Turnbull Wants To Charge You 'Thousands' For Superfast Internet

Under a Coalition government, Australians would have to pay a hefty fee for a fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) internet connection to their business or home, with prices potentially exceeding $3000 per premises. Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband Malcolm Turnbull confirmed that while no fixed rate has been set, it would likely involve a charge of "some thousands of dollars”.

During an interview with Sky News' David Speers yesterday, Malcolm Turnbull indicated that Australians would be slugged with a significant premium if they wished to connect their premises to the NBN as opposed to a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) solution.

Everybody will be able to get connection to the network that we will complete once they have an account with a telco. If you are in an area where you have fibre to the node...if you’ve got that and you still want to have fibre to your house, yes, that is possible and that would be a charge of some thousands of dollars but that’s I don’t think many people will ask for that because the speeds available over the fibre to the node network are so high.

When questioned by Speers whether the final connection wouldn't exceed $5000 (as recently claimed by Labor), Turnbull failed to give any guarantees but indicated that the price was more likely to be in the region of $3000.

Well we haven’t set a rate for it but I can tell you that the typical distance from one of these nodes, the average distance would be around 500 metres. And I can only give you the example from the UK the cost of getting fibre on demand is around £1500 which I think would work out at around $3000. So it is not $5000.


The bottom line is people will be able to get 50 megabits per second or better under fibre to the node, no one will get less than 25, some people will get up to 100 mbps.

Whatever your thoughts on the NBN, it's hard to argue that being hit thousands of dollars for superfast broadband isn't a bitter pill to swallow. The facts of the matter are that many Australians who require an FTTP connection (for whatever reason) simply wont be able to afford it -- and what do you do if you're a renter? Labor's broadband policy may have its issues but at least it wont cause a class divide when it comes to technology.

See also: How Labor + Coalition Broadband Policies Differ: A Hype-Free Explainer

You can watch the full Sky News interview below:



    God damn, I REALLY want Labour to win just one more term. I need my NBN.

      But the rest of the labor's plans are pushing us into the dark ages, they will bankrupt the country and just screw everyone over!, the coalition will do the same!, this is the way politics works, to get just 1 good thing (the distraction) then you have to put up with the looting of our country while you have been given your opiate, (the NBN) you wont care about anything else

        But the rest of the labor's plans are pushing us into the dark agesUmm... What now...??

          I think the Liberal Party need to adopt this plan but there is no doubt that the Labor Party would absolutely destroy Australia in every other way except for Internet.
          They cannot be allowed back in!

            The Labor Party are the ones who strive to create jobs and infrastructure, the Liberals strive to pull back funds to top up the coffers. Since this Labor Party has been in they tried to kick start quite a few reforms, some went belly up, but they tried. The whole time Abbott, who could almost taste the Power he would obtain by bullying Gillard out went on a tirade of negativity. Lets be frank here, Abbott has run the most spiteful, aggressive and down right negative campaign ever seen in Australia. If he gets in I can see the problems we have here with Campbell Newman in Qld, on a country wide scale. That my friend is just pain scary...

            Last edited 25/07/13 3:58 pm

            yeah because under labour the economy has collapsed unemployment is skyrocketing, poverty is everywhere and the very fabric of Australian society is coming apart at the seems, Australia has been destroyed. oh except none of that has happened. Seriously, I am no fan of the labour party but to suggest that the country would be 'destroyed' if they win again is insane especially after the world went through the greatest economic disaster since the great depression and Australia skipped through it without even a minor recession . Both party's are pretty much the same, the NBN plans are remarkable because it is one of the few policy's are substantially different.

              A level head and logic have no place in the comments section of the internet.

              Get out.

              Please don't

            Can you please, in all of your wisdom and well researched ways, demonstrate how Australia is being "destroyed" by the current party in power? No? I didn't think so.

              Fastest public debt growth in the OECD

                By public dept I assume your talking about how much people are spending on credit? That means that Australians are confident that they'll be able to pay it back afic!

                We are the only OECD country not to go into recession. If the economy had not been stimulated by spending, then we probably would have gone into recession, unemployment would be high, and all the whiners would get a reality check about what real problems are like. Australia's position during and after the GFC is nothing short of a miracle. A small debt is far more preferable to shrinking of the economy and therefore future revenue.

