CERN = $15 billion NBN = $50 billion

[Visionary (David)]

Gillard and her cabinet should be held personally responsible for the horrendous waste of the NBN. Australia is the most sparsely populated inhabited continent upon Earth. The NBN was not specified to provide a communications system it was specified to win an election and it did.
Australia could have easily afforded 2 or 3 CERN's at the cost of the NBN. Imagine if we had directed a 1/3 or less of the total NBN waste and directed towards the construction of the worlds leading Physics Laboratory!
The marketplace was always going to deliver faster internet speeds, it always has and always will. The only legacy value delivered via the NBN was an additional term of a highly unpopular, machiavellian Government.
I am not putting this forward for Partizan reasons, any Gov who offered the Australian people the opportunity to host the World's premier Physics Laboratory would have my vote.
The NBN was simply an unimaginative desperate folly designed to elicit votes from a scientifically naive electorate.
As the NBN was designed to maintain incumbency then those who benefited financially from the additional term of office should be held personally responsible for the cost overruns, cost overruns that were inevitable.

[Visionary (David)]

How about a couple of these instead of an NBN?

http://www.fnal.gov/

[AstralTraveller (David)]

So there you go. It costs more to make information travel slow than to make particles go fast. Whoda thought!

[Wavytone]

What else do you expect from a bunch of C-grade lawyers who were not good enough in private practice to make silk, yet won safe seats through the clout of the ACTU ? And bear in mind most lawyers are digitally illiterate.

I'm sorry but I disagree with the suggestion of building a leading physics lab here - they frankly would be another pointless white elephant.

What does matter - first and foremost - is the construction of major public infrastructure that produces lasting and tangible benefits to all levels of society. Unfortunately the NBN isn't one.

[Visionary (David)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

What else do you expect from a bunch of C-grade lawyers who were not good enough in private practice to make silk, yet won safe seats through the clout of the ACTU ? And bear in mind most lawyers are digitally illiterate.

I'm sorry but I disagree with the suggestion of building a leading physics lab here - they frankly would be another pointless white elephant.

What does matter - first and foremost - is the construction of major public infrastructure that produces lasting and tangible benefits to all levels of society. Unfortunately the NBN isn't one.

The idea of a world-leading Lab is very attractive, in today's world, a world without borders the concept of Global Commuting is valid. At the same time I appreciate the point your making, but "glass half-full" we could do it.

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Communications wise what do you propose as an alternative to the NBN?

And you do realise dont you that the NBN was conceived by the Rudd government not the Gillard?

[Visionary (David)]

Originally Posted by The_bluester

Communications wise what do you propose as an alternative to the NBN?

And you do realise dont you that the NBN was conceived by the Rudd government not the Gillard?

The Rudd-Gillard Gov is a complete blur, interchanging PM's and the speed at which they changed created a fog that was impenetrable. Whats more I don't care who is the guiltiest (Rudd Gillard), I just want someone to repay the Australian Taxpayer and accept responsibility.
The purpose of this post was to highlight the huge social cost of inept governance, and secondly that those guilty of making poor decisions should be held personally accountable.
It is crystal clear the only parties that have benefited from the NBN were those Pollies who maintained the "big seats" for a term. Why shouldn't those who benefited be held responsible, why shouldn't we as TaxPayers insist that they help recover some of the horrendous cost of the NBN?
The Social Cost of the NBN is appalling, what programs could have been started, what infrastructure projects could have been completed? I believe at $50 billion we could have had a VFT running North-South on the Eastern Seaboard.
50 Billion (or the NBN) is a "bad debt" generational in size.

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by Visionary

The Rudd-Gillard Gov is a complete blur, interchanging PM's and the speed at which they changed created a fog that was impenetrable. Whats more I don't care who is the guiltiest (Rudd Gillard), I just want someone to repay the Australian Taxpayer and accept responsibility.
The purpose of this post was to highlight the huge social cost of inept governance, and secondly that those guilty of making poor decisions should be held personally accountable.
It is crystal clear the only parties that have benefited from the NBN were those Pollies who maintained the "big seats" for a term. Why shouldn't those who benefited be held responsible, why shouldn't we as TaxPayers insist that they help recover some of the horrendous cost of the NBN?
The Social Cost of the NBN is appalling, what programs could have been started, what infrastructure projects could have been completed? I believe at $50 billion we could have had a VFT running North-South on the Eastern Seaboard.
50 Billion (or the NBN) is a "bad debt" generational in size.

