ABC Nyooz is reporting that the NBN bills have passed the Senate.
Naturally, the first thing Aunty reports on this momentous event is what the Opposition Spokesflunky has to say about it.
Later this week, I’m attending a seminar on how to get videoconference up-and-running for our little country school to talk with classrooms in Korea and Japan, and also how this technology will be used in e-Medicine (I guess soon I won’t have to attend those seminars in person!). Good luck doing that with wireless, BTW.
But no, expect now a massive scare campaign on how this is all a “white elephant”. Enjoy your last open thread on this topic before the intertubes become a “government-owned monopoly”…
Oh, and how come “Demolition Man” failed to stop this essential piece of 21st century infrastructure HORRIFIC IRRESPONSIBLE LABOR WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!!11!!!
Their ABC article also links to a story about how business claims the NBN rollout has been bungled. As it turns out, it’s just some numpty from the Tas Chamber of Commerce whining (doubtless because the govt hasn’t told him how to get his snout in the trough)
I wonder if the new NSW Premier will find a way to stall or stop moutright the rollout here?
Which would really really suck.
Well NATURALLY the FIRST thing Their ABC “reports” on is what the Opposition says. What else could the public expect from the Abbott Broadcasting Corporation.
Though one of the increasing number of the public who now shun the ABC, I’ll take a guess of how they led-in the “story”.
Was it with the phrase:
“The Federal Opposition says …”?
… Speaking of Their ABC, at The Failed Estate Mr Denmore casts a seasoned journalist’s eye over Chris Uhlmann.
Full article: Nowhere Man
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/2011/03/nowhere-man.html
“essential piece of 21st century infrastructure”
Why is it essential (for everyone)? And if it’s essential, why do we need the government to build it?
Jarrah, give it over. You know as well as the rest of us that the Australian private sector would never build anything like the NBN – they’re mostly too short-sighted and too gutless to do nation-building (which, to be fair, is Government’s job anyway).
Ever had any dealings with Telstra?
“Why is it essential (for everyone)? And if it’s essential, why do we need the government to build it?”
Because the current copper wire system is aging, and needs to be replaced. We can replace it with more copper, or with something that is faster that allows for future expansion of technology and population.
We need the government to build it because private enterprise will not do so.
A couple of questions Jarrah.
Who do you think laid the original copper wire system? Who paved the roads, put in mains water, power, sewage and gas?
And would any of it happened if we refused to use tax payers $$ to do it, and instead waited for private enterprise to do it at their own expense?
What I’d like to know is how Malcolm Turnbull sleeps at night. And I would have expected Xenophon to support it, but good on Steve Fielding.
Good morning, man of straw.
Presumably, in Jarrah’s world, the government shouldn’t build roads because some taxpayers don’t drive a car.
And we shouldn’t build sewage mains because some taxpayers have septic tanks.
That would be GOVERNMENT WASTE!!!!!`11! on something those taxpayers DON’T NEED!!!!1111!!
Because, Jarrah, despite what Margaret Thatcher said, we do live in a society. And when that society gets critical, enriching infrastructure, we are all better off. Even the me-me-me whingers who think they don’t live in a society.
Tell you what Jarrah, if you want to continue to lodge your objections to this ‘non-essential’ infrastructure, why don’t you address a letter, including a stamped, self-addressed envelope for reply, to Larvatus Prodeo, via Intertubes Way, c/- Some People Just Don’t Get It.
Jarrah,
And make sure you FedEx that letter, Australia Post is a public utility to boot. Your taxes help pay for the mail!
Interestingly, if the rantings about Bob Brown secretly running the country are to be taken at face value, then shouldn’t all air time be split 3 ways between an ALP viewpoint, a Coalition viewpoint and a Greens viewpoint? At least then it would be “balanced”.
Enjoy your little triumph, guys. Just look forward to worse service for more money while getting the same speeds we are currently getting.
Telstra II, bigger and worse than the first, is being created.
Thus showing you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I don’t think Jarrah was actually asking a question. He was merely summarising the Coalition policy on NBN.
As with many of their positions, the question constitutes the argument. Any attempts to respond to it are redundant.
@14 Dexitroboper said:
Pot – Kettle – Black?
NBN Co Business Plan page 40 para 2 states:
Really, dexitroboper? Have you read the business case? See, for example, page 101.
I thought not. Basic access – 12mbps, slower than a reasonable ADSL at my place. Cost, after resale and GST – more than any equivalent ADSL connection.
Remember as well that if it makes a loss we all pay for any losses as well. Oh – and for a company that will be using a lot of power they have not even considered the carbon tax. Are they aware of something we are not?