                  Umm ... the main reason we didn't go into recession was that we were lucky enough to sell many, many boatloads of iron ore, LNG and Coal to countries like China. That had nothing to do with the KR/KG/KR government. It is true that the stimulus monies handed out by the Federal Government did stop a dip in economic activity in areas like retail (but that has now ended abruptly ... ask any retailer or hospitality business). That came at a huge future cost (via government debt) and without any long term structural benefit to the nation. It was fun while it lasted, but It has meant that our industries did not re-structure and we are now facing a leaner and meaner global economy with our uncompetitive and overpriced goods and services. The Aussie dollar would need to drop much lower in value for us to achieve pricing parity with even the USA now ... so get ready for some pain, folks.

                We didn't happen to go through a recession did we?

            I wonder how many dead children a 4.6 billion cut to foreign aid will cause! In Australia $ is king..screw the environment!

        I get that, I do and that's why I've been voting Liberal my whole life. That's the cycle. Liberal comne in to clean up the mess, look like assholes in the process, get voted out.

        Labour comes in to a clean state, ruins the joint, gets voted out.

        Rinse, repeat.

        But I really REALLY want NBN. Once I have NBN at my place, I'll go back to voting Liberal because I want a country that isn't bankrupt. Having said that, if you're going to put your country into massive debt. Now is actually a pretty good time to do it. We have a AAA rating and money is pretty cheap right now.

          That "ruin everything" mantra is just a socially constructed myth with zero basis in reality.
          Both parties change things in certain ways that appeal to some and don't appeal to others. Labour typically shifts focus to the people, social support etc and away from business. Liberal does the opposite.
          Liberals are socially conservative, more so now than anything since the '60s. Labour are economically conservative.
          Which flavour do you prefer?

          Last edited 25/07/13 3:17 pm

            Don't be a dick. It isn't a myth if your idea of the truth is just a bunch of blanket statements. When something doesn't appeal to someone at all, it's probably "ruining everything" for them, therefore not a lie, not a myth, just a point of view.

            Just like you feel entitled to tell the world the nature of the reality only you understand, he's entitled to possess a point of view.

              If you want to go down the rabbit hole of subjective points of view then you have no right to critisise my post either.

              The fact is that his statement was purely a generalised socially constructed myth.

              Just like I have a point of view, and my point of view is that your point of view is pointless.

                You miss the point so your own point of view is indeed exactly as you describe. ;)

                  That was my point, to point out the pointlessness of making a point about points.

            traditionally, yes ... this labor government has removed parenting payments for single mothers, not increased welfare from the dismal levels that they've been on for years and left the elderly out in the cold thanks to the rises in electricity costs ...
            they've crippled the mining industry with the mining tax, they've crippled the food industry with free trade arrangements and they're crippling the car industry with the new fringe benefit taxes ...

            They're clowns that dont know what they're doing ...

              The mining tax issue is moot, they haven't actually managed to get any money from that area in the economy and the one area that should be paying more is the mining corporations. As for crippling the industry, that's complete nonsense, China is not buying ore anymore hence the drop off. Having said that, the mines are now just making a profit instead of super profit, which is why they need to be paying more tax in the first place!!

              Pensioners have been getting CPI increases since forever. I wish I could say the same for the tax scales. Agreed on single parenting, to be honest, but it's a sign of how hard Labor have been trying to get out of deficit that they took such a move.

              Electricity cost increases have been almost entirely due to gold-plating by the electricity companies, taking advantage of the funding model where infrastructure investment is taken as a free ticket to cost increases. It has almost nothing to do with the carbon tax, as the basic model of the carbon tax was that the tax receipts would be returned in the form of income tax cuts and other compensations.

              The mining tax has had almost no impact - receipts were substantially lower than forecast, one of the reasons we still have a deficit. The free trade arrangements were pre-existing. The car industry is in trouble because the dollar is high, so the cars weren't being sold overseas, and Australians weren't buying cars; the governments (federal and state) have gone to ridiculous lengths to prop up the local car industry. I think if you were to check that most of the cars sold on the back of FBT were NOT made in Australia.

              On the other hand, the Libs' only real contribution to the policy debate is to STOP THE BOATS - using measures that will cost tens of thousands of dollars per person, when the numbers show that most so-called "boat people" are for-real refugees that we have a legal obligation to take in. In the meantime their costings fail to mention large slabs of how certain policies are being funded.

