Coalition's NBN Policy Announcement Live Blog: All The Action As It Happened

Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull are in Sydney today announcing the alternative Coalition broadband policy. We're updating live.

11:00 And we're live!

11:25 We're waiting on these two to get their selfies done before we get underway.

11:30 Abbott and Turnbull are up. The Coalition leader starts with a tribute to Margaret Thatcher.

11:32 You can get a sneak peek of the policy here.

11:34 Abbott: "We will deliver a better NBN faster and better than this government can."

11:36 Abbott: "By 2016 -- at the end of our first term -- there will be minimum download speeds of 25Mbps and up to 100Mbps."

11:40 Coalition announces three inquiries: Commercial review completed within 60 days as to how quickly the NBN can meet the Coaltion objectives. The next is an audit of the NBN because of the "current mess" and the third is a study and cost/benefit analysis of the current plan to see what we need in future.

"I'm very proud of this policy"

11:41 Malcolm Turnbull taking over now.

11:42 This is a failing project that is behind schedule, says Malcolm.

11:43 We've done the hard analysis that the Government never did. We looked at what telcos are doing in major markets in the US, Europe and Asia. Our plan is consistent with

Turnbull: We will have FTTN in greenfield sites and major locations like schools, hospitals and industrial estates, but for residential suburbs, fibre will be taken out into the field but not all the way into the premise. The reason it saves so much money is because the cost in this network is the labour, not the cables and electronics. This is a much smarter approach.

11:46 Ironically, our building is connected to an ailing copper line, so our press conference link has dropped out. Stand-by.

11:47 And we're back, with graphs!

Turnbull says the barrier to entry for broadband is cost, adding that Labor is going to charge people too much for broadband.

11:47 More graphs, now Turnbull is criticising the NBN Co for not meeting its roll-out targets. This whole press conference is very bizarre. It's being held at a Fox Sports studio, presumably for graphical gravitas.

11:47 Internet speed is only good if you're actually going to do something with it. 1Tbps is for a datacentre, and you don't need that in your backyard.

We're going through a graph from BT about what people are using their internet connections for at 40Mbps.

"A high-definition video stream only takes 6Mbps!" Turnbull says, adding that you can have lots of other things. "

11:47 To put this in a geeky way if you forgive me for this. The value of broadband does not increase with a linear fashion with the speed. 20Mbps is not twice as useful or valuable to you as 10Mbps, and 40Mbps is certainly not twice as valuable as 20Mbps."

"This will deliver all of the services and applications. That is why this approach has been taken around the world."

11:50 Turnbull is now talking about the replacement of copper that is in poor condition.

You can remediate the copper, fix it up, and that is something that is done all the time. In an area for example, where there is a lot of groundwater and the copper has a lot of...problems...that is an area where you might just put fibre right through. You make a judgment based on where you go.

Good news for those in the tropical north: you're probably getting fibre.

11:50 Abbott is back up, and we're now taking questions.

Update: Here's the video of the Q&A:

Abbott: "Where copper can't continue to be used, we'll replace it. LAbor's network junks useful infrastructure, copper and HFC networks."

11:55 Q: "How long will copper network as it stands now actually last?" A from Turnbull: "Nobody knows."

Turnbull previously indicates that failing copper will be rolled over into fibre when it perishes. Seems rather open ended.

11:58 We're now deriding journalists asking questions. This is descending quickly.

11:59 Turnbull: "When Labor says they have a technology that is 'future-proof', they are kidding themselves. Nothing is future-proof and nobody can predict the future."

12:00pm The policy documents are up, you can view them here.

12:01 What do you think of the policy so far? Tell us in the comments.

12:02 Now responding to questions about budgets and whether the capital cost of the Coalition network would appear on the Federal Budget spreadsheet.

12:03 The Coalition's NBN will be built and then sold off. Abbott says that the network will go back into the private sector, but not until it's ready for sale. Question dodged.

12:04 Turnbull on the Telstra deal: "There will have to be some renegotiation with Telstra, we set out to do that speedily. We respect the need for Telstra shareholders to be kept whole. The approach we're taking is not bad news for Telstra, in fact, they'll be marginally better off according to analysts."

"Telstra shareholders have nothing to fear from our deal".

12:04 "We have not assumed any change to the Optus agreement at all."

12:07 "There is no government that is actually building a new telecom monopoly and prohibiting anyone from competing with it," says Turnbull of the NBN Co. Governments are meant to seek competition, he adds. "Not China or even North Korea," Turnbull says.

12:10 We haven't really covered the upload speed of the Coalition's broadband plan yet.

12:11 Turnbull now detailing about how people can actually pay to get fibre links to their homes, references BT in the UK charging "several thousand pounds" to get that connected. That's no small figure, Malcolm. We didn't all invest in Ozemail.

12:13 "We are absolutely confident that 25Mbps is going to be more than enough for the average household," says Tony Abbott. I can't say I completely agree with that.

12:14 Lots of shouting going on now. Turnbull and Chirgwin from the Register are arguing about semantics.

12:16 We're now hearing the world's weirdest analogy involving Irish pubs which ended in just more soundbites. Sigh.

12:17 Abbott and Turnbull urge us all to read the three documents they have put out today.

We end out on praise for Malcolm Turnbull as a founder of Ozemail while slamming Conroy.

12:19 Abbott: "[Turnbull is] Mr. Broadband."

Abbott and Turnbull are now answering sporting questions because they're in a Fox Sports studio. Fair to say that there's nothing left to see here.

12:20 We'll be going through the documents and we'll have a preliminary analysis up soon.

Stay tuned for our analysis.



    These morons are going to cost us a fortune in the long-term.

      Then don't vote for them.

        Yes... that will make all the difference!
        We need to get the whole country to understand the relative costs and from what I can see the NBN is well ahead in cost, future proofing and end product.

        Last edited 09/04/13 12:50 pm

          Would you rather the money be spent on sending our troops to another American lead war, would you rather it spent on another football stadium or phallic building inspired by a male politicians ego, would you rather we be a backwards, backwater country or one that's up with the times ?

          It's electronic infrastructure like this that is very important to how the country runs, not just buffering speeds on internet porn videos. Hospitals will use this, businesses will use this, all to make money for the country.

          Please try for once to see a little bit further than the tip of your own nose.

          Last edited 10/04/13 6:24 am

        Thats the plan. I shouldn't have used the term moron though. I don't think either of them are morons, just cynical enough to push a bad policy because they want to be able to use the term 'cheaper'.

          Except that they both ARE morons!

        Except given how the Labor government is going, these guys winning is lamost a given.

      I'd much prefer to have this plan in 2 years, then wait 7 years for the NBN.
      They get my vote.

        i'd much prefer them to it properly then quickly. And they plan to sell off NBN Co after???. So we can just have a repeat of Telstra... do these politicians learn nothing from history?

          To be fair, Conroy wants to sell off NBNCo once it becomes profitable as well. Both sides are stupid in that regard.

          The difference with selling NBN Co. and selling Telstra is that NBN Co. won't have a retail arm, just wholesale.

          Telstra was structuraly intact wholesale and retail.

          Once again, coalition wants to sell profitable public owned enterprise to their rich mates.

        That short of sort sighted thinking pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with the three-year electoral cycle.

        Typical modern day attitude, the pill that fixes everything as quickly as possible. Not always the best way to go mate.

        There once was 2 bulls, one old and the other young. The young one turns to the old bull and says "Hey old timer, ya see those females down there, lets run down there FAST as possible and fuck the one of them" !