Keep cheering, guys. Then read a history of the many other grandiose overspent and under-utilized government projects.
Because thats the only way essential large-scale public infrastructure has, or will, ever happen.
Please name ONE private sector provider of ANY major form of infrastructure that hasn’t completely rooted the whole thing up.
Just ONE. And when you cannot – think about why you’d even pose an initial question that daft after all these years of FAIL.
Letfy E,
The whole point of private infrastructure is that it is not provided by only one provider. Private industry normally leaves the single point of failure stuff alone. It is up to government programs to fail that spectacularly.
Optus’ cable network? It’s ugly, but it’s not a screw-up.
Neither Grigory or AR have a clue http://www.internode.on.net/residential/fibre_to_the_home/nbn_plans/
Andrew, private provider of large essential infrastructure normally:
- take over a former public entity rather than build it (since it never would have existed at all if left to the private sector, eg rail)
- then break it artifically into 5 groups of rent-seekers who have paid bargian basement prices for something paid for by the public (the theft part)
- then ruin the service by never spending more than band-aid levels of maintenance, providing no price competition at all in the meantime (privatisation without marketisation)
- then frequently dont even save the taxpayer a cent (the whole deal is still underwritten by the public, eg VIC metro)
The whole concept is a proven failure. Private sector should stick to what its good at – smaller stuff.
Note how the NBN denialists are promoting the sad wireless alternative that is being promoted by Eunuch Obama.
The transformative impact of the NBN will be far greater than the road/rail network.
The NBN will totally revolutionise the design and manufacture of goods, the dissemination of knowledge and the way we educate persons (It is this fear of change that causes many of our academics to oppose the NBN IMV).
Wireless will not cut it by a factor of at least 10.
If the US wishes to continue its rush to 3rd world status, then let it.
Huggy
I think you’ll find that there is some pretty substantial infrastrucure in the Pilbara that was built by the private sector rather successfully.
@21 Dexitroboper.
Please see Theoretical Maximum Speeds
There’s lots of railways in the Pilbara built by and for mining companies, GregM. But they’re not “essential” in the way LeftyE was talking about: a public good that’s necessary for the function of wider society. They only exist for one reason: to get ore as cheaply as possible from the mines to the ships.
It’s pretty impressive, but the total length of all stock is the same as Queensland Rail’s Mount Isa to Toowoomba line.
Sorry – I mean Mount Isa to Townsville line. To compare – multi-use (both passenger and frieght), and government built (QR is a state owned company).
Enjoy your little triumph, guys.
It’s a major triumph. Big government is back, baby! Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
“”"” (QR is a state owned company).”"”
Its got a “FOR SALE ” sign on it.
Will the NBN be sold?
Down and Out, QR was a state owned company. Anna Bligh privatised it.
Still, on the major point I support the concept of using public funds to build public infrastructure.
I’d like to have the confidence that that little CAT scan (with multimegabytes of information in it) of you or me hurtling down the internet highway to some specialist who can make some sense of it won’t hit some private sector toll road who is more concerned about servicing the needs of some nerd to have access to the latest video and who therefore has greater priority, before it gets to its intended recipient.
Still 42 billion dollars?
It has got to be cheaper than that.
Queensland Rail is still owned by Queensland, GregM, and the Mt. Isa to Townsville rolling stock remains under government control, I believe You may be thinking of QR National, the freight component out of QR that was offered up for privatisation.
Every time someone uses ‘absence of balls’ to signify ‘ineffectuality’, Goddess kills a kitten.
Furthermore, it would be lovely if someone could fix my borked HTML. Again. Kthxbai.
[done! - tt]
QR National (including the “Regional Freight” division and the “Coal” division) is currently about 40% owned by the Queensland Government. Goods train services on the Townsville-Mt.Isa corridor are operated by ARG, a subsidiary company of QR’s. All passenger services in Queensland (including the long-distance “Inlander” that runs to Mt.Isa) are owned and operated by the wholly-Queensland Government-owned “Queensland Railways”.
Nevertheless, with the exception of the remaining cane mill tramways and Comalco’s short, standard-gauge line connecting its mine with the port at Weipa, all railway track in Queensland is owned and maintained by the Queensland Government.
PC: I think Huggybunny was accusing Obama of sterility of ideas, and not lack of virility. If you think “eunuch” is not the right term, what would be better? Or should one avoid gendered terms and use “pissweak” instead?
Thank you, Terrangeree. You’ve made sense of a confusing business.
‘Pissweak’ would be preferable, though not ideal. It may be inaccurate, but at least it’s not sexist.
“You know as well as the rest of us that the Australian private sector would never build anything like the NBN”
That’s probably a hint as to its un-essentialness.