Hi David,

I'm pretty sure Gary has explained before that this is a user funded model rather than a tax-payer funded model. So there shouldn't be an enormous burden on the taxpayer as you might reasonably think.

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Apart of course from the fact that our current illustrious leader has borked it so badly that it will be very hard to sell as a cohesive unit (Because it is now anything but a cohesive unit) and he might well have broken the funding model well enough to have it end up as an on budget expense, as a cost to the taxpayer....

As to the rest regards a Rudd/Gillard/Rud fog. I think I remember the election of an Abbott coalition government in 2013 which does not appear to be what we have now, or did I miss something?

And I still ask the question. In the modern world where high grade communications across the community is an economic advantage (Or disadvantage, depending on which side of the digital divide you find your nation) what do you propose rather than the NBN or something substantively like it?

[leon]

Hey guys get Telstra Wi/Fi and travel anywhere you like, agreed sometimes it is 3G but most times it is 4G, on occasion we are in the dark

We have been doing it for years and you know what on a pre paid plan and 40 Gigs for 365 day plan we never run out.

And I type this to you now on that plan which i renewed 4 months ago, and still have 14G left

It nearly lasts me a year

So what the hell are you guys doing

Leon

[AstroStudentUSQ (Mark)]

OK, I'll settle it, how about the 50 billion just go to me next time?
I'm happy to take one for the team.

[Visionary (David)]

Paul, highlighting the systemic failure of the Australian political class, I have no doubt in my mind that somehow Turnbull will be held responsible for the sum total of all ills afflicting the NBN.
The Abbott/Turnbull was an ugly mess, but that particular mess but it didn't cost the Australian Taxpayer $50 billion +++
What I strenuously object to is the "get out of jail free" card that was handed to Gillard & Rudd. They caused enormous damage with the ill-considered Taxpayer fiasco that was/is the NBN, yet though they benefited financially (another term of office) they skipped passed the responsibility gate, yet we as Taxpayers cannot skip past the gate, we will all just pay and pay for the NBN.
What could I propose that's better? The market has a habit of sorting these issues out for itself. Rudd/Gillard need to have done nothing, not a single thing and the market would have sorted itself out. History shows us that the country would have been substantially better off if they had both taken a nice big Taxpayer funded holiday for the entirety of their fractured terms.
It is my belief, and I may well be a voice in the wilderness, all politicians should be held individually responsible for atrocious decisions, in much the same way Company Directors are responsible for decisions that act contrary to the interests of the Companies they govern.
It is not good enough that Gillard and Rudd have got off scot-free from a decision that was made at the last moment within the context of a failing electoral campaign so they could claw back a few months of having their behinds on the "big seats".
The NBN was not decided upon to benefit the country, it was nothing more than a thought bubble, an ill-considered, last minute decision to benefit a handful of sitting members.

[LightningNZ (Cam)]

It's hard to find a country that has worse internet than Australia. My kiwi friends make fun of my supposedly "fast" NBN connection, let alone those in Japan or Sweden (1 GB download and upload anyone?).

Though without it I'd have been boned this year as medical issues kept me home for a good chunk of it. ADSL here is such a bad joke, there's no way you can seriously do IT work from home.

As for Turnbull's (and it was Turnbull's) idea of fibre-to-the-node and copper-to-the-home, that should have been shot in the head the moment he said it. All the copper here is rotten - hence the terrible ADSL service that dies every time it rains.

So where did the money go? Is it purely down to the huge size of the country?

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by leon

Hey guys get Telstra Wi/Fi and travel anywhere you like, agreed sometimes it is 3G but most times it is 4G, on occasion we are in the dark

We have been doing it for years and you know what on on a pre paid plan of $65.00 a month and 40 Gigs for 365 day plan we never run out.