        The older bull looks at the younger bull and says "Why don't we take our time and walk down there at a comfortable, leisurely pace....and fuck ALL of them instead" ?

        Last edited 10/04/13 6:30 am

      Could be worse. You wont get the LNP spending $100Bn over GDP and screwing up our retirement plans and kids futures..... I'd rather do this, save some $ while getting a half decent network on time and on budget, and putting the $$ back into repaying the MASSIVE debt the Labor toons have put us in ....

        Ahhhh, you're one of those people. :(

        Last edited 09/04/13 8:49 pm

    I'm assuming all the countries they've used as a basis for comparison have large, sparsely populated areas in between a small number of moderately dense cities?

    Now the policy makes sense: because we don't know where technology will be 5 years from now, we'll rely on technology from 5 decades ago. That's the argument for a conservative party, alright. Not great for innovation, investment or development, but great for the grandparents.

    Last edited 09/04/13 12:09 pm

      How much money will it take to do the analysis and how is it determined that an area will get copper or fibre because it rains too much?

      They are already getting into where they can cut money and give it to corporations to do the work and saddle the people with not just the bill but profits for 3rd party companies that don't care about getting re-elected just profit.

      When ADSL first came out it was expensive, most plans were over $100 a month. It will be no different with NBN, the prices will come down in competition.

      So the asset they sold when last in power, Telstra is not overcharging for wholesale data already?

      .....Telecommunications in Australia began in 1854. We're still relying on technology that was put in place MANY years ago, and for use with only telephones....And you ain't having any troubles reading this are you. What does that tell you ?

      Think about that.

      Last edited 10/04/13 6:37 am

        Well, considering my original comment and this one were made using mobile broadband, not much.

        Mining with pick axes and canaries was also happening 150 years ago, and still works today. Should we keep doing that, too?

    So they're building FTTN, then upgrading it to FTTP at their cost when the copper fails? Why not just build FTTP in the first place? Surely that would save a LOT more money.

      Their point of view is, use the infrastructure that's there already, and only replace it if it's faulty. That's apparently where they are saving the money. They say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, yeah, it may not be "broken", but there is such a thing called an "upgrade" when old technology is inevitably superceded.

        Isn't FTTN an upgrade from the exchange to the street node?
        then up to you if you want the fibre to the house?
        Just a question: Can you get a fibre link from the node to the house or does the fibre link need to be directly form the exchange?

        Last edited 09/04/13 12:30 pm

          Fibre to the home isn't an unbroken link; it's fibre to a cabinet, then shared fibre GPON from there to each home. FTTN can be upgraded to FTTH, though you'll have to throw out the copper VDSL equipment, and (more importantly) those high labour costs they're worried about now will be significantly more if you build it out piece by piece in 10 years time.

            Thanks! answered my question perfectly.

            Anyone know the life span of the VDSL equipment???
            If it lasts 10 years then replacement will not cost much as it has performed for the life of itself, giving full value.

            The labour cost is the interesting one I don't like, save money now by going half way, but have to pay more later if you want to go all the way, if you end up going all the way

              The FttN plan will cost most of what FttP will (it's only a couple of billion dollars cheaper), but the networkers estimated by the ABC to require an extra $21 billion to upgrade to FttP.

              FttN is cheaper in the short term to give us very little speed increase, but in the long term a complete waste of money. After the inevitable upgrade to FttP in the future we will have spent many billions more than just doing it now.

              Cheaper now for far less is a total false economy. I don't know who the Coalition is trying to fool...

                They're trying to (and unfortunately probably will) fool the majority of the population. While the country is very tech conscious, too many still don't understand.

                They'll see numbers 100 vs 25 (Mbps) and then whatever bull$#it costings the coalition comes up with... and they'll for whatever reason fear the budget deficit and vote Liberal.

                And epic country-wide facepalm will occur sometime in the next year or two. Already making plans to emigrate.

                  Where to? Do you think any country you go to is devoid of idiot politicians? I'll answer this for you. Fraid not champ! I doubt most people are voting on one issue - so NBN will not be the single determiner of outcome of election. Pull your head in. The world won't end if Abbot gets in. SMH.

                  Abbot is an idiot with this max 25Mbit nonsense. He demonstrates the same level of idiocy as Conroy and see speed as only benefitting porn addicts. NBN is visionary and to use an overused cliche - it could be a gamechanger. Plenty of potential for Australia to get on the next wave of IT opportunities.

            high labour costs will only get higher if Labor's in charge, because their unions are the ones pushing for people to be able to make money by working less. I've seen unioners complain about working 37.5 hour weeks doing unskilled, menial work, while getting paid more than me and I work 40 hour weeks sometimes with unpaid overtime.


        Cap's aside, that's literally what they said - going for quick and lowest common denominator unless they need to.

      Yep the same way they build a highway 1 lane each way. Upgrade it later to 2 lanes when it really needs 3 as its "cheaper" then later upgrade at WAY more expense finally to 3 lanes but by then you need 4 lanes. So the usual way government works, left or right.

    Maybe they could waste less money on themselves and we could keep the NBN?

    So my area was in the 3 years waiting category and it was finished yesterday, How is this behind schedule?

      Is everyone in that area finished? My guess would be that the entire area isn't finished yet, plus the way these things work is they over estimate times, that way you can't complain and they look "ahead of schedule"

      Last edited 09/04/13 12:23 pm

      $10 says you live in a Labor swing seat ;)

        Or a safe LNP seat!!


      my parents house in prospect was meant to be finished in november last year

      and guess what...its not finished

    Your'e still going to net decent speeds and latency with FTTN and Copper

    It will probably happen a whole lot sooner too!

      Yeah. 2016 omg that is like 3 years!! I just realised that it would be rolled out very fast, obviously as only 12000 cabinets instead of 12 million houses.

        You've misunderstood something important - and I wouldnt be suprised if A LOT of people have too. The Coalition's NBN won't be complete until 2019. That's only 2 years sooner than Labor.

        Where the confusion has come in is where they've said that by 2016 the Coalition NBN will be able to offer min 25Mbps, max 100Mbps. But they did not say the network itself will be completed by 2016.

        Similarly, today you can get 12Mbps to 100Mbps on the current Labor NBN. That doesn't mean the Labor NBN has been completed already.

        So, the Coalition's FTTN NBN is only 2 years sooner, and only saves $8.4M of Labor's $37.4M FTTH NBN.

        (disclaimer: I haven't read the recently released docs, I got my numbers from )

          I've actually followed the link provided in the article to the documents the coalition has provided, and I have to admit I was wrong about a couple of this. But first - just to confirm - the Coalition NBN isn't scheduled for completion until 2019 like I said.

          Correction #1: I where I said "$8.4M" and "$37.4M", I meant Billion rather than Million.
          Correction #2: The Coalition isn't going to provide up to 100Mbps - they're going going to provide up to 100mbps! That's one billionth the speed of the Labor NBN!! It's a scam! Follow the link from the article and read it for yourselves, we're all being duped into speeds of one bit per 10 seconds!

      Yeah, you'll get it sooner, for less money, and it will be "good enough". For today.

      But in 10 years, that copper VDSL link to the node (if it hasn't perished and had to be replaced) will still be stuck at roughly the same speed. But the world will have moved on, bandwidth demands will have increased by 40% annually (as they have on average for 30 years), and your expectations will have increased by almost 30x. That copper link will be restricting you like a 3Mbps connection does today (at best).