              Most of the deficit is because of the tax cuts during the Howard years. Boom years are SUPPOSED to have a surplus; it pays for the deficits in the lean years. Howard & co got the surpluses, then bought votes using structural revenue reductions, i.e. tax cuts that we couldn't afford in the long term. This left the Libs with a surplus, but dropped structural revenue to a point where, of the $50B or so deficit in Labor's first year, fully HALF was structural.

              That's not to say that Labor have done everything right, but they've done a decent job under the circumstances, and the other side of politics isn't offering us a viable alternative. They're planning to get in on the back of dissatisfaction with Labor. I wouldn't be surprised if they wound up being a single-term government, given that they seem to be promising a viable alternative but don't seem to actually be offering one.

              Not sure why I'm bothering, the numbers say the libs are getting in regardless, and I've heard very little support for the Libs that isn't spouting inaccurate propaganda. Unfortunately sometimes propaganda is all you need...

            well i voted today i was gonna draw a big penis on my ballot paper's but i thought they might count that as a vote for tony abbot.

          Surely you mean the opposite? Liberals destroyed the country in the 70/80's and ALP fixed it in the later 80/90's with Keatings great work. Howard cruised to numerous victories via buying votes - and now the country is suffering from under investment during the Howard years.

          Surely you don't mean what you've written and you jest?

            The Liberals did not destroy the country and Howard was a brilliant PM.

              Howard did very little but buy votes - infact he was the most wasteful (in terms of spendature) of all PM's in Australian history.


              His only achievement was gun reform.

                If you don't agree with most of his policies which is more of a subjective matter anyway, that is understandable but surely you recognise that you have him to thank that we did not get hit by the GFC as a result of the large surplus he acquired during his time in office. As you mentioned, also the gun reform and the Asylum Seeker policy (which worked). There are more but I was not engaged enough in politics at that age to take note!
                Am I to believe that you disagree with this as well?

              Sounds like the daily affirmation of the Liberals.

              Look at this, absolutely no aggression, pure opinion and he gets six downvotes because of the absolute gall to suggest a party did not entirely destroy the country. I consider myself leaning to the left more often-than-not but if this individual post isn't proof of one side hiding behind the support of their mob, I don't know what is.

              Seriously, five minutes ago there were comments about how people are disagreeing with facts, not peoples' political tastes. Garbage. The only thing that makes me sick here are the moral majority thinking they're doing the right thing by being dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree.

              Let's not open up the whole "fact" debate where a leftist can post a link to facts and have everyone upvote it but the exact same thing from a conservative gets negged again. Really, I don't feel good about debates when they're won like this.

          considering that the country was sliding into debt under the libs when they lost the election......

          Oh look, it's someone who gets their knowledge of the world from the Channel 7 news!

          It may entertain and enlighten you to know that the LNP are by far the worst economic managers overall. Spending money like drunken sailors when there is a boom, slashing and burning when times are hard and selling everything off so the nation has to deal with terrible services until paying back ten times the price to fix the issue.

          But somehow I think you'll never stop parroting Fox News talking points.

        wow. didn't realise how left the gizmodo readership was!

          Left or just pro good internet?

          Actually while I fall on the Labor side of this particular divide, I don't think we needed YET ANOTHER article on how the Liberal abomination of an NBN sucks. We GET it Gizmodo.

        Oh Malcolm, get off the bloody message boards and use your real name already.

        Maybe you need to see this graph...


        So... $3500 one-time connection, plus monthly data subscription.
        This is certainly more than xDSLx, but not a big deal once you factor in tax deductability and the after-contract charges. To recoup their $3500 in 24 months - add $145 pm to your bill (worst case) - than after the contract expires - renegotiate the data charges / or swap carriers (since you now already own the CPE, so the data goes to the lowest bidder that can provide the service you want.
        In reality - I'd expect the in-contract loading to be much lower than above (say $80pm?) - and competition to be strong on keeping the data charges down.

      $250 - $300bn of current debt that would likely reach $400bn or more in another term and with few options to pay-off that debt due to a continuing poor world economy and slow reducing Chinese economy. So, for a $3,000 service, you want to put yourself, your kids and/or grandkids into financial servitude for years to come. Is that really the legacy that you want to leave?

      Last edited 25/07/13 1:07 pm

        You do realise that the NBN is paying for itself?

