been there the entire time. They just turned it into it's own desktop. Sounds stupid but I've never used the Start menu/Windows key as much as I have with Windows 8. Tiles come off as a very smart phone style feature, but once you start using them for stuff (rather than just leaving the defaults up there) they quickly justify their existence and make desktop icons seem stupid.
                There's a big barrier between desktop and Metro that needs to be reworked, but ultimately I think it still lands ahead of Windows 7. It's also worth noting that while I'm not a huge Microsoft fan I praised Windows 7 a lot for what it did right. Windows 7 is far from terrible, I just think it's stuck in a time warp where it's full of features designed around what a Pentium II could handle (much like how the iPad OS is still designed for something with only a bit more power than an iPod).

                Like I said, still needs plenty of tweaks, but for me it really feels like they've actually took a step forward on their OS for the first time in almost two decades.

              I have it on a desktop and although there are a few things I would like to see tweaked, it's faster and usually more intuitive.

              People don't like better. They like unchanged. Look at all the people who STILL swear by the Playstation controller. It was bad in 1994 and it's bad today.

            You are not wise at all. Windows 8 is far superior than Win7 in everyway.

              Personal attacks don't work on me. Are you going to provide an actual rebuttal?

              If comments about my handle are all you have then keep them to yourself.

            If people spent two weeks using it with out complaining they would realize it's actually VERY much the same, it just looks different.

            Desktop mode (just like win 7 / vista)
            click left bottom corner - 'start menu' (just like win 7 / vista)
            'start menu' has links to chosen apps (just like win 7 / vista)
            in start menu, click a button and get full list of installed apps (just like win 7 / vista)
            Or type in a search (just like win 7 / vista)

            Right click bottom left corner; shortcut menu to handy stuff (better than win 7 / 8)

            Where it does differ is the 'metro mode / metro apps' which are full screen.

            I definitely think they should have focused on Desktop WIndows having less to do with "touch enabled" buttons and menu screens, but I won't lie, Having a Desktop mode, and being able to switch to Apps like facebook, Chrome, and having my search bar be as simple as start typing from the start menu, all welcome changes I appreciate. As well as snapping Desktop next to any program (or app/game) I like on the same screen.

          I don't disagree that W8 is faster and more stable. I have it running on a 6yo HP 32-bit laptop with only 2.5G of RAM. The laptop has seen XP, Vista, W7 and now W8.1 and in terms of speed and stability, W8/8.1 it is the best so far; no arguments there.

          However, in terms of USABILITY, that is another issue. You are allowed to like the UI and I will continue to disagree. It is simply awful to use.

            That's fair. You can like what you like. I'm saying that there are measurable, objective improvements over 7. The only issues are matters of taste, which are not measurable. Listening to the customer base makes sense, but only insofar as it doesn't gimp your product. Sometimes customers honestly don't want what they think they do.

        Umm, listened, responded, innovated and integrated. If you want the something like Windows 7 then stick with that. If you want a modern operating system that is improved/ modernised use Windows 8.1. The trend of improvement will continue even if you're not satisfied with the current offering.

      Even if they did listen, the budget is a mess. We have massive debts and no surplus. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure?

      No matter the move, the Coalition are going to be ran over the coals.

      The root of the problem is while the NBN is a fantastic idea, Labor did not control the tender process correctly and (clearly) did not hold NBN Co to accountability.

      The best the Coalition can do is to keep the NBN but complete any pending work and then re-run the tender process so a competent private company can finish what was started.

      Last edited 07/11/13 11:53 am

        It's like you have no real idea about how the NBN was supposed to work! Listen carefully :

        1. A properly set-up NBN will PAY FOR ITSELF. No budget surplus required. No taxpayer funds required. It will make the government money and help CREATE a surplus in the future. It doesn't even appear in the budget, because of the way it's funded. Also, approx $37B is dirt cheap - we spent far more than that on other things every year.