      And then what? You'll have to throw out the obsolete VDSL equipment and pay to get upgraded to fibre - only now without the economies of scale, and with much higher labour costs.

      This is the M5 all over again. Building for what we need today, and costing s fortune to upgrade it for tomorrows needs.

      So, instead of in 2021 getting a minimum speed greater than that BT (our apparent benchmark measure) offer in 2013, in 2016 we'll reach a top speed that's one-quarter of what BT offered in 2010?

    What a bunch of clowns.
    For those that remember the change; The NBN is like moving from dialup straight to ADSL2+ x 10.
    It's like crack; once you've used it, you'll see what all the fuss is about and you will NEVER want to go back to ADSL. Ever.

      That is how I feel with Telstra cable, awesome! +40Mbps

        I'd be rather happy with a faster than 2mb/s upload with the 60-80mb/s speed test I'm getting...

        as I'm not even in the "NBN in 3 years" area

          Yeah the upload is very slow...
          Increasing upload speeds would be great for many people.
          I don't have a need for it personally, but I can see why others would.

            Christian, one of the key developments in eHealth will rely on upload speeds being almost as good as downloads - if you can't send as quickly as you receive, then video conferencing becomes jagged and scratchy.

            Now, this might be workable, if annoying, for business, but one of the development areas in health will rely on things like conferencing with a doctor from anywhere, even on the other side of the country, with the help of community nurses. They'd be able to monitor you in real time during your online appointment; as a community, we would only need to provide the a set number of monitors and equipment to plug into the NBN, instead of many patients needing to frequently travel distances to see specialists for a 10 minute check up.

            People can stay in their homes longer, can be assessed more frequently, it takes less time out of people's lives, and specialists who do travel to other areas can spend more time with people they need to actually see, face to face, which is more likely to free up outpatients lists over time. At least, that is the idea. We'll never be able to develop this potential with FTTN.

            We've now got the baby boomers in retirement, with more to come, as well as their parents living a lot longer than the generation before. If we don't start making developments in health technology, we'll have to start building more nursing homes and hostels to put people in instead. We can't manage with what we have, right now.

            Nobody's talking about this, it's very frustrating. As a disabled person, I want to live in my own home as long as possible - this is going to be vital.

            This is so much more than entertainment and movies; if anything, they're pleasant side benefits. The real power of this system is in cutting through the difficulties of being such a small population spread out over such a large place.

            Do it once, do it right, do it with fibre. Why mess around, when this is what we've got on offer. You'd be surprised how soon you may actually need it.

        That's how I feel with iinet's (formerly ncable's) hfc in Geelong, also available in Mildura and Ballarat...

        I get 100mbps! Its ridiculous!

        I get between 100 - 114 mpbs on Telstra Ultimate cable in Prospect but at the first sign of heavy rain my internet access is sporadic at best.

        With the NBN I'd be getting the same speeds down but I'd be happy to pay for additional uptime.

        Last edited 09/04/13 1:56 pm

      Bad analogy when pricing for customers in the future might be an issue.. think about what junkies do to afford crack :)

      my cousin has it, i've used it in his house. Don't see what the big deal is, he's paying more per month than I am so that his websites will load a splitsecond faster? I'm streaming movies at home while downloading 20gb+ games and movies and I have no issues. He's doing the same thing and it's true his stuff downloads faster, but he still has to wait for the weekend to actually watch the movies and play the games, just like me. So overall no impact whatsoever other than more money out of pocket.

        that is my point I have raised, people have given good examples for some businesses but residential is my sticking point.

        What are the benefits that you would truly use with NBN, so quicker BT or streaming media, but is that a huge thing?

        My point is that people who have good internet might not want or need it, or care less about how fast facebook loads. Use mobile phones a lot more now for all that stuff and less home internet.

        If you don't need it you won't have to pay for it.

          Few people need those kind of speed today, only businesses and professionals. Most people are fine with 10Mbps.

          But demand keeps increasing. 10 years ago, we were lucky to get 1500kbps, and sites like YouTube and Steam hadn't been invented yet. 10 years from now, Steam and console game downloads will be 15x larger, videos will be 4K and high frame-rate, even ordinary web pages and updates will be much bigger, and there will be new sites like StreamingVirtualTelepresenceTube or whatever that will crush today's today's connection. FTTN's VDSL over that last copper mile simply won't cope for long.

            FTTN's VDSL over that last copper mile simply won't cope for long.

            Guess we need to upgrade it when that happens, for people who want it upgraded (that's what this policy announcement form the Libs wants to do anyway)

              Everyone will need it upgraded eventually. And the total cost of doing so piecemeal will be far more than FTTH will cost today.

            "10 years ago, we were lucky to get 1500kbps, and sites like YouTube and Steam hadn't been invented yet."

            False, Steam first came out 2003.

            "console game downloads will be 15x larger,"

            Why? Plenty of good games have come out in recent times and they were smaller in part because compression algorhythms have improved and because more and more developers are starting to realise that a graphically beautiful game with crap gameplay is a crap game.

              Steam came out in late 2003, if you want to get picky.

              Why will games get larger? Because they always have? More detail, better textures, higher resolutions, more immersion. My steam copy of Bioshock Infinite is 17GB, which is easily 10x most games from 10 years ago. PS3 games have been in the tens of gigabytes, and you can bet PS4 games won't be smaller.

                First, like I said, better textures != better game. More cutscenes != better game (in fact in most cases it actually means worse game).

                Second, Bioshock Infinite is 17ish GB. I know quite a few games of similar status/budget released before it that were 23GB+. By that logic, games will get smaller :p Also, some good games released recently are only 500MB or less. You can't just grab the biggest recent release and say that it will be the norm. Sizes will vary greatly.

                Third, it's not a linear relationship. Just because it increased in the past doesn't necessarily mean it will increase in the future. Look at cars, it went from small to big(to fit it all the electronics), now back to small (with smaller electronics). As I mentioned before people are making significant advances in compression methods. AND game companies are starting to get criticisms for the size of their games, which will motivate them to make it smaller. AND the smaller and less demanding their game is, the bigger their potential market is, no sane game dev exec will deliberately alienate the "we have decent PCs, but they're not gaming rigs" market.

                Will it get bigger? Highly probable. But 10-15x bigger? Certainly possible, but unlikely unless they want to bankrupt their own companies.

                  Also, some good games released recently are only 500MB or less.
                  Some good games released 10 years ago were only 50MB or less. Sizes will vary, but the trend has been steadily increasing sizes since video games were invented, and that trend shows no sign of slowing. Sony are now talking up cloud gaming, where you download hundreds of megabytes every hour you play.

                  The increase is not linear but exponential (10x, not 10+). Historically, overall bandwidth demand has increased by around 40% year over year, and gaming is an increasingly large part of that. Most experts agree, and most businesses are investing accordingly (at least, most not in the Liberal party).

                  I'm sorry, but you are an idiot and I'm being nice when I say that. Software, regardless of the media type or platform, will get much larger as time passes. You arguing otherwise shows how naive and sheltered you are.
                  As technology advances, so will technology requirements. When one technology advances, the others will eventually catch up sooner or later. So planning for a national network that will give some people 25Mbps in the next few years is setting us up for failure. You don't build for today, you build for the future, and with speeds only getting up to 25Mbps, Australia will always be technologically behind.
                  That is all I will say because you are so intent on proving that you are right, you are lost in your own ignorance.

                  you're the naive one. I'm not talking about the software size once installed. I'm talking about what you need to download before it gets decompressed. Besides I already said it will get bigger, what I pointed out was that only an idiot would deliberately make it bigger. A good game studio will try to keep sizes and requirements low to reach a wider market.