        You should really do more research into the policies of each party, you clearly misunderstand several major policies.

        Your family deserves the right for you to do proper research so that you can vote with an informed opinion. Otherwise the legacy you leave will be a bad one.

          "the NBN is paying for itself"???
          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Funniest thing I've heard all day.

            @sg - Have you got an argument as to why the plan won't work, or are you just amused by your own ignorance?

            FTTH should be good for a couple of decades or more plus it can be cheaply upgraded (a few hundred per connection, as opposed to a few thousand for the Lib NBN) to maybe take us to 2050 or so.

            The Liberal FTTN plan is obsolete at about the time it is completed.

            One of these plans is actually capable of paying for itself and one is not. NBN Co. are motivated to pay back the government ASAP so they can get into profit. They will need decades to do so, and only the Labor NBN is going to last that long. The Liberal Plan is more likely to lead to a default by NBN Co and therefore defecit.

            I imagine it is funny in that "I laugh because I don't understand it" way, because you are a halfwit.

        Your shamefull lack of knowledge aside. Liberals plan is more expensive.

        On the raw implementation data, it saves some money. But it doesn't account for ANY up keep and future costs involved with the nodes. Things like replacing and maintaining the copper that dies off or fails to meet this 25mb standard (copper isn't going to last very long at strength =/). It also doesn't account for the astronomical cost of these "node" boxes and maintenance and pretty much everything involved from wear and tear, weather conditions, (specifically hot climates or near open water/along coast lines) and even vandalism.

        Their numbers are simply a "Installation amount". It doesn't account for the fact that as soon as they finish putting it all in they will be required to take out the copper and replace it with fibre anyway (which they themselves have stated), making all the money they have spent on the nodes 100% wasted, no ifs or buts it is the inferior more costly policy.

        It panders to idiots who don't have the knowledge about what is really going on and think spending any money on internet is a waste.

        ALL of this damning stuff aside, they would then have to renegotiate almost all contracts and most specifically with telstra who could bend them over a barrel for party time.

        Not to mentions the class divide that would ensue for those who can and can not afford to get fibre. The entire policy if a fucking joke from top to bottom.

        *edit cleaned up the sentence structure a bit, it was abhorrent.

        Last edited 25/07/13 1:49 pm

          Don't forget, the Coalition plan will ready earlier, in 2019 apparently, but it's projected to be mostly obsolete by 2020 with significant upgrades being required from that point onwards. Whereas the NBN is projected to only start becoming obsolete by 2035.

          Because, you know, how the Coalition loves to tell the world how much money other people piss away, but are a bit precious when it comes to their own significant intellectual short-comings

          (Don't even get me started on how FUBAR the Coalition's handling of the F-35 situation is!)

            Not to mention the fact the ALPs plan for the NBN also enables it to be extended beyond 2035 with minor incremental upgrades to existing infrastructure, something the Liberals plan has *no* existing case for.

          I was 100% on board with all of this, and then: "[...]most specifically with Telstra who could bend them over a barrel for party time."

          Nearly lost my shit. You sir, are a living legend. Keep up the awesome.

        Where the hell did you find $250,000,000,000-$400,000,000,000 for national debt?! Last Budget it was more like $45,000,000,000; less than a quarter of your most conservative figure. I found that number on Wiki less than 15 seconds after reading your comment :S

        Last edited 25/07/13 2:13 pm

          and Wiki is 100 percent accurate, right??

            Maybe not 100%, but typically more accurate than random comments on a blog from people with no source info.

              Haha thank you. Nice follow up.

              Wiki also has references for factual figures, so the great thing is - if you disagree with the debt figure, provide your own evidence so it can be scrutinised.

          maybe you should read the article, they lost around 45bn$ in 2011-2012 on top of the existing debt ...
          from your wiki page - "Australian Government general government sector net financial worth was negative $358.3 billion at the end of 2011‑12"

        The Liberal plan would finish rollout around 2021 and is expected to be technologically obsolete (as in, no longer able to meet accelerating bandwidth requirements) around ... 2021.

        For this the cost is roughly half to two thirds that of the "Labor" NBN, depending on whose numbers you're using.

        Thereafter, it would need to be replaced with a new network based on a FTTP model.

        If we're talking about Government waste, implementing a new network that is obsolete as soon as it is build and immediately requires replacement with the alternative should be raising some red flags.