        2. We MUST upgrade our infrastructure very soon, one way or the other - even Abbott and Turnbull agrees with that. We simply can't afford not to. Both our domestic and international economy relies more and more heavily on broadband infrastructure.

        3. FttH only costs 10-15% more than Abbott's FttN in initial cost, and costs far less every year in maintenance and running costs. It's a no-brainer.

        4. There is only really one "private contractor" in Australia with the knowledge and equipment required to build the NBN, and that is Telstra. They have a vested interest in making the NBN as slow, expensive and inefficient as possible to roll out. It's simply not a viable option.

        Yes, Labor's roll-out has management and timeliness issues - show me any massive project that doesn't have those problems. But the concept was sound, all the experts agree with that. It needs to keep happening in accordance with Labor's design, but with more oversight, more transparency and less partisan politics.

          It's like you have no real idea about how the NBN was supposed to work!

          I know how it works. I also know you have to spend money to make money.

          But given that the budget is a mess how can we spend the money on the NBN so it can make it back?

            Like any investment the expenditure on the NBN is off-budget and doesn't impact the budget bottom line. Changing the NBN won't have any effect on the budget position.

        Yeah the budget is definitely a mess now that the coalition has blown a 1.8 billion dollar hole in it.
        Also the NBN is 'Off the books" it doesn't come under the standard budget and will pay for itself by the end of it.
        And no the WORST thing it could do is take it private. There is NO private company competent enough to do this. We would end up with another Telstra all over again and we would have the same problem we have now. Certain areas getting great internet. Others none. That's what the NBN needs to fix.

        "The root of the problem is while the NBN is a fantastic idea, Labor did not control the tender process correctly and (clearly) did not hold NBN Co to accountability."

        So the coalition should hold them accountable and move ahead with the fiber to the home plan.

        Labor paid Telstra $11.2 billion to be able to use there pits to install the fiber, now Telstra is going to sue the NBN co for $100 million (which is nether Labor or the coalition's fault) on top of that the coalition is going to have to renegotiate with Telstra to use the copper to the house instead of fiber to the house (how much do you think that is going to cost), then there is also the cost of the Nodes on the end of each street and the cost of upkeep on them.

        And here is the real kicker, the nodes will need to be removed and another deal will need to be made with Telstra to bring fiber to the home, when all the work is done on the coalitions NBN because it will no longer be efficient for our needs, all of this will cost way more money than what Labor had planned with there idea for the NBN.

        I don't understand how anyone can support the coalitions NBN plan, it's idiotic.

        http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/telstra-is-suing-nbn-for-100m/story-fnjwncel-1226749654677

          My apologies if my impression came out wrong. I don't support it either.

          But at the same time, we have more important issues than fast internet now.

          What I tried (and failed) to say is that when the budget is repaired, the Coalition should take up the FTTH plan and try to get it right. Proper tenders. Detailed costings. And harsh penalties if any company dares to run over time or over budget.

          They only have one term to fix this if they decide to do so. Because come the next election, the Labor supporters who were under 18 will be adults but then and will simply vote for Labor because it is their (blind) preference.

            As opposed to Liberal voters like yourself, I presume, who are much more informed yet somehow still (blindly) buy into the Liberal rhetoric about "massive debts", when in fact Australia has weathered the GFC with one of the lowest debt/GDP ratios in the developed world.

              It doesn't matter if we have the largest or lowest GDP. A deficit is a deficit. And having one for too long starts eating into nation's credit rating.

              And the only reason we survived the GFC is because Labor used the the Howard Government surplus to keep Australian's spending in the local economy.

              On top of that, when the surplus ran out, Labor kept borrowing money yet getting no return because the projects kept going guts up. Furthermore, they moved to other projects rather than owning to their own mistakes.

              As opposed to Liberal voters like yourself, I presume, who are much more informed yet somehow still (blindly) buy into the Liberal rhetoric

              I am not blindly following anything. I do my research and I look at various outlets. Not just the Murdoch media as some would like to believe. I read media releases, watch question time, and even read independent political journalist blogs.