Also, your assertion is narrow-minded – the private sector has built most of our internet infrastructure, and has been gradually upgrading it as the demand arises. There’s zero reason to assume they would suddenly stop.
“Presumably, in Jarrah’s world, the government shouldn’t build roads because some taxpayers don’t drive a car.”
Roads don’t necessarily have to be built by government. Same with IT infrastructure, only more so.
“And when that society gets critical, enriching infrastructure, we are all better off.”
Except no-one can demonstrate that the NBN deserves those adjectives.
“Because thats the only way essential large-scale public infrastructure has, or will, ever happen.”
Perhaps you’d like to acquaint yourself with, oh I don’t know, the history of roads and canals and railways.
“But they’re not “essential” in the way LeftyE was talking about: a public good that’s necessary for the function of wider society.”
So a faster internet is that critical to the function of wider society? Give me a break.
“The NBN will totally revolutionise the design and manufacture of goods, the dissemination of knowledge and the way we educate persons”
Wrong. It’s the internet that is already doing all those things. A moderate speed increase will help it along, but that’s it.
Why do we leave something as essential as the defence of the country to the Government? Private enterprise would do it cheaper and more efficiently.
Eunuchs in ancient Egypt, !*C Ottoman Empire, and during various Chinese dynasties were exceptionally powerful at times. Eunuchs and power go tegether. Just sayin’.
No, the majority of our internet infrastructure (copper wire, exchanges, switches, etc) was built by the Post Master General’s Department and its successors, which were in public hands until recently. The overseas cables were also largely built and operated by various governments too.
Gee, glibertarians are cute when they’re clueless. While that statement is technically true, most real-world examples have been expensive failures.
…not to mention the US military (Government! Argggh!) and MIT (Academics! Arrrgh!) founding ARPANET, the beginning of the whole darn lot.
Ahh, fuggedit, DiNR. Trying to explain this stuff is pearls before creatures of the porcine persuasion. Despite the fact that people are daily beneficiaries of essential projects delivered by public spending, nothing will stop them whinging and declaring that the “dead hand” of government is ruining their lives.
Maybe they have some things they badly need to say to their parents, or sumfink.
This is the best little essay I ever saw on the subject.
That’s excellent, Mercurius. I’ll bookmark it, and keep it with Glibertarianism makes you stupid.
Perhaps you’d like to acquaint yourself with, oh I don’t know, the history of roads and canals and railways.
Kettle-Pot: I think you ought to investigate actual history, instead of imagined.
GregA
It depends on what country you’re in. Railway was always government owned here, but not always in Britain, and not ever, so far as I know, in the USA.
When people started to actually care about roads in the UK in the 18 C they started with turnpikes, which, if I remember rightly were run by local government.
Canals in the UK were, I think. mostly privately funded.
Tou can’t really generalise about these things,either way, because the circumstances vary from country to country.but its worth noting that Australia does have a tradition, dating back to Governor Phillip. of government run enterprises.
And to some extent pre European contact, one might argue that to some extent Aboriginal society was proto-socialist.
So its in the country’s genes, really.
That’s ridiculous.
Building roads created a product which did not exist before. NBN is duplicating existing broadband infrastructure with a better technology at a great cost, without any serious attempt to determine whether the benefits of the improvement justify the expense.
You might as well adopt a policy of replacing the T-Ways around Sydney’s suburbs with light rail or building a monorail system above Melbourne to replace the ageing trams (which, like our copper network, will soon need replacing).
As usual John C the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. Excluding mobile broadband which an entirely different product, many can’t get adequate broadband and most who can rely on rapidly deteriorating copper cable.
It would cost just as much to replace all the copper in one go and if this was done we would still be limited by both range and data speed.
John C wrote
What product? Roads perhaps? Well the Roman roads were pretty good for their time but presumably they were built for a reason and possibly they were built to speed up the physical transport of stuff. Stuff that already existed.
But building roads is magic! It has god like powers and can create stuff that never existed before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads#Governance_and_financing
“Financing road building was a Roman government responsibility…taxes were required”
Government responsibility..
Taxes…
Sounds like SOCIALISM.
Well, SOCIALISM is, by definition BAAAAD! I’m always amazed how when you ask a right winger what exactly is so bad about socialism, they don’t really seem to understand what it is. Anyway, roads and the creation of stuff. Is anyone going to suggest that we would have the motor vehicle industry (arguably one of the worlds most dominant industries) without road building? I would suggest that in the Western world (especially Europe and the US), the building of large highways post WWII facilitated the growth and development and dominance of this industry, which in turn led to enormous economic growth everywhere else through facilitating increased trade). Oh, and before anybody argues – check out who funded the major traffic roads (highways, freeways, motorways)that were built. You’ll find that virtually all major roadways in the western world were funded by public money (yes, that includes the US of A).
