Abbot's Coalition steathily introduces mandatory ISP level filtering for Internet and mobile providers, then backflips

So, first the NBN 'Fraudband fiasco' and now this — Abbot's government is now apparently trying to enforce mandatory internet filtering onto Australian ISP's, which according to ZdNet:

The policy comes less than 41 hours before polls open for voting in the federal election where the Coalition is currently expected to win. It is also almost a year after the Labor government abandoned its plans for mandatory internet filtering, and three years after the Coalition announced that it would not support a policy for mandatory internet filtering.

Source ZDnet

Given the severe backlash that Conroy received in 2012 regarding the filter, it strikes me as rather odd for the Libs to even consider the plan — according to their statement (PDF document)

“This is a very different approach to the discredited compulsory filter proposal championed by the Rudd-Gillard government, which was abandoned as unworkable. The Coalition’s approach aims to empower parents — by giving them the choice of whether or not to operate a filter at home, [and] by establishing the default setting as one which provides maximum protection.”

“The Coalition will ensure there is an effective complaints system, backed by legislation, to
get harmful material down fast from large social media sites. Our approach responds to the very clear message received in our community consultations: when children are the subject of harmful material online, it is vital to have a way to get it down fast. Too often that is not available today.”

So it appears they're trying to win over the conservative voting crowd — mainly the mums and dads who worry about what their kids get up to on the Internet and who immediately raise their hands when shown the "Think of the children!" drawcard.

I'd personall would like the government to explain:

  1. How much will it cost taxpayers?
  2. By adding an additional layer to the network, what are the performance overheads (in terms of d.l. speed?)
  3. What is exactly on the blacklist?
  4. How easy is it (for kids, anyone) to bypass such a filter and render it ineffective?
  5. Who actually asked for it?

What do you think, citizens of Ozbargain Australia? Yay or Nay?

Update: Malcolm turnbull on the filter

Update!: The Coalition has done a backflip on the filter scheme. Video and news after the break. The original PDF document is gone and is now replaced by Turnbull stating that the Coalition has never supported ISP Filtering.

The policy which was issued today was poorly worded and incorrectly indicated that the
Coalition supported an “opt out” system of internet filtering for both mobile and fixed line
services. That is not our policy and never has been.
The correct position is that the Coalition will encourage mobile phone and internet service
providers to make available software which parents can choose to install on their own devices
to protect their children from inappropriate material.

Poll Options

  • 4
    Yay ʘ‿ʘ
  • 44
    Nay ಠ_ಠ
  • 20
    I like Swedish Candy

Comments

  • +19

    It doesn't matter whether you vote left or right, they are all the same, totalitarian statists that want to take away all of our liberties and turn us into mindless drones. Death to the nanny state. To the child coddling soccer mums out there I have only this to say: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Benjamin Franklin.

    • +22

      Agreed. They are all the same.

      US
      Politician 1: I'm going to make election noise by promising to take away your rights.
      Politician 2: I'm going to make election noise by promising to defend those rights Politician 1 is trying to take away.

      UK/Australia
      Politician 1: I'm going to make election noise by promising to take away your rights.
      Politician 2: Pfft I promise to take away twice as many of your rights therefore I'm clearly twice as good.
      Voters: Ohhhh twice as good!

    • +7

      No, even though it looks irrelevant given they are both centr-ish parties, it does matter who you vote for. The ALP have their roots in the labour movement, those that got you your terms and conditions of employment and other policies and laws that lean to the people. The Coalition have their roots in business and no matter what they say that is always their first priority, business. They believe (maybe, if they believe in anything but money) in the much discredited Thatcherite notion of the trickle down effect. It doesn't trickle down, it goes into the receivers pocket.

      Honestly, I can't see any reason to vote Coalition - if it ain't broke don't fix it.

      • +1

        Both parties consist of individuals whose number one priority and greatest influence on their actions is the advancement of their own careers.

        ALP leans to 'the people' because that's the voter demographic they wish to appeal to. Same goes for Coalition and business/'the wealthier people'.

        Employment and business is just one aspect of our lives, albeit an import one. Other than that they are all the same.

        More on topic with the OP, politicians like to introduce bans and censors because it makes them look useful. Voters are happy to allow it either due to ignorance or because they don't care about the particular ban/censor in question. There will always be more elections to make noise for and sooner or later they're going to run out of things you don't care about to ban.

    • +4

      I, for one, welcome our new politician overlords.

      • Even though I saw the humour I had to fight hard not to neg.

  • +1

    The Coalition will ensure there is an effective complaints system, backed by legislation, to get harmful material down fast from large social media sites.

    This is exactly the reverse of the problem. The problem is how you handle who controls the blacklist, and how to get things OFF the blacklist.

    IF this was done well I actually don't fundamentally have a problem with such a scheme, but I don't see any way that anyone can pull this off.

    • I thought social media sites were already pretty fast at removing inappropriate content?
      In fact of all sites on the net, I would have thought Social Media sites were the most aggressive at removing "inappropriate" content.

      • +1

        … and often very poor transparency as to how/why.

  • +6

    The whole thing is now gone.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-filter-say…

    That story is just ….. bizarre …

    The level of incompetence impresses me.

    • +2

      Oh these guys will do a great job running the country. /sarcasm

        • +1

          If you disagree with this guy, have a look at this.
          http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_s…

        • What's your point? That we should adopt a single party system like China's, or merely that they are an example of a successful overseas country?

        • Dude Voolish,
          Finding the link to that talk was enough to spend all this time on this debate, thanks for sharing the link, very interesting talk.