              Last edited 07/11/13 2:52 pm

                It sounds like you are confusing deficit with debt. This is a surprisingly common mistake.

                This country (like most countries) has been in debt for many many decades, and our credit rating is second to none. The Howard Government gave us a short-term budget surplus for a while (favourable economy + big asset sales kinda helps), which started to reduce our public debt a little - but never came even faintly close to eliminating it. Then Labour and the GFC both arrived, tax revenues dropped, and (combined with economic stimulus) we've been running a budget deficit for a while and our public debt increased again. Nothing we've not seen repeatedly for the last century or so.

                Our government debt is relatively tiny, for an economy of our size, and interest payments are easily manageable. It's half that of China, 1/5 of Germany, and 1/10 of the US. But do tell us again how Labour bollocksed it all up so much worse than anyone else.

            "My apologies if my impression came out wrong. I don't support it either."

            Fair enough.

            "But at the same time, we have more important issues than fast internet now."

            If those issues are just saving money, then they are not issues at all, we have to spend money to progress there is no other way.

            All i am seeing from the coalition is them trying to save money by selling of the HECS debt (and privatizing HECS most likely) and selling off Australia Post, these are not moves i would consider progressive and i feel that they are detrimental to most Australian's way of life.

            "What I tried (and failed) to say is that when the budget is repaired, the Coalition should take up the FTTH plan and try to get it right."

            What about all the money already spent? the ball is already rolling, they should finish the job and do it right.

            "They only have one term to fix this if they decide to do so. Because come the next election, the Labor supporters who were under 18 will be adults but then and will simply vote for Labor because it is their (blind) preference."

            We are trying to be a progressive nation with better health care, better internet infrastructure, hopefully high speed rail sometime in the near future, the reason why people will vote labor is because they will try and get these thing done, the coalition is only interested in selling things we already own, they don't want the nation to move forward and be progressive because that scares them.

              We are trying to be a progressive nation with better health care, better internet infrastructure, hopefully high speed rail sometime in the near future

              Labor promised such things true. But then they turned a blind eye and depleted the coffers.

              It's all well and good to wish for something but there is no free lunch. Someone has to foot the bill.

              people will vote labor is because they will try and get these thing done

              Unless things turn bad in which case they will try and sweep it under the rug. See the insulation scheme and the schools building project fiasco.

              All i am seeing from the coalition is them trying to save money by selling of the HECS debt (and privatizing HECS most likely)

              As far as I am aware, the HECS debt matter are still in the proposal stages. And the chances of it being privatised? Zero.

              Simply because come hell or high water, the HECS repayment rule (you have to earn at least $50,000+ before being required to pay it back) will go with the debt. What private company is dumb enough to buy such debt?

              Even if the Coalition did try to sell the debts off, the Coalition will become the laughing stock of all securities agencies world wide.

              If those issues are just saving money, then they are not issues at all, we have to spend money to progress there is no other way.

              But if we have no money to spend then how can we progress? Australia owes far more than it will earn in the short term.

                "Simply because come hell or high water, the HECS repayment rule (you have to earn at least $50,000+ before being required to pay it back) will go with the debt. What private company is dumb enough to buy such debt?"

                What do you mean, they will buy the debt with the condition that they can add interest to every single loan after the deal is sealed, they will change the rules, this is a long term commitment to shafting all future loan applicants, it wont happen any other way.

                Remember as Tony Abbott put it "Australia is open for business"

                Last edited 07/11/13 4:30 pm

                  Chobi77, I do not know where you are getting these worse case scenarios from but I am sure if anything dared to harm students, the Coalition will be thrown out via a revolution.

                  No matter what, the Coalition knows it needs the public of Australia otherwise they will be out on their ear.

                  The Howard Government forgot this and look what happened. Both the Rudd and Gillard governments forgot this and look what happened.