                  "So planning for a national network that will give some people 25Mbps in the next few years is setting us up for failure. You don't build for today, you build for the future, and with speeds only getting up to 25Mbps, Australia will always be technologically behind."

                  One, Labor is the one who is building for today. Because their approach is not only inflexible, the upfront investment is such that we have no way out if the whole thing fails. Good business people know that only a fool would make a large investment in a single thing expecting it to give you big returns. You make multiple smaller investments, seed money essentially and then the promising ones that meet deadlines and goals gets more money to develop/flesh out their ideas, the ones that fail gets cut. You get more time to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the things you've funded and can therefore make better decisions. That's how you reap maximum rewards while minimizing costs by being cautious instead of jumping in blindfolded. The coalition's plan is similarly cautious. They're going for the necessary ones first (schools, hospitals) and will upgrade residential as required. This gives them more flexibility in the long term and the ability to take advantage of technological leaps that may/may not happen. If no technological leaps occur, then they've effectively stretched out the costs over a longer period of time putting less of an immediate burden on the budget. Truth be told, if our country had an excess of money to burn, I would be less hostile to Labor's approach, but we don't.

                  Two, clearly you are incapable of reading since you both failed to read my post and failed to read the original article. Turnbull/Abbott said 25 Mbps MINIMUM with a MAXIMUM of 100 Mbps by 2016. And then improvements afterwards.

                  What the hell are you on about how does being better games got to do with anything related to game sizes?

                  you can have a shit game but the devs didnt optimise it or compress it enough so it could be 50gbs today

                  you could also have great games, but they decided to cut the Singleplayer short, so it ends up being smaller

                  but youre not even looking at what is the important factor in relation to size and bandwidth needs

                  in the next decade 4k and higher resolution textures will require more bandwidth to transfer.

                  4k is slated to be around 100gbs to start. This is most peoples' 3-4 month's internet quota.

                  Regardless of compression (which you wouldnt really use too much at the risk of degrading image quality) or "quality" of games

                  over time the content will just grow.

                  Also historical technological analogies do not apply to the future as the technologies will be different so you cant even compare them

              Very short sighted.

              Just because games aren't 100gb today, doesn't mean the developers don't want to make them that big, or will make them that big. The developers have to take connection speeds into account if they plan to release as dlc

              *ahem* Battlefield 3 + Premium = approx. 40gb
              Hitman Absolution = 25gb
              X-Plane 9 = 80gb

              I rest my case

            Hi Mr 2003,

            If you have a few kids, who are all playing games, skyping, maybe downloading a TV show while YouTubing music... See how far your 25Mbs gets you

              That is due to the lines that connect us to the rest of the Internet! People see numbers like 100Mbps and they are like ooooo that's going to be fast! Yeah sure if your accessing content that is hosted in Australia! But the fact is a majority of the internet, including YouTube is hosted overseas! Until the sea lines are improved you will barely notice a change!

          Lucky for you guys. I cannot play games online while my girlfreind streams movies from Hulu. Also that is when it is just us 2. My other 2 roommates also play games as well as 2 of us running private gaming servers for our friends. We're on ADSL2+ and we can't do what we want with our current speed.

          You're looking at this on a two-dimensional scale. We're headed into a digital future, one day a majority of schooling and medicine will be done online. Quicker torrent downloads/streaming media is only a fraction of the benefits. It puts Australia into the top digital capitals of the world, businesses currently refuse to set up base in Australia due to the high infrastructure costs of something as simple as video conferencing and bandwidth restrictions.

          We're getting to a point where in the next 5-10 years we can see doctors offering consultations with patients (such as elderly and/or others unable to leave the house) from their bed. A majority of university courses can be done from the comfort of your computer instead of wasting resources on petrol/transport to simply have a physical presence when it is not needed.

            By the time Labor's NBN is finished the "Digital Future" you speak of will have come and gone. I don't agree 100% with the Coalitions plan but the market is already shifting, just look at the number of 4G subscribers today and that's not even 12 months into the market.

              You're not actually suggesting that wireless technologies like 4G will be more future-proof than fibre? Seriously? Are you not aware that each added wireless user slows down speeds for everyone nearby?

              How many of those 4G subscribers today also have ADSL (or wish they could get it)?

              4G is not a viable reliable form of Internet. Towers can only meet a certain of number users and congestion is easily reached and only service a very small area, not to mention that it is affected by local environments and the building materials of your surroundings.

              To say that this digital future will be gone in 10-15 years is absolute ludicrous. It hasn't even started and there is no "gone" as it only builds from that point, there is no getting around it.

                Ahh yes "future-proof" I forgot how much serious business the interwebs were.

                With the current rollout customers already with DSL are getting that repalced with guess what? Wireless :)

                  Do you mean with the current NBN rollout? Because that is in areas where fiber is not economically feasible to run. That being in rural areas meaning the small population can be supported by wireless towers which get congested quite easily.

                  Evidence? And no, wireless is not "replacing" DSL. Nobody's taking their copper away - not unless they're replacing it with fibre.

                  Though mind you, there's a lot of people for whom 12Mbps wireless would be a massive improvement over the 1-3Mbps ADSL they have now. Copper sucks.

            and if you had read the article you'd realise that they will support business and schools etc:

            "Turnbull: We will have FTTN in greenfield sites and major locations like schools, hospitals and industrial estates, but for residential suburbs, fibre will be taken out into the field but not all the way into the premise. The reason it saves so much money is because the cost in this network is the labour, not the cables and electronics. This is a much smarter approach."

            Its the residential area that's the sticking point. Your average household does not need 100mbps. Heck I know quite a lot of people under 30 who don't even have internet in their homes yet they're happily using the internet on their phones.

            All of those things you're talking about can be done with 12ish mbps with no issues over things like Skype and other videochat programs. Heck 8 years ago when I was still in uni, I was already doing a lot of my courses from home. All I had to do was watch the recorded lectures. If I have a question I'd email my lecturer, simple.

              so, you and a handful of friends dont need fast internet now = the entire australian population don't need it for the next 2 to 3 decades.
              thats like people from a hundred years ago saying why buy a car when we have horse carriage.

                No, the more appropriate analogy would be: Why use the tax money that everybody pays to put a car in every house, when some of us prefer to take public transport and some of us can't drive.

                It's similar to how Labor forced some schools to have 2 halls, when they only need one. Or forced some sports clubs to have more water heaters than they have members. Or forced some schools to pay more money to a Labor approved contractor to build a play area that doesn't meet their needs when they had already reached an agreement with another independent contractor to build a play area that does meet their needs at a fraction of the cost.

                Labor's ideas on a high level are good "Fast internet for everyone" sounds excellent. "No pedophile websites etc accessible to Australians" also sounds great. But their implementation has been horrible through and through. Because they are incapable of doing detailed work and they are rife with corruption. They are incapable of seeing that when it comes to complex nation-wide infrastructure or policies, there is no "one size fits all" approach and no they do not have an infinite amount of money to experiment with.

                  With both the Labor and Coalition plans for the NBN, the plan is to recoup the capital costs through network access fees.