        In terms of national debt, Australia isn't even on the radar. This has very little to do with good Liberal policies (the Lib years were all boom years, easy to make surplus during a boom) and quite a bit to do with the Australian mining boom feeding the Chinese economic juggernaut.

          I think the Coalition NBN finishes rollout in 2019, not 2021. And to be fair to the Coalition, the late-70s and early-80s weren't really boom years (though despite what they still claim, the economic woes of the time had nothing to do with the previous Labour government - stagflation was a global phenomenon).

          But aside from that, all your arguments are still correct.

          Last edited 25/07/13 3:40 pm

          Technically FTTN has been obsolete for a while now. Other countries have tried it and abandoned it.

        You're confusing Gross Debt with Net Debt. BIG difference. Here's an overly simple example:
        You buy a $500,000 house. You now have Gross Debt of $500,000.
        But you now have an asset worth $500,000. So your Net Debt is $0.
        Howard paid of Net Debt. He DID NOT pay off Gross Debt. The Liberals like to confuse people who don't know the difference, because it wins votes.

          Yeah, scruffy is on the money. The debt figure used against Labor is gross debt. Yet the gross debt under Howard never reached zero. I think it was about $40-$50 billion at the lowest. Only net debt reached zero under howard, but the Labor net debt is a lower figure than the gross debt figure that gets brought up all the time.

          So when Liberal politicians make the comparison they are using two different figures - Labor Gross Debt and Liberal Net Debt. This is a little thing I like to call a "lie", but because it is complicated to explain it rarely gets corrected.

          Could you please point me to a link? I've been trying to find figures but I don't know what to search for.

            Basically, both articles highlight the fact that Howard wasn't the great economic genius the Liberal Party claim he was. He had a very simple solution for debt management; increase taxes, cut spending and sell everything you can. Great for a Government's short term budget, but detrimental to an economy over the long term.

        I'd still rather push us into the future, instead of dealing with the old network that's bound to break countless times while costing just as much, if not more to maintain. We'd still have to pay Telstra to use their copper, wouldn't we?

        Last edited 07/09/13 12:43 pm

      May happen if you are living in a Labour seat, but if your not, you would be incredibly lucky if they even start before the election after next

        my seat Tangey has never had anyone BUT a Liberal member sitting in it since it's inception in the 70's, yet i've got the ground works being done as we speak.

        And no, there isnt a ice blocks chance in hell of us swinging to another party due to internet speeds - im pretty sure we'd vote out fire as too progressive if given the chance :/

    ^^ this, I was hoping to have high speed backup to the cloud, it won't happen with FTTN.
    And having just left work due to health issues I will be in no place to afford the extra cost for FTTP in the Liberal plan.

      Thats exactly it!!! I have the same thing, this product will become common place soon enough and they are just going to kill it in this county. It's so stupid!!!

    no one will get less than 25

    Will I be able to get a written guarantee of this speed? Who will provide the SLA of 25mbps - my ISP or the whole sale network company (NBNCo or whatever it will be called).

    What will the process be if I can't get 25? Will I get fibre installed for free? If so, how does their policy costing possibly cater for those situations?

    the average distance would be around 500 metres
    Is it just me or does that seems like a LOT of nodes?

      Exactly. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of fibre high bandwidth AND the fact that you don't have to have as many exchanges and nodes compared to copper. (I think it's something like one node every 200kms?)

        Indeed. NBN Co originally planned for only 14 Points of Interconnect (POIs). There are going to be 121 now, not due to any technical requirements but because of a requirement set by the ACCC, largely to enable existing backhaul infrastructure to be reused. By comparison there are something like 5000 exchanges currently.

          Last report I heard was that there will be 60,000(!) nodes under the FTTN plan!!!

    I just don't understand why they are doing it this way? It makes no sense?

    So therefore, how could you vote for a party that either puts short sighted cost savings before the people... or is just pure bloody minded?? It has to be one of the two!!!

    And both are bad!!!

      Well, you don't *have* to vote for Labor or Liberal, you can vote for other parties in an election.

        When I said both are bad I was referring to why the Libs are doing this.

        And you can vote for other parties, But only one can form government and it will be either Labor or Liberal. Either a good NBN plan or a disaster!