                  Furthermore, such moves have to be ran though the senate process. But even before that, such a move needs the support of the party. This is not a case of 'Abbott decided so it will happen'. Despite his actions, Abbott is bound by the government senate system.

                  So far there is only the Education Minister suggesting the HECS privatisation. There maybe others but I do not know of them as yet.

                  Either way, as far as I am aware, the act has little to no support within the Coalition. Joe Hockey has even ruled it out.

                  My best advise is to wait it out and see if something physical materialises. At the moment, the idea does not even exist as a policy to be put before the senate so for all we know, this idea is coming from one attention seek in the party.

                  Mind you that is not stopping the loose cannons within the Green or even the Murdoch editors from using the fear and hype to lure in people.

                Insulation?
                Did K Rudd or ANY of his MPs hold a gun to the head of installers while screaming "Work faster!" in a tragically Dickensian manner?
                It was corner-cutting by greedy, frothing-at-the-mouth business people who operate in an unregulated industry sector. The only way to prevent injury or death in such a scenario is to regulate the sector, have training programs in place and probably union involvement.
                All of which represents a poison chalice to snmall business.

                School buildings?
                What about them? Did any collapse and kill or injure students? The value-for-money was questionable? Doesn't that say more about the parasites who are still laughing about all the "free" money they "earned"?

                I suppose the asbestos scare in Telstra pits was also Labor's fault? Not a disclosure issue for Telstra?
                Whoever is responsible, they put many people at risk.

        You obviously aren't well versed in the costs of the NBN and how it's paying for itself and that it is not actually a cost to the budget. You have believed the bullshit that the Coalition has put out there.

        Buddy, there was this economic crisis that the world's slowly recovering from, don't know if you heard it - your ilk caused it. But, Australia is in a fantastic position at the moment and we need to spend money to further stimulate the economy and the reasonable amount of debt we're in means it's the perfect time for more infrastructure, not a token surplus.

        Last edited 07/11/13 10:18 pm

          Buddy, there was this economic crisis that the world's slowly recovering from, don't know if you heard it

          I did. It's called the Global Financial Crisis. Sorry to bust your bubble but reaching does not work on me.

          the reasonable amount of debt we're in means it's the perfect time for more infrastructure, not a token surplus.

          Who is going to pay for it? The vendor's of the infrastructure will provide it out of the milk of human kindness?

            The Government? With our taxes? What else do you think our money should go to? rich people? sitting in a bank account doing nothing?

    Can we get other corporations such as Google and Apple to lobby them as well? Maybe if they open their eyes they will see they are wasting their money.

      Every company of size that will benefit from having high speed access to their clouds will be lobbying the gubberment. Microsoft have bet the farm on 365 etc, so it is in their best interest and I am sure Google, Amazon etc will be chatting as well.

      These companies don't get concerned if the money is wasted or not but look at how they will benefit from it. Nothing wrong with that, that's what a business is meant to do.

    Why didn't they do this BEFORE the election, when it should have been said.

    FTTN wasn't a post election surprise.

    Politicians don't listen unless there is a substantial anonymous donation to their bank account, and even then they find a way to wriggle out of it.

    I'd say Microsoft are concerned because FttN won't cater for Cloud Services due to abysmal upload speeds (just like now). It would take me 5 days on non-stop uploads to fill my FREE Google Drive quota at the moment. Pathetic.

    Someone should start a petition to encourage major corporations to join.

    same as the one that got 250K signatures but send it to google, microsoft, apple etc, massive companies and get them to put it forward

    Maybe MS should put some money where there mouth is.....its easy to lobby for something when your not paying for it .... and then just lever from it in the future. win win

      Agreed. It's all gimmegimmegimme until you ask them to open the cheque book....

    I had to upload 348Mb of files the other day for work. i wrote down the start time at 4:08PM and the end time of 5:08 pm. Not only did i lose and hour of productivity waiting, i couldnt work on anything else because my bandwidth was tied up in the upload. Im on the fasted ADSL2+ service i can get.