                  In the short term tax money is being used to build the network, but that will eventually be paid back (assuming a future government doesn't sell it off below cost before that happens). So in the long term it will have been funded by its users.

            mattm, doctors already do consultations using Skype . We don't need to spend 37 billion of the nation's hard earned for the convenience of gamers and movie watchers. Besides, with their track record on Pink Batts and the BER, would you trust this mob to do anything properly or for a realistic price?

              Telehealth is only applicable to a very small handful of areas that have the infrastructure to support such a service.

              I have already addressed your concerns to other people in previous comments so I'd like to redirect you to another user post that if you took the time to read could prove quite beneficial.


              Either way I'm sure you were for Coalition's "scrap the NBN" proposal before yesterdays announcement, which means you should definitely be against Coalition's current NBN proposal. They have done everything in their power so they can say two things: There's is cheaper and will be delivered faster, which is definitely true, but below is a simple example showing why.

              Coalition: $5 upfront cost, $1 in repairs, .50 cents revenue, 25% effeciency. Large future upgrades required. Small economical advantage. 2 years shorter.

              Labor: $7.50 upfront cost, 0.75 cents in repairs, $1 revenue, 100% effeciency. No future upgrades required. Large economical advantage. 2 years longer.

          What a crock of nonsense.

          "how fast Facebook loads" -- if Facebook is the only "thing" you can think of when it comes to the internet then you deserve less than 10 Mbps.

          What about the ability to stream TV/movies content directly to the TV rather than waiting an hour for it to download? The ability to watch what you want when you want, instantly? What about home integration where all electronic devices are connected and stream content to each other and between friends and family? What about the technology that will come when broadband is 'no longer' a bottle-neck.

          The future will come a lot faster if we have the technological platform available, for the future to build upon.

          Do people honestly think that YouTube would have been as successful as it is, if it was created when our best technology was a dial up modem?? pffft.

            "What about the ability to stream TV/movies content directly to the TV rather than waiting an hour for it to download? The ability to watch what you want when you want, instantly?"

            So you're basically single, no social life, possibly out of work and don't know how to plan ahead by downloading stuff days in advance? My cousin has the NBN, I don't, he downloads around 4 times faster than me and pays something like $20 more than me per month. Assuming we both want to stream the same movie, I need to wait around 5-10 minutes to let it buffer and then I can watch with no interruptions. He can watch straight away with no interruptions. So for $20 more per month he saves 5-10 minutes, which isn't even guaranteed since 5-10 minutes is about the length of a toilet break, so I can start my stream, go to the toilet, then come back and watch. He can start the stream, start watching straight away and then halfway through the movie he'll need to pause for 5-10 minutes so he can go to the toilet.

            "What about home integration where all electronic devices are connected and stream content to each other and between friends and family?"

            So you want your friends and family to all be in the same house at the same time so you can freely not talk to each other in person but instead converse over your electronic devices? Also, wired/wireless/bluetooth/whatever connection between the devices in your house has absolutely nothing to do with the NBN and can be achieved just as easily without it. The NBN connects the fibre to your house/premises, what you do within your house if your own business. They're not connecting the fibre to your console/tablet/whatever.

              "So you're basically single, no social life, possibly out of work"

              No, married, two kids happy social life and CIO of software development company; but you were close ...

              "don't know how to plan ahead by downloading stuff days in advance"

              Why should I have too?!? Why should Australians have to plan their life around their broadband?? Broadband should enhance ones experience NOT limit it!

              "So you want your friends and family to all be in the same house at the same time so you can freely not talk to each other in person but instead converse over your electronic devices"

              Not at all, but when I have a holiday and would like to share my experiences; why should I have my family come to my house (or I go there) to share my video?? Why can't I upload it to my website and inform family of location and (if they want) they can stream it directly to their TV??

              "Also, wired/wireless/bluetooth/whatever connection between the devices in your house has absolutely nothing to do with the NBN and can be achieved just as easily without it."

              Obviously, but that is not what I was talking about so ... thanks for trying!! Read above scenario!!

              "he NBN connects the fibre to your house/premises, what you do within your house if your own business. They're not connecting the fibre to your console/tablet/whatever"

              No shit Sherlock but my friends and extended family are not within my wifi range!! ... again thanks for playing but you are the weakest link!! You're fired!

            This policy won't help any of that, especially not home automation as the upload speed will still be far too slow.

            Turnbull thinks 5mbps upload is all a home user will ever need. What a joke. Home security is one application that could easily gobble more than that - if i want to send multiple high definition streams of someone breaking into my house while i'm on the phone live to police from my workplace or on holidays i should be able to.

            Abbott and Turnbull are putting my future property and family at risk.

              Agreed! But if you were referring to my post, home automation and home integration are two different concepts.

              Your example is home integration and you are correct we SHOULD be able too. The Coalition plan will not support this, the NBN will.

              Don't worry, if Labor gets back in you won't have anything worth stealing, and with the cost of the NBN we won't be able to afford police anyway.

                I feel much wealthier under a Gillard government than I was under a Howard government, because I am single with no kids and yet all the budget handouts under Howard went to those with kids.

                Anyway, what I want the most out of fast broadband is better upload speeds. At least under labour I can have this if i want it. Under Abbott, the most anyone could ever hope for is 5 megabit/sec and that's only if you're sitting on top of the cabinet in the street.

                Last edited 11/04/13 9:46 am

          Try downloading a 4k feature length movie. look at how big they are. would take ages on current connections that most people have. I hate labour party however on NBN they got it right. their proposal would allow individuals to compete in sectors from how where today they can't effectively. commodity/equity trading is a great example. the faster you get information the quicker you can act on it. bandwidth makes a massive difference when you want to get correlations for a large number of stocks on the ASX. currently you can really unless youre a business with a fiber connection directly to the ASX.

        It is the people who have poor internet that will want it, but think about how much it would cost to actually build. This seems like a sensible approach to fix poor copper and also providing an upgrade to good enough copper by going to the node.

          Are you familiar with the concept of economies of scale christian? If we accept (as even Malcolm seems to) that eventually all copper will be replaced by fibre, then the real question is whether we do it piecemeal over decades or all at once now. Which of these do you think it truly cheaper?

            the answer is "we don't know". Because technology improves all the time and market conditions change all the time. And generally speaking there are too many moving, unpredictable variables.

            Let's say today we need 10 people to dig a trench 10m long at a cost of $10k. The simple assumption would be that in 10 years time we still need 10 people to dig a trench 10m long, but now the cost has increased to 15k due to salary increases. However that assumption is unreliable. It's entirely possible that 10 years from now due to an increase in population people are desperate for work and it will cost only $6k for 10 people to dig a 10m trench. It's also possible that somebody will invent a machine that costs $100k but can dig a 1km long trench before it needs any kind of maintenance. It's also possible that all of the machines will be faulty and will break down after 2m.

            So the correct answer is "we don't know". What we do know is that right now we are spending money we don't have on something that many people don't need and in some cases, don't even want.

              I don't agree. As to labour costs, due to retiring baby boomers we are in fact due to have a huge labour shortage but that's a moot point. it will all be relative at the time of the need. The point remains that it will always be relatively cheaper to do it now where, for example, you can dig one trench to reach a street of houses rather than a hundred trenches on a hundred separate occasions to reach a hundred houses on the street as and when they connect.