        Go ahead. Throw your vote away. Bwa-ha-ha-ha. :)

          Quality Simpsons reference there, sir! ;)

          Although it was a Simpson's reference, in Australia it isn't throwing away your vote because of the preferential voting system...

            You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but when it comes to the NBN, only the Coalition or Labor are relevant. No other party is going to form a government, so no other party is going to have a say in what happens to it. If each party's NBN policy is the primary deciding factor the party you choose to vote for, voting anything other than Labor/Coalition will be throwing your vote away (which I'll probably be doing, so I don't have a problem with it).

        Oh yes. The Greens.
        They did such a good job of ensuring Gillard kept her promise of no Carbon Tax.
        They had nothing to do with the Mining Tax.
        Vote for the Greens- Riiiiight.

          Why would the Greens want to block a Carbon Tax? They are a separate party after all, with their own policies. There's a fair chance that they're part of the reason the carbon tax was implemented. The implementation of the Carbon Tax indicates fairly firmly that a vote for Greens and a vote for Labor in the House are not necessarily the same thing.

          In fact the current parliamentary position (with balance of power held by independents + Greens) is the best evidence we have that votes for minor parties are not necessarily wasted.

    If you are in an area where you have fibre to the node…if you’ve got that and you still want to have fibre to your house, yes, that is possible and that would be a charge of some thousands of dollars

    And of course, if you're one of Australia's 1.2 million unit dwellers, you'll have to also pay your share of getting the unit complex itself connected to the node (or, more likely, another node put into the unit complex), but that's only after you've convinced your strata members to also pay for it - very hard to do with owners of tenanted units.

    Well we haven’t set a rate for it but I can tell you that the typical distance from one of these nodes, the average distance would be around 500 metres.

    With the push for higher density housing in most capital cities, and the construction of nodes into new unit and townhouse complexes being compulsory, you're going to get a lot of customers by 2019 who are listed as being within 1-5 metres of a node. Working on averages, a block of 12 units all within 5 m of their node will balance a rural user who is 6.5 km from theirs.

    And I can only give you the example from the UK the cost of getting fibre on demand is around £1500 which I think would work out at around $3000. So it is not $5000.

    Which would make sense if there were comparable elements to Australian and UK telecommunications infrastructure outside the technology that is employed. There are far greater economies of scale with a population density of 260 people per square kilometre that if you have a density of 3 people per square kilometre.

    The comparison to the UK is flawed in a number of ways (not the least of which is that most customers cannot reach anywhere near the advertised speed of 76 Mbps because of the variability of the copper network), has been debunked repeatedly, and the BT plan itself has been slammed for the past couple of weeks for creating a massive digital divide between the cities and rural areas - a problem that is obviously going to be compounded significantly in Australia, given the spread of our rural areas across a land mass that is 32 times as big. And still, for Malcolm Turnbull: "I can only give you the example from the UK". You can only give this example because...?

    Last edited 25/07/13 12:13 pm

      Fuck rural areas, as long as I get uber fast speeds in the city.

        I'm sure rural dwellers are looking forward to seeing you, the next time you go bush, @Damonii. The phrase "digital divide" doesn't go far enough to reflect the situation. I pay more than 40 times the metro price for bandwidth, which puts my city competitors a little ahead of game, eh. And I don't get the speed they get either. Neither party's plan is going to do much to help us out - and I only live 120km from Melbourne.

      Thank you i was trying to get some meaning out of the 500 meter average, which is a rather meaningless figure, as it doesn't give you the max distance, but my math skills were not up to the task.

      Also you eloquently tackled my other issue with Turnballs statements using UK prices as a baseline, i hardly expect it to be a simple matter of currency conversion.

    I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! I can't believe that the party of and for the wealthy would do something that might hurt those who are less wealthy! Tell me it isn't so!

    Also, I like exclamation marks! Use them before the coalition makes you pay for them!

    Fat chance of getting 25 mbps through our copper lines especially since we are on a RIM. Lucky to get more than 1.5 mbps through our ADSL, and can't even get ADSL2 because of the RIMS...

      Consider yourself lucky, there are no available ports in our local RIM so we don't get any broadband at all. Labor have no plans to bring NBN to our suburb any time soon, but Malcolm Turnbull told us that our suburb would be put on a priority list. Guess who I'm voting for?

        I don't blame you, but that's almost a textbook demonstration of how bad policy can be good politics.