          The point that the speaker was making is there is not just a single means to achieve success as a country.

    • +8

      Here's hoping they've done the same thing with FTTN..
      "Oh, that policy was just mistyped… that N is supposed to be a P"

      • +5

        The only thing I can think of is everyone in the coalition (apart from Abbot) has had a meeting like this:

        Abbot is just crazy!

        Yeah, but he is winning votes!

        OK, how about we just nod a smile and agree with everything he says like it isn't retarded?

        Sure, then when we get into power we'll kick him out and just retcon the whole campaign.

        Maybe push him into a double dissolution, he's never going to cope with a (almost certainly) hostile senate!

        Great excuse for a challenge, Horray!

        … this is how I keep from despair.

        • hahaha

          RUDD is just crazy!

          Yeah, but he is winning votes!

          OK, how about we just nod a smile and agree with everything he says like it isn't retarded?

          This is exactly what's been going on with Labour, as evident by the musical chairs with leaders. Obviously doesn't match with your world view.

        • +2

          Doesn't the music chairs suggest that they aren't just playing along with Rudd?

          Note, in no way am I trying to defent Labour here, but I don't follow your argument.

        • -1

          Realistically, he cant hold a double dissolution election for another 9 months. By that time, the shine would have well and truly come off the apple. I dont think that Abbott's honeymoon will last very long.

          I dont think that he will hold a DD election, particularly to repeal a carbon tax that no longer exists.

        • Sure, it's stupid, but he did promise to do it (both repeal and go to DD).

  • +10

    Lol, I'm guessing it was something that wasn't meant to come out until AFTER the election.

  • +1

    Of course it matters who you vote for, my example is this.

    Liberals brought in work choices and the big company I worked for in Sydney decided to use this against all of the employees resulting in worse working conditions and far less pay for us, Australia voted in labour and they removed work choices thus giving us back our basic employee rights.

    • -1

      Australia voted in labour and they removed work choices thus giving us back our previous entitlements.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't support the coalition, but if you are going to make an argument don't make it easily defeated.

      • Dont upset the boys, instead of making a comment back they will just neg you into oblivion…. :)

  • Here's another one guy's.

    Maybe they did make a mistake. It got corrected very quickly. I know that will go against the ammunition so many want to use, but mistakes are made.

    If they really wanted this, they could have just left it, as they are going to win tomorrow, and then they could have said it was their mandate. The average joe wouldnt pick up on the issue that quickly.

    At least here we didnt have to wait 6 years for the mistake to be fixed.

    Backflip = Coalition
    New Religion = Labor

    • +1

      This is a blatently stolen quote from the internet:

      For something that isn't policy, was never policy, was never going to be policy, and will never be policy, it certainly looks remarkably like an official policy manifesto to me:
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/165690692/Coalition-2013-Election-… [scribd.com]

      Are you implying their finger slipped in just such a way as to write a 10 page policy document, cost the policy, put the correct date on the document, and post the policy to their website completely accidentally? Or are you claiming that this is some sort of absurdly elaborate (and dull) hacker forgery?

      At the very best, you can say that this is a policy that they entertained to quite a complete point before abandoning it- and that the almost-complete literature was made public accidentally. But that still implies that this is a policy that senior Liberals were happy to consider. The document is footnoted "authorised by Brian Loughnane", which is the party's Federal Director and Campaign Director; presumably a man who is at least relatively in tune with his party's policy attitudes.

      • This is a blatently stolen quote from the internet:

        So is most of this post,

        At the very best, you can say that this is a policy that they entertained to quite a complete point before abandoning it-

        You say that as though it is a bad thing, At least they abandoned it and cooler heads and better sense prevailed.

        Unlike with labor, where the dumbest of policies somehow become RELIGION - Here's a few.
        Carbon Tax, BER, Insulation, Green Loans and biggest of all BORDER PROTECTION.

        Complain all you want because

        Australians are sick of Labour
        • +3

          And remember 'Work Choices' = choice for the bosses what to do with the workers. It'll be back because the Coalition could give a stuff about people.

        • +4

          labor.

        • labor. lol….

          I keep doing that stuff up, remnants of the UK English….

    • +3

      "Maybe they did make a mistake. It got corrected very quickly. I know that will go against the ammunition so many want to use, but mistakes are made."

      This is NO mistake, this is a carefully thought out document that attacks Labor for having failed to introduce a filter, and simultaneously introduces the Coalition's version of the filter. As far as I can see, the only real difference is that Labor's one was mandatory, whereas the Coalition's one is trying to force every phone and modem to install filters unless one opts out.

      "If they really wanted this, they could have just left it, as they are going to win tomorrow, and then they could have said it was their mandate. The average joe wouldnt pick up on the issue that quickly."

      When they have no idea if they'll win tomorrow or not, why would they do something this childish? It's essentially the equivalent of "since we're going to win anyway let's reveal all the unpopular things we'll do after the election because YOLOOOO"

      The fact is, this is not a mistake. There is no way this could have been a mistake. In addition, the fact that the costs section is empty save for a $10 million figure means that the cost is only going to blow out from here, because $10m is just a placeholder figure.

      • It's essentially the equivalent of "since we're going to win anyway let's reveal all the unpopular things we'll do after the election because YOLOOOO"

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/rudd-says-coalition-po…

        …maybe you are right? Maybe it is someone within the party trolling for laughs? I'm out of ideas.

      • +2

        Well I accept your opinion.

        But its a non issue as its not happening, so as I say, those who believe that are they are the bad fellows like hello