              The 'we are spending money we don't have' argument is bullshit. Anyone who lives in their own home has at some point in their lives spent money they didn't have (unless they have a rich daddy). It was wisely seen as an investment. Same goes for the NBN. As for what some don't need and don't even want - that's happens all the time. Many people, for example, feel that the government should not be subsiding private schools but they do it anyway despite the fact that there are people who don't want it. Same goes for funding of sporting programs and the arts.

              Are you seriously suggesting that governments should only fund things that EVERYONE wants? Get real.

                You think baby boomers are currently digging trenches and laying cables down? Our population is growing, meaning we will have unskilled labour. There's never any real shortage of unskilled labour, that's why it's called unskilled labour. At times it may seem like there's a shortage, but that's mainly because unions want unskilled labourers to be paid at the same rate as highly trained professionals not from an actual lack of people.

                I agree with most of what you say, but spending wise that's for individuals. If an individual makes a bad investment it will generally affect only that individual and immediate family members. When governments make bad investments all of us are affected. I have nothing against fibre and I have nothing against improving internet in Australia. But Labor's approach is basically throwing as much money as possible at it hoping that it somehow works out in the end. Similar to their National Building Program, where lots of schools/clubs got things they don't need or want, while others go without things they need.

                "Are you seriously suggesting that governments should only fund things that EVERYONE wants? Get real."

                I am not suggesting that at all. I'm saying Labor needs to stop looking at things as a "one size fits all" approach (not in the post you're replying to though). I'm saying that what they are doing is essentially this:


                I want them to approach things in a more cautious way. Get a bloody stick and check out the depth of the puddle before you jump in.

                I mean the NBN comes from the same minister who doesn't even seem to understand his own portfolio. The one that thought a blanket internet filter was a good idea, nevermind the potential for abuse. The one who boasted about how he can make the telcos dance for him in a display of wannabe megalomania. The one who was caught flat out lying on multiple occasions about what others have said to him (Iinet, Auditor General and a few others). The one who attempted to bully his badly thought out bill into existence with bravado and then backing out when he realised that he is nowhere near as influential as he seems to think.

                  I agree that Conroy is a fool but that doesn't make it bad policy. I think Malcolm Turnbull is a very intelligent person who is hamstrung by the policies of the party that he joined - he easily could have been a labor politician who could have pursued all of the policies he knows in his heart are right.

              Except we do know.

              It is 100% cheaper to do the entire lot now than it is to do it piece by piece over time. It has to be done, well all know copper will eventually be replaced. There is ZERO point in waiting.

              The entire thing is basically a scam tony is using to get votes from stupid and ignorant people who don't know the actual facts or aren't educated enough to understand them. He is literally put his election over what is good for this country and its disgraceful, he should be thrown in jail for such nonsense.

              Last edited 09/04/13 3:44 pm

                and yet you provide absolutely no numbers or backing documentation or even logical reason of any kind. I can tell you that "We do know that George Clooney is a real life Batman" that proves absolutely nothing. The major cost of production is from labour, not materials. Labour costs by itself will likely increase and material costs will probably increase too, but overall production costs will fluctuate because of technological progress. Take a look at any factory in existence and you will find that each individual employee may be paid more, but overall cost to produce exactly 1 item have gone down due to an increasing use of machines (taking into account inflation) until eventually it's become so low that it has no more room to move but up again.

                  So let me get this straight, your logic is that in the next 5-10 years when FTTP will HAVE to happen (literally as soon as this stupid FTTN idea is finished we would be in need of an upgrade, this is all but guarantee'd with the current rates we increase our data usage).

                  That some kind of miracle technology that can be used instead of manual labour will have occurred and in fact be so cheap that it will have off set the massive cost of redoing it again and all other inflated costs associated with having waited such a long time.

                  You are beyond insane, your like one of those idoit's in the 90's who thought we'd all be in flying cars by now.

                  Your literally willing to bet billions of dollars and a massive infrastructure boost on the most ridiculously remote possibility of an insane technological breakthrough. That is not how a country is run. We are in dire need of an overhaul and there is no sense in making the country pay for it twice nor making it take twice as long. It is blatantly just stupid and honestly anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't deserve to have an opinion.

                  Last edited 09/04/13 6:20 pm

    The network is only as fast as the slowest part. FTTN is useless if your house has shitty copper. My town can get 12Mbps in the CBD but my house only gets 1Mbps !

    I'm in favour of this policy from watching the announcement.
    Its seems like a sensible, less expensive approach (not that $30billion is not a lot of money!?!?!)
    user pays system, delivering NBN to business parks, schools, hospitals etc. is a plus
    and residents who want it can pay for it - seems fair
    Hope as Turnbull said, HCF wont' be scraped if you got NBN cause it would be pointless

      Except it'll be crap in 10 years, and we'll have to pay for fibre anyway.

        Exactly!!! WHY are these people not seeing this!!

      The big issue is the privitisation afterwards. The whole reason why the NBN has come about is because the privatised copper system was run into the ground by private enterprise wanting to squeeze every last cent out of it without paying maintainence.

        I hope they don't privatise it the same way they privatised Telstra. Remember, split the infrastructure from the reseller!

      Places like schools and hospitals already have fiber, typical of libs to claim credit for something they haven't done. The NBN opens up a heaps of possibilities that have massive environmental, health and educational benefits. The libs SlowNet solution means life carries on the way it always has and Turnbulls ISP/cable TV network mates can keep making their money. You think anyone would pay for Foxtel to be connected at home if they had 1000MB internet speeds?

        Now that didn't add much to the conversation apart from having a bitch and moan about people you don't like.

        The NBN opens up a heaps of possibilities that have massive environmental, health and educational benefits.

        name 10 real world possibilities. I have had great business examples, but what others are there???

          I only need one: telecommuting. With our decentralised cities and lack of public transport, this is going to become the new normal.

            Telecommuting is dead, look at Yahoo and Google who are promoting more productivity offices and work practices.

              Telecommuting hasn't even started in Australia, and you want to prove that it's dead by comparing it to multi-billion $ corporations based overseas?

              Eitherway, Telecommuting's biggest positive is in the education sector.

              Last edited 09/04/13 2:17 pm

              Two companies of literally thousands. And they have a lot of management overlap. And they haven't resolved the structural problems that are pushing telecommuting (increased transport costs, decentralised pools of skilled labor). They'll be telecommuting as much as anyone else in ten years.

          Who knows? Did anyone predict the success of YouTube, Netflix, Steam etc 10 years ago?

          But I'll take a stab at one: Virtual Telepresence. Like Skype but with virtual reality goggles. Instead of peering through a screen-sized window, you're there, right in the middle of it. How much travel and commuting could be avoided? But it'll require a crapload of bandwidth, and very low latencies.

          No idea how important this will be to consumers in 10 years. But I do know that it, and anything like it, won't happen until the world's networks can cope with it.

          christian you claimed I didn't contribute anything to the conversation without offering anything yourself. 10 real world possibilities. 1) Telecommuting less fossil fuels used by cars and maintaining the roads. 2) School Students Australia wide can watch the best teachers in our nation and let the classroom teachers focus on the students who require a different teaching approach 3) Medical specialists can stream high definition video and medical data from those living in remote communities 4) Adults can better access online classrooms to upgrade their current skill set or learn new skills. 5) Households will have the spare bandwidth to contribute to weather and environmental monitoring vastly increasing the resolution of monitoring data and enabling better early warning systems for natural disasters 6) Parents able to work from home can save money on child care and spend more time with their family than driving to and from work 7) Households would have spare bandwidth to be involved in community Policing endeavors like networks of security cameras to track and catch criminals in their suburb. 8) Greater bandwidth to effectively preview and review products and interact with sales staff to buy online rather than using fossil fuels to drive to stores and companies spending big dollars on expensive shop front real estate 9) Benefits for regional areas as a telecommuting workers won't need to live in cities, they'll be able to live in more affordable regional areas 10) Pay per view entertainment means that some families can afford to watch certain sports of documentaries when they couldn't afford cable TV bundles.