      I believe that RIMs will be a thing of the past regardless of who wins, as the Node in FTTN will replace the RIM.

      With FTTN its kind of like a mega RIM and with more nodes than the current rim/exchange system, it doesn't need the full length of the copper that is currently running to RIM or exchange.

      Having said that FTTN is still one of the dumbest ideas from the Libs in a while (miles better than we have now though). Was I a fan when KRudd first announced the FTTN idea, of course, because there was no other option being floated (and that was a long time ago now and Libs are only just catching up, which admittedly is pretty fast by their standards), and FTTN wasn't obsoleted at the time, FTTP was a pipe dream but once FTTP was planned, going backwards is crazy.

    I just don't understand how they are honestly going ahead with this terrible FTTN policy. Lets spend 2/3rds of the money for 2 years faster and 1/20th of the gains of a Australia wide FTTH network. Only to spend more money in the lo term due to maintenance and eventual upgrade to FTTH. It's seriously disgraceful. Why don't they come out with bipartisan support and say, this is how we are going to roll it out more efficiently and fix some of the issues at NBN co. Now that would get votes.

      Because they can't concede that Labor came up with a better solution. It's that simple.

        Disgusting isn't it. Who would of thought that they were elected to a position to help the populace. Not to sit in parliament and throw mud at each other, create poor policies just to differentiate each other and to try and gain power to fatten their pay checks. P.s. I am in no way a labor supporter. Just can't stand the pig headidness of the FTTN policy by the LNP. How bout doing the right thing by the country.

        It's frustrating to see they can't acknowledge policies or decisions that are in (subjectively) the better interests of the population instead of simply adopting the polar opposite.

        There's nothing wrong with picking the best parts of the opposition while also attempting to address the worst. Politicians. Meh.

          Exactly. A party doesn't have to be the exact opposite on every issue to get my vote nor the majority of people's. Nothing wrong with admitting that FTTP is the best solution but this is how we will fix blah issues etc.

          If there is nothing wrong with the implementation of this policy can someone please explain to me why the C.E.O. and at least 5 senior executives have already quit the organisation before any real progress has been made?

            Your point does not have anything to do with the policy itself. You are discussing the implementation of the policy. The same issues that the LNP will face with a FTTN rollout. The policy itself for FTTH is good policy. Could it be rolled out more efficiently and issues at nbn co resolved? Most definitely.

              likely because they know that the budget and timings are no where near realistic and they dont want to be around to take the blame for it (after the election, when it's announced publicly)

            Because of the predicted change of government, most likely. Turnbull's (bordering on slanderous) accusations connecting Quigley to nefarious activity at a company he used to work for accounted for his departure. As for the others, I would leave an organisation I thought was about to crippled and compromised due to a change in management, particularly if I thought I would have to implement decisions that were contrary to my ethics and beliefs.

            That's not "something wrong with implementation" - that's integrity.

        While I think Malcolm is at best exaggerating - and at worst distorting - the benefits of FTTN, I'm sure he feels his solution is genuinely better. His main argument now is not that their plan is technically superior (it clearly isn't, and isn't meant to be)r, but that Labour's is grandiose and colossal, and is ideologically wrong. The Liberals in general - and Malcolm in particular - are strongly opposed to "big government", and this is one of the biggest "big government" projects in Australian history.

        Sadly, for almost all of the politicians of any party at the Federal level, the technical merits of the NBN are a distant consideration, if a consideration at all. Their argument is over how Australians pay for it - as taxpayers via a government-owned corporation, or as customers via private companies. (And consequently of course, who gets the profits: the Government in the former case or - given the sums of money involved - large telcos and private equity firms in the later.)

        Last edited 25/07/13 2:09 pm

          "The Liberals in general - and Malcolm in particular - are strongly opposed to "big government", and this is one of the biggest "big government" projects in Australian history."

          How do you explain"direct action" then? How about the new business tax to pay for a maternity leave scheme that costs about the same per year as the NBN, but doesn't generate any revenue?

          You can tell me that the Libs are against "big government" all you want, but the reality is that Labor policy in many areas is more traditionally conservative than the Liberal Party policy.

            The direct action measures are largely made up of tax breaks for businesses, reducing environmental "green tape", new forms of "welfare" for farmers (sorry, not "welfare" - that's what dole bludgers get - but "Landcare" to keep those National voters happy) encouraging the creation of a "Green Army" of community groups and a - at this point - vague plan about planting 20 million "urban trees". It also involves removing the carbon tax, shutting down 35 current "green programs" designed to address climate change and abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Essentially, the direction action plan reduces risk to profits of big polluters, provides more financial assistance to farmers and shifts any action to address climate change to community groups, should they be interested. I won't include the link to it, but if you Google "Greg Hunt" (the Shadow Environment Minister) and direction action, he gave a speech outlining the policy in February 2013.

            If you can argue all of that's "big government", that'd be very impressive.

            The fine print on the "new business tax to pay for a maternity leave scheme" is that it is a single year levy, that involves reducing Company Tax from 30% to (I believe) 28.5%, and applying that 1.5% difference as a levy (a "levy" in an Australian context being a temporary tax, which is introduced for a fixed amount of time) to companies whose profits exceed $5 million dollars. Recipients will only be those who have a baby during which the levy has been collected. After which, there's no paid maternity leave, and all companies get a tax cut.

            Whether or not that's "big government" is debatable, (I see it more as buying votes, and cutting Company Tax is not something you'd see much from the lefter-leaning parties), but it is definitely "traditionally conservative", given that the obvious result is to encourage woman to stay out of the workforce. The National Foundation for Australian Women did a comparison between the two policies earlier in the year and found the Coalition to be far smaller and more conservative (the only link I could find to it was via a Government agency I refuse to link anyone to, but you can track it down again via Google, I'm sure).

            Labor policy in many areas is more traditionally conservative than the Liberal Party policy

            "Many areas" is a gross exaggeration. There are certainly some similarities when it comes to "social conservatism" between the so-called "Dry Liberals" and the "Labour Unity" faction (of course, they're both almost commies compared to the conservative elements of the Liberals' coalition partner, the National Party). Turnbull himself is an avowed and consistent libertarian - small government, (very) limited market intervention and socially progressive.

        And that right there is why 2 party politics are stupid. The opposition's job is to simply refute and disagree with the current government... both parties do this depending on who is in power... it's stupid and I hope the public see through it.

        Personally I'd like to think that when the Liberals win, they'll suddenly forget about FTTN and we can all continue waiting for the NBN without wasting any MORE money.

    They've yet to make comment on how they're going to handle the repairs and maintenance of the copper network to support their NBN plan. For example, as it stands right now, the copper wires being used to deliver phone and internet services to my house cannot delivery anywhere near the quality of connection required to support this type of service. Who's going to pay to replace those cables? What will they be replaced with?

    Cheaper than currently, FTTP on the current networks are upwards of $30k to have it run, that's if its in the area

    "The bottom line is people will be able to get 50 megabits per second or better under fibre to the node, no one will get less than 25, some people will get up to 100 mbps."

    I currently get 2-5Mbs due to the low quality copper wires to my unit. That wont improve under fibre to the node..

      While I do not support the Coalition policy, this isn't necessarily the case.

      The node cabinet would be much closer to your home than the exchange, so the amount of dodgy copper in your uplink would be much reduced. Also, the technology being planned makes better use of the copper than ADSL/ADSL2+ does.

      So there would be some improvement, although not necessarily to the 25Mbps mark.

      And NBN has mention by the end of the year we would be looking at 1000Mbps over FTTP while the Libs offer the max of 100Mbps which MOST people wont be able to get. We really are being shafted.
      In your situation you should be better off as there will be a node a few hundred meters away not 3-4km away hence the minimum of 25. Still I haven't read anything of upload speeds on the Lib plan.


    Last edited 18/06/15 10:37 am

      That's one of the big benefits of the NBN. If you're a small business with high bandwidth needs then that simply stops being a factor you need to consider when locating commercial premises. All premises will have access to a guaranteed level of service.

      I'm a renter who seems to move a lot due to owners selling the property I'm in. I can tell you, that would be salt on a wound applying for a place that had NBN but getting rejected because there was so much competition (there's already insane rental competition)

    Liberals plan is all fine & dandy; IF you own your own home.. it's a small amount of money to invest for such a great service.

    but if you're in a rental. then you are out of luck.. Which is a shame.. Ideally i'd like to see equal access for ALL homes in Australia; this will be of significant benefit to those running small businesses, students. Those who can't afford the significant costs (& risks) associated with buying your own home.