My main point is though that we dont know yet what all of the implications of the NBN will be, but previous experience with infrastructure development worldwide suggests that it will facilitate the growth of trade and commerce through facilitating the transfer of information and reduction of bottlenecks and barriers inside the commercial sector. We cant at this point forsee all the uses that it will be put to – we can only guess. People who argue that it will be a “white elephant” just don’t get it do they…
Guys,
If you insist on using roads as a counter example, then at least get the similarities right.
The road network has, throughout most of history, been a government responsibility. Sometimes it has been done well, sometimes badly. Mostly, these days it is done fairly well, but there are problems with it in most locations.
If you were going to use it, though, in this instant you would have to say that the existing, private, road network was going to be bought out by the State and then largely ripped up – with a great big tollway being built to just about every house in the country.
In the mean time those of us waiting to have the tollway built to our houses will have to make do with the old network – and the maintenance on that will largely stop because it is going to be ripped up anyway.
Personally, I think we are reasonably well served by the old network – particularly as there are existing upgrade and maintenance plans that are being done – or at least were going to be done, but will probably be shelved now.
A new tollway to my house will be great, but I am not sure if I want to pay the bill, and every one else’s bill, for it.
.
If you want to compare this to the road network, then please show why it is necessary to rip up and throw away an existing network, with its steady upgrade plan, to replace it with a full tollway network to just about everyones’ homes. Personally, it may be that I just don’t get it.
Unless you can show me why I may want it, though, not getting it might be the right option.
Andrew – thats hardly a valid or realistic comparison.
More cluelessness
There was no update plan for the copper network. That’s why the government had to step in.
“There was no update plan for the copper network.”
Yes there was. And fibre optic cable was being laid, where it was needed. There’s no reason to assume this progression would not have continued.
Andrew Reynolds,
They “rip up” old roadways and replace them all the time. I’m pretty sure if you google “Ipswich Motorway Qld” you’ll get a general idea of the process involved. The BCC just finished doing it to the suburban street down from mine just last week. Over about three weeks they ripped it up replaced all the gutters footpaths and stormwater drains and then replaced the entire road with a new road surface. Which sounds analogous to pulling out copper cable and running fibre optic in the same cable runs as before. Which is what is happening with the NBN.
Furthermore, the original version of those cable runs were nearly all created by the government (i.e. PMG and Telecom) before they were sold off; as many commenters have said previously.
Where were these “plans” to “upgrade” the network using private money? Telstra wanted the government to pay them to do it – in other words get the government to fund the new network but let Telstra own it.
Andrew,
Your road analogy isn’t bad, it’s just the tollway part that is way off. It’s more like car rego- you own a car you pay rego, which in theory pays for the roads, though it doesn’t actually go anywhere near covering the costs of roads. But even if you don’t own a car, you are benefitting directly and indirectly from their existence and part of your taxes will have funded it.
The NBN will be the same. A national infrastructure that direct non-users will still derive significant diect and indirect benefit from.
Stop Feeding the Troll (AG) , he cannot be that stupid. Those NBN Plans look cheap , would save me $50 a month and i won’t have to SHARE THE SPEED with the crowded line I am on. I am about 28 km from centre of Brisbane , as the crow flys. Some days its like Dial up. Less than 2 kms from exchange, and only acreage 5-10 acre blocks and a small shopping centre between me and my exchange and have been told (Westnet)that its a large pipe (4x)the size Telstra use ). I can see how this NBN will open up Australia .We wont have to live in cities to get Fast B/Band and online shops will pop up everywhere in the bush , selling local made products to the world. People wanting to work from home = less traffic = Less carbon. There is millions of Future growth in regional Australia ideas and oppotunuites that will pop up in the next 50 years of Fibre.The LNP dont want country people getting information from some other outlet ,other than Rupert’s world.
Andrew,
The answer to your question is what Telstra has been doing for some years.
They no use copper when new customers arise they use fibre!
Yep, like Roger says @ 58
I live in a metro area, and my speeds are like dialup some of the time….I am sick of waiting for the private sector to satisfy my demand.
Perhaps it is not the fact that the private sector per se is incapable of meeting demand, merely that Australian private sector operators are hopeless.
Statements that if there was a demand, then the private sector would be satisfying it are so much bulldust.
To support Roger @58. In 2009 I moved from a Western suburb of Sydney (where I had a cable broadband connection, 20 odd Km from the GPO) provided by Telstra to Ashgrove in Brisbane where the best that anyone could provide (it was Telstra again) was ADSL 2. Thats 5km by road from the GPO of the 3rd largest city in Australia, and its a high population density area. Thats what the private sector in Australia do when allowed to their own devices.
Roger @ 58 that’s just what I have been thinking, an explosion in online small businesses in Australia.
You bet, Ian!
There’s plenty of both consumer demand, and small business energy, in this little corner of country NSW, but as for telco support, it’s the usual bumbling shemozzle when it comes to getting, well, mobile phone reception, let alone fast internet from the private providers.
When I hear people say the NBN “can be done with wireless”, I’d like to invite them out onto my front lawn barefoot on a winter’s night (reliably minus 3 in July), which is the only place “in” my house I can send a text message. And we live in town!
In this town, the ABC digital TV signal began a year earlier than the commercial providers. Heck, this town only just got commercial digital TV broadcasts started over the summer. (not that I care about DTV, but it’s interesting to see how slow the private providers are to meet the demand that’s here…it only happened at all because of townsfolk nagging the broadcasters…who were previously planning not to roll out here until the second half of 2011. Maybe. That’s two years slower than the ABC rollout.)
Roger,
The plans being priced there are wholesale, not retail. You will have to add the retail mark-up unless you are buying it for resupply. It’s anyone’s guess what that markup will be.
.
Tyro Rex,
Perhaps you missed the replacement of 9,600 baud line with the 48k capable copper, the ISDN rollout, the move to ADSL, the upgrade to digital-capable cable, the fibre being progressively put in as needed and all the rest.
The reality is that the network has been continuously improved to meet demand – perhaps not all we all want right now, but over time.
To me, the big dead hand slowing this all down has been the Telstra monopoly. Now the government wants to take it all off everyone to create a new government monopoly now we were just getting rid of the old – and at the bargain price of $50bn.
Great plans, guys. Thanks.
.
Michael,
You forget – Telstra, who put in most of that, was an effective monopoly for a long time – much of that under government ownership. Again – see my response above.
.
Ian,
The contracts signed by the previous government would have delivered 12mbps wireless to areas outside the cities by now if it had gone ahead. The reality is that this government, in floundering around for the best part of four years, has actually delayed delivery of that by up to a decade. Again – great plan.
I wasn’t much of a fan of the previous idea either, but it would have delivered the same stuff that this plan is for a lot less and done it by now.
Sorry – fail.
.
Mercurius,
If you are in country NSW what you will be getting from the NBN is, for the most part, wireless. It is only going to be the cities and big contry centres getting the fibre – even under the current NBN plan.
AR @ 64, you’d be slightly more credible if you had a clue about what you’re talking about.
The upgrade in line speed from 9600 baud through 56K to ADSL and then ADSL2 had nothing to do with replacing crappy 9600 baud copper with new, shiny, ADSL-capable copper – they used the same lines, but with different data encoding schemes.
Kinda places the rest of your claims in doubt.
Here’s the NSW coverage map. Looks like pretty much every medium sized town.
Dunno where the $50bn figure comes from, AR.
David,
I am aware of the changes, but most of them required new hardware at the exchanges – the move the ISDN and ADSL did. The backhaul from the exchanges also (in many places) needed to be replaced with new line – and that was new copper.
Where pair gain existed that needed to be replaced – and that process is incomplete.
Yes, I know the local loop has, in many places stayed the same since the 1950s – I know through actually working on some of it to try to get ADSL in to several old houses I have lived in. I also know that much of the cable to the node has been replaced to try to allow for upgrades and higher data speeds.
Several times other commenters here have done this. I do have an idea – perhaps you could answer the actual point rather than attempting to play the man.
wilful,
The installation cost plus the purchase of the network from Telstra. Total cost – about $50bn.
Ok, so you obviously realise that the total cost is in the order of $35 bn, paid for by consumers, not by government debt in the long run, and are simply making crap up.
wilful,
So – consumers are not taxpayers, then? How is this going to be paid for?
I think we all pay for it – either by taxation if the plan fails and a loss is made or through telecoms and data charges if the plan succeeds.
Whichever way it happens, we pay for it.
“Building roads created a product which did not exist before”
yes they did.
but they were called tracks or trails.
before that they were bush.
turning trails into roads improved transport speed and decreased wear and tear on vehicles. the vehicles we couldn’t live without today couldn’t run efficiently on the original trails hacked with machete’s and suchlike.
it’s all advancement in technology, almost always a good thing (war weapons the notable exception)
Kevin Rudds legacy will linger in the Liberal Partys face for a very long time!!!
Julia has a lot to play with thanks to such genius!!!!