            Fantastic suggestions Okibi. There are probably heaps more too. The real significance of increased capacity is that it will give rise to ideas and technologies that we cannot even imagine right now.

            I'll tell you what I am sick of. I'm sick of people telling us that we Australians cannot be world leaders. We can't, according to Malcolm, have FTTH because no-one else in the world is doing it. We can't pursue action on climate change because no-one else is doing it (which is a lie anyway). The coalition is always pushing the line that we need to be followers, not leaders. Stand up and be proud, I say. Proud, not just of our sporting achievements but our scientific and technological ones too.

            Since when are Australian's so afraid of being world leaders? Have we got small poppy syndrome (we don't want to stick out head up high)? I for one am not afraid of us doing what it takes to be world leaders.

            thank you, no the last post was just bitching and moaning this one is GREAT!!!
            don't take me too seriously, I just like to have a bit of fun. :)

    My question is how the hell do you budget replacing the copper as you need to? What happens when you get to an old or flood prone suburb and find that 50% of the copper isn't capable of providing the minimum speed?

    I honestly think their plan is going to have a lot more time blowouts if their attitude is "we'll check the copper as we come to it"

      Pretty sure Telstra would know (exchange to exchange) from call outs and other data they collect which copper is shit and which copper is good enough, only issue is the Gov needs that info off them to estimate how much it would cost...

        Copper issues differ from copper to copper. You can't just view this information at the exchange, you're talking about issues on the copper itself from the path of the exchange to the premise. You'd have to individually test every single pair of copper run to a house in the exchange, for every exchange in Australia. There is a reason why when a customer calls complaining of internet issues, a Telstra tech has to go out to the exchange and test the pair.

        Copper. Needs. To. Go.

        It is old, outdated and unreliable. Even if it is repaired/replaced you are still going to encounter issues with it in the future.

      considering their plan seems to assume the 'most likely' scenario. Chances are it won't be big. Unlike Labor's plans so far that always assumes best scenario for revenue and costs. Like how Wayne Swan keeps on complaining that he doesn't have enough money to spend. All because he assumes that everyone will make record profits all the time and then give him a big chunk of it. When it reality profits will fluctuate based on market conditions and depending on the industry, market conditions can change overnight.

        That's just silly politically biased speak there 'me'. "The libs makes realistic assumptions and labor doesn't"- what a load of tripe. Labor, like the libs before them and if they get in, the libs after them will rely on Treasury predictions, Treasury forecasts. The same Treasury - the same economists using the same modelling. Do you think the Labor party has a whole bunch of economists sitting around on their payroll advising them. You're either very naive or (more likely) being disingenuous here.

    They are building the Internet we need today for us to use in the future.

    Modelled after international success stories eh? If you're going back 5+ years for FTTN rollouts around the world, why not go back to FTTP rollouts in 2001?

    Chirgwin from the Register
    he was very cringe worthy to watch........(plus he needs a hair cut and shave haha)
    plus he was rude

    Last edited 09/04/13 12:50 pm

    So, the Liberals are using the flashcards "cheaper and faster" and all we can do now is wait and watch all morons and self proclaimed "broadband experts" come out of the woodwork and declare this the best thing since sliced bread.

    Wouldn't a FTTN network cost more in maintenance in the long run? i heard that the nodes cost a lot to maintain times that by the number of nodes that need maintaining, then over the years this might not be as cost effective as they are trying to make out it is.

    So goodbye Labor and goodbye NBN, it was a good thing we could have had.

      Both sides throw the term "costs" around a bit too casually. Don't think for a minute there's zero ongoing costs with Labor's "futureproof" NBN. The nodes with FTTN are actually smaller and cheaper than large exchanges that are currently used, this was Telstra's plan over 10 years ago.

        The nodes don't exist by themselves. They are connected via fibre to Points of Interconnect (POI), analogous to the telephone exchanges they are replacing. The Coalition's plan will feature exactly the same 121 POIs as in the current plan, according to their policy statement.

      There will be nodes regardless even with FTTP

      And this is why we can't have nice things!!!!!

    And what of the future? Should we put a bandaid over the cut, or seek out surgery?

      No clearly the decaying copper has self healing properties and will magically transform into super-copper-fibre!

    Why is there no discussion on the state of international links? I can see many uses for faster speeds for business locally.. but what happens when your content is not local? I have 100mbit at home now and most of the time the best use is to see crank around to 99. Tier one aus servers are pretty rare from what I have experienced and even local mirrors for some content is speed limited to balance their performance. This has been the case for years already and has barely improved over the last 5 years. I just don't see how having 100mbit to the end user will improve this at all.

      International links were a potential problem 5 years ago, but have much more capacity today. Content delivery networks have cached a lot of content locally too. If you think nothing has changed in 5 years, you should look again.

      I also have 100Mbps, and regularly get 11MB/s downloads from Steam and other places. Most major sites give me 1MB/s at a minimum, and it's always improving.

      This is part of the reasoning behind Labors NBN, that with better infrastructure within Australia, not only will net prices go down(and they are cheaper, it only takes 5 mins to compare plans but dont bother looking at telstra, they are charging a fortune for no other reason than they can), but also local hosting costs will go down. I remember hearing something years ago about the main reason for the ABC not hosting higher quality videos for iview was the fact that costs were too high in Aus at the current time.

      In short, Liberals NBN is a joke.

    And in related news, Australian scientists have developed new techniques reportedly capable of sending the entire world's internet traffic over a single strand of that optical fibre that isn't in any way futureproof.

    No one buys a new car cash up front, because it's not affordable, you pay it off. Likewise for the upgrades, roll them out as is necessary.

    I'm running ADSL @ 15mbps down and barely 1 up, but it's plenty for a family of 4, playing Xbox and streaming HD movies. More can't hurt, and I'd appreciate a bit more up, but I think there's more to be gained by providing decent speeds to everyone sooner, than being a hog and demanding I want 100mbps here now and screw the costs. It's not only stupid, it's selfish.

      Do you buy a car that is on it's way out though?

      Labor didn't just slap 45bn down on the table and tell NBNco to put fibre in the ground.

      Do it once, do it right. Instead of buying a brand new car and paying it off in pieces, the Coalition plans to buy a busted up Mercedes and replace the parts as they fall off in the hopes that they get an S class at the end of it.

      You're still only thinking about today. We don't need fibre today, but we will need it 10 to 15 years in the future. History has demonstrated this repeatedly for the last 30 years.

      Given how long it takes to roll out all that fibre, we don't want to wait 10 years before we even start, or we'll be stuck with the equivalent of today's dialup for another 10 years.

      Those costs are going to come out eventually though, because what you don't seem to realize is that this upgrade as you go plan will eventually be the entire network. All copper will eventually have to be replaced, and what's silly is how do you define a "upgrade as you go" plan? I live in a suburb with ADSL1, I need HD video conferencing and large upload bandwidth to support my business, however the elderly lady next to me is capable of using this internet. My needs won't be met with 25mbps.