    Why is it that everytime i need to upload files for work, I lose double the amount of productivity becuase of abysmal internet?

      If it's that critical for work get a business high speed connection, don't rely on a residential access.

        I rent my house and cannot afford to put in a dedicated connection costing tens of thousands of dollars to install and thousands of dollars per month to subscribe.

        Perhaps if the road you use to go to work was a dirt ditch and cost you hours of exta travel time every day, you would be more sympathetic, and would expect government - of any level, to fix it

    If we can get an oil or mining company to lobby for FttH the Libs will listen.

      I doubt it will work. One common problem with both Labor and the Coalition is they have old men with no idea of technology as Communication Ministers.

      Just look at Steven Conroy. He seriously thought he could censor the Internet here. Even a high school freshman/junior would know that a black list will never work due to the nature of URLs and Web objects.

        Maybe they should introduce into law that a Minister should have a relevant degree/experience in the field they're in charge of? And when I say experience, I'm not talking sitting on the board of a communications company. I mean actual work involving understanding of the field, not the business. That's what we have Treasury Ministers for.

          Hallelujah! Instead of the typical ex-lawyer argumentative never admit they're wrong politicians we're used to.

          Maybe they should introduce into law that a Minister should have a relevant degree/experience in the field they're in charge of?

          For $35, you can purchase a PhD in whatever field you choose. So no matter who tight the screening process is, people will find a way around it.

            Pass an exam to get the position? Yeah, I don't know.

              They can still get through. I'm not kidding. There are some that act the part so well they fool the assessors and the real nature does not emerge until after the person has been employed for a while.

              Last edited 07/11/13 12:10 pm

        One common problem with both Labor and the Coalition is they have old men with no idea of technology as Communication Ministers.

        What are you talking about? Malcolm INVENTED THE INTERNET IN AUSTRALIA. You don't get more qualified than that!

        (Yes, I am joking in case anybody was wondering)

          Sadly, while the Coalition is OK party wise, someone really needs to surgically remove Abbott's mouth.

          Like I said before, Australia voted for a party. The problem with this one is they have a leading representative that doesn't know when to shut up.

    Never underestimate the power of political sheer bloody-mindedness.

      How is it possible? political sheer bloody-mindedness is infinite. Thus can be now quantifiable value and never be under-estimated, :-P

      My attempt at some light humour. Sorry in advance if it falls flat.

    Mentioning Microsoft, Turnball and the NBN in the same place was a bad move, it looks like this is turning into the ultimate battle of the fanboys!

      SONY > MS!!!
      TURNBALL IS OK, BUT I DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE LIBERAL PARTY!!!!
      FTTP!!!!

      :p

    However the Libs got in, doesn't matter for the purpose of this article.
    What does matter is that either way, FTTN is a useless "upgrade" compaired to FTTH, even if it costed the fabricated $90billion. Yes fabricated, because those "utmost worst case scenario costs" would also occur if FTTN was implemented.

    So much so that M$ are actually worried they'll miss out on charging people in Australia for using Cloud storage... because let's be honest, it's a bitch to use here in Australia due to our "top-notch" copper.

    Good on Microsoft, but the luddites will never budge as they accelerate us back to the 1950s. Wasting your breath Microsoft I'm afraid .... very afraid.

    wow... WiseHacker defending Abbots government could be a full time job for you mate. I'm exhausted from reading all that.

    Although I commend your idea that the Australian population voted for the party and actually knew what they were doing I'm afraid I'm more of a cynic. Since Miley Cyrus is actually popular in Australia I can conclude most people are little more then zombies waiting for the next Iphone.

    Doesn't matter if Steve Jobs comes back from the dead appears in front of Abbot with Jesus and tells him that the NBN needs to be FTH because its uploads that actually matter they wont change it because they can never admit they are wrong.

      Well said sir.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now