And I type this to you now on that plan which i renewed 4 months ago, and still have 14G left

It nearly lasts me a year

So what the hell are you guys doing

Leon

We're using much more monthly than your annual allowance Leon. For those using 200gb a month, the cost doing it your way would be prohibitive to say the least.

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Originally Posted by Visionary

Paul, highlighting the systemic failure of the Australian political class, I have no doubt in my mind that somehow Turnbull will be held responsible for the sum total of all ills afflicting the NBN.
The Abbott/Turnbull was an ugly mess, but that particular mess but it didn't cost the Australian Taxpayer $50 billion +++
What I strenuously object to is the "get out of jail free" card that was handed to Gillard & Rudd. They caused enormous damage with the ill-considered Taxpayer fiasco that was/is the NBN, yet though they benefited financially (another term of office) they skipped passed the responsibility gate, yet we as Taxpayers cannot skip past the gate, we will all just pay and pay for the NBN.
What could I propose that's better? The market has a habit of sorting these issues out for itself. Rudd/Gillard need to have done nothing, not a single thing and the market would have sorted itself out. History shows us that the country would have been substantially better off if they had both taken a nice big Taxpayer funded holiday for the entirety of their fractured terms.
It is my belief, and I may well be a voice in the wilderness, all politicians should be held individually responsible for atrocious decisions, in much the same way Company Directors are responsible for decisions that act contrary to the interests of the Companies they govern.
It is not good enough that Gillard and Rudd have got off scot-free from a decision that was made at the last moment within the context of a failing electoral campaign so they could claw back a few months of having their behinds on the "big seats".
The NBN was not decided upon to benefit the country, it was nothing more than a thought bubble, an ill-considered, last minute decision to benefit a handful of sitting members.

OK,

1. The sole biggest issue facing the NBN (And very much the hardest and most expensive to fix) is the dogs breakfast of technologies it is now being hashed together with in the name of being "Better, cheaper, faster"

So far it is proving to be worse, no cheaper (Only cheaper if you swallow the Abbot/Hockey line, when listening to Joe Hockey calculating what he reckoned the original version would cost was like listening to an auctioneer at a real flyer) and certainly no faster to deliver.

Who do you think is responsible for the direction for the direction to NBN Co to change to the current dogs breakfast? That is right, Malcolm Turnbull. So Yes, he will (And bloody well should) have the blame for what will be the biggest problems of the NBN laid at his feet.

2. I am going to ignore "50 billion cost to the Australian taxpayer" as it is very obvious that you have swallowed the Abbot/Hockey line that it is in fact a cost to the Australian taxpayer. I will point out that as per my last post, by cocking it up so badly, Abbot, Hockey and Turnbull may well make your assertion into a reality if they lead to it being so broken that it is unsaleable and also making too poor a return so as it has to go on budget as a cost rather than off budget as an investment.

3. I don't give a monkeys about what you think the political justification for the NBN was rather than a national benefit consideration. As someone who has been in the comms industry for nearly two decades I understand the value of comms. I refer you back to my twice stated question. Aside from connectivity that leaves us floundering in the dust of information economies around the world, what is your alternative to the NBN?

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Oh, and one last thing, taking "$50 Billion" as gospel and even taking "$50 Billion cost to taxpayers" and looking the other way at the sharp reduction in value caused by deliberately building a network which would be kindly viewed as comprising in large part of obsolescent if not actually obsolete technology, do you think that they have taken 50 billion to the pub and hosed it up against the wall? You know there is an asset at the end of the build right?

Otherwise you are accusing all mortgage holders of blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars and similarly ignoring the HOUSE they own at the end of the day. Same process, except a fixed asset like the NBN generates revenue to pay itself off and you have to sell the house to make a return on it.

[Visionary (David)]

Paul, I believe you may have mistaken my position for that of someone who has faith in either of our two parties, the ALP is a loathsome outgrowth of the Union movement. The LNP is headed by a Merchant Banker a loathsome outgrowth of the Marketplace. So, let's get the partisan politics out of the debate, both the LNP and ALP have sold our country short defending the ALP as you run contrary to a balanced debate.
The NBN was born out of crass political expedience, failure was crafted into its DNA. It did, however, assist in returning the ALP to power, hence the ALP derived a benefit, therefore, to the ALP belongs the rotten fruit of the NBN.
My alternate plan? Do nothing, yes nothing, the market had previously driven speeds forward. Left alone, the market would have driven speeds higher again.
If the ALP hadn't needed the NBN to retain office then the market would have been free to offer higher speeds for higher prices, obviously, if you didn't need higher speeds then you wouldn't pay the higher price.
Under the genius design strategy of the NBN plan, we pay a higher price for slower speeds and there is no alternative provider, the market has been crushed and from what I understand there is no other competitor allowed.
Why shouldn't we demand some recompense from the inflated pensions of Rudd and Gillard? We are worse off, Rudd and Gillard are better off, is that fair?

[The_bluester (Paul)]

I disagree with you.

The market drove speeds forward in a way that was limited by the technology on hand, real fixed line speeds had stagnated for most of a decade and the only fix for that would have been for Telstra to spend billions, only to have the ACCC step in and regulate the prices they could charge for access. NO commercial carrier would spend billions on a network only to have wholesale access to it by "Competitors" mandated at regulated prices. Prior to regulation, Telstra was the wholesale provider and largest retailer and gouged it's competitors higher wholesale prices for ADSL than it's own retail prices.

You can (And obviously adamantly do) consider the NBN to be an act of political expediency by Rudd. No other course of action would have broken the chokehold Telstra had on the market.

The creation of the NBN or some other variant of the same concept (A monopoly, wholesale only infrastructure owner) was needed to fix decades of broken federal communications policy where the almost entirely monopoly infrastructure owner (Telstra) was also the biggest retailer and had it's wholesale arm set prices to it's competitors that were higher than it's retail prices.

Fixed line network provision is a natural monopoly, communications or power or gas for that matter, what idiot would create a privatised communications industry where the near monopoly infrastructure provider was also the largest retail player? (Hint, it was the Howard government who failed to separate Telstra into a retail and network company and sell them off separately)

Do you really think "The market" would have fixed the squelchy manure mess that the telco space was? After two decades Telstra was still mopping up something like 70% of the revenue and over 90% of the profit of the entire segment. Unless a competitor spent somewhere up to millions to install a DSLAM to deliver ADSL2+ services in an exchange Telstra would not enable ADSL2+ in that exchange so the idea of people can pay more if they want more speed falls on its nose too. You could not buy ADSL2+ in an area unless there were enough consumers that a carrier other than Telstra reckoned they could make a profit and so installed a DSLAM. Only then would Telstra "Compete" with them by providing higher speeds that they could have provided at any time they chose to do so, but ADSL was good enough unless someone was in a position to take market share off them. If the "Competitor" retailed services bought wholesale from Telstra rather than building a DSLAM, even after the ACCC stepped in they had to pay all their fixed costs and provide tech support, manage billing and all the rest on a margin of about $5 a month, the rest of your $60 or so going straight to Telstra. I know, I used to work for one of the "Competitors" who stopped retailing Telstra wholesale DSL services as it is a hiding to nothing to sell something where you get the blame for all the problems and your biggest retail competitor makes more money out of your customer than you do.

As to the "Genius design strategy" of the NBN. Well, I am suffering congestion on a fixed wireless service and still getting speeds nearly an order of magnitude higher than I had before. And it is cheaper too. A very large portion of the people complaining of slow speeds and high prices are with a couple of the big telcos which will remain nameless. Suffice to say that they are notorious for high prices and poor speeds through skimping on backhaul and NBN bandwith. You can't blame the NBN for either of those except for a broken pricing model (Which the current government insist on keeping) that makes bandwidth relatively expensive. My provider seems to be able and willing to buy enough backhaul bandwidth and CVC to provide proper speeds and still make money. If people don't like the service they are getting from the big three or the price they are paying, why don't they churn? Isn't that what this competition thing is all about?

[Visionary (David)]

Paul, 50 billion and it's broken!

[Tandum (Robin)]

The NBN is not broken.

When Optus arrived here their plan was to recoup investment over 13 years.

NBN's plan is to recoup investment over 3 years.

Costs are high for carriers so they won't pay to cover bandwidth requirements so the consumer suffers.

Get yourself informed.