      Does the coalition plan on surveying every house individually and then judging if they have to upgrade or not *right now* (because remember, the upgrade will eventually have to come).

      I'd argue the coalition plan is more selfish, you're delaying the entire project and not meeting everyone's needs because you want to save a few dollars that will end up being made with the benefits the labors NBN can offer (i.e. business setting up shop in Australia due to the infrastructure supporting uploads and HD video conferencing being affordable, medicine/education being able to start the migration to an online world).

        Have you considered contacting Telstra or Optus business to find out what's available in your area? Will probably cost a lot more than your average home plan but that's what Businesses do these days, pay for a higher level of service so it's fixed sooner rather than weeks later. Details on the NBN's website are quite vague as to what kind of service levels to Businesses, just that it will be cheaper and faster, yay.

          I live in a suburb with ADSL1

          I do not have alternate options. I work for an ISP so you can be assured that I'd be on those as soon as their available. Details on the NBN site are fine, unlike the coalitions plan where they're splitting up everyone and only offering some places decent speed and others great speed, the NBN offers the same thing everywhere i.e. FTTP (bar the rural areas that need satellite/wireless) with your choice of plan. So with the NBN I'd be able to get the acquired infrastructure to accommodate my small business.

            Again I think it comes down to cost, you could probably get fibre right now it would just cost and arm and a leg. NBN are claiming to deliver these things for SMB's but you'll still need a backup, 5 days can be a long time to wait without internet :)

      I just bought a new car cash up front about 3 months ago.

      And you know what? I got a bloody excellent deal on it (more than $15,000 sliced off the RRP). While the lump sum outlay up front was pretty painful in the short term, it will work out a SHITLOAD cheaper than if I'd taken out finance and paid it off over 3-5 years.

      There's a subtle analogy in there, somewhere.

        the problem with your analogy is that Labor is putting us into massive debt to pay for this and other things. So basically, they're already taking out finance.

          Except the NBN generates revenue through wholesale access. Unless you are leasing out the car you just purchased the car analogies don't make a lot of sense.

          Again toeing the party line. I wish you would declare your affiliations. and be honest. You would know quite well that there is no government debt associated with this. It is being financed through govt bonds etc and will be paid through sale of the services. In any event the NBN will be worth as an asset a lot more than it will cost to build. Look how much your party mates were able to make by selling Telstra.

          On the subject of government debt, you might find this graph instructive. Note which government was in power when the debt rose from 37% of GDP to 50%, and which governments were in power for the flat areas on either side.

      "No one buys a new car cash up front, because it's not affordable, you pay it off"


      You really shouldn't vote liberal.

    Never mind the slower speeds, take a look at the policy document and read the section on "Fibre on Demand": Yep, we'll just rip up your street every time an individual household wants genuine NBN speeds.

    How is connecting each household 'on demand' better value than doing it once, properly?


    Last edited 18/06/15 9:44 am

      This was a huge factor when I moved house. If I can't get good quality internet, that property was pushed waaaaaay down the list.

    I'm sure everyone on hospital waiting lists will be much happier knowing that instead of fixing hospitals, the government sometime over the next 10 years will provide faster downloads.

    And while you sit gridlocked in your car for hours, you'll be happy that instead of the Government fixing the transport system, when you finally get home you can witness your websites load in 0.01 seconds instead of 1 second. (What a boon to productivity!)

    And I'm presuming the homeless will be on wireless? They may have no home, no food and little future, but at least they'll have the trolls on Gizmodo to tell them how good their lives are now the NBN is here.

    The question should not be Labor's NBN versus the Coalition's NBN. It should be whether the government should be spending our money on this at all.

    How about we get a fast, consistent, reliable connection to rural citizens without cutting the costs to the bare minimum? We rely on dialup, (tried satellite which was just like dial-up except with drop-outs every hour) and have been waiting patiently for the NBN for a few years now... I completed 13 years of school (did the HSC) last year, having only dial-up while all my friends in town had access in their homes to a world of information quickly and easily. I have a feeling now my little brother is going to have to go through his HSC-equivalent with dialup also. Goddammit.

    Last edited 09/04/13 1:44 pm

      under Labor's plan you're still only getting wireless in the rural areas. You're part of that 3%? 7%? that won't be covered by fibre.

        I'm sure 12Mbps wireless would still be a huge improvement over dialup.

    the average internet user already has speeds of 8mb to 24mbps, so really the worst off household can expect an increase of 3 times the speed?

    Eventually using fiber they might roll out 1gbps to the home (possibly duplex), copper networks (cable) cannot support those speeds at large distances, and adsl 2+ as MT says cannot get nearly those speeds.

    Basically MT is saying expect much the same, a lot of money spent for little or no gain at all. Don't you know you should criticise the policies and improve upon them to get votes, not downgrade them, say they need more satellite's or upgrade the link to the U.S.A, or lay more cables under the ocean to increase bandwidth, etc.

    I really want to vote for Liberals but this crappy policy making is forcing me to vote for an independent again.

      Yes, and guess what, that "8-24mbps" is THEORETICAL speed.

      My plan has a peak of "20mbps" for my area, but guess what, because I'm about as far from the exchange as it's possible to get, I barely hit over THREE Mbps. That's a big different. Statistics mean nothing.

    I'm not an expert, I don't know the jargon, but like millions of others I have a vested interest in our net infrastructure. It seems like we've got one plan (NBN) that is taking forever and a day to get installed and another plan (Coalition) that will be rolled out quickly, but is basically a cheap bandaid solution.

    I live in Sydney Olympic Park, in an apartment block, and can't get cable. For months on months I couldn't even get ADSL (not even 2+, just ADSL) because the Exchange was full. I had to rely on shitty wireless and it was just a nightmare. I now have ADSL2+ with TPG (the ONLY company that would provide us with a connection. iinet, Telstra, Optus all refused saying the Exchange was full) and am limited to 4Mbps down and 0.8Mbps upload.

    I know the NBN is the better long term solution and would probably be right behind it, but for one thing. When you look at the rollout map, my suburb is a greyed out area. There are no plans for NBN to rollout in my suburb. All surrounding suburbs, but not ours.

    So even though the Coalition is offering what I know to be a fairly crappy solution, if it means people like myself can actually use the internet as intended (streaming, playing games, working with anything more than a JPEG is all extremely difficult where we are) then I will probably back it.

      Don't kid yourself. By the time you get an Abbot-inspired low-end broadband solution you still won't be able to stream, play games, or work with anything other than JPEG because the world will have moved on and what's ok for today will not be ok in the near future.

        Aren't I and others in my position, better off with some solution as opposed to none? I feel like I'm picking between the devil I know (Coalition, at least I'll get some improvement) and the devil I dont (Current NBN, no guarantee of anything in my area).

          Yes there's a certain logic to going after half a loaf when you can't get a whole loaf but there's no guarantee that the opposition's (lack of a real) plan will be deployed any faster - I suspect you'll be left scrambling for crumbs.

            I hear ya... Damn those internet crumbs are so tasty!

    "Abbott: “Where copper can’t continue to be used, we’ll replace it."

    Oh cool, so we are getting FTTH.

      Copper is useless in my street, there's even a Telstra pit that's open & has had a safety rail around it for over a year... So ad that the whole street has cable.

      Only house I ever lived in that's had decent copper was malevolent, a high income area where politicians tend to live, I bet they'll et FTTH before we do.

Join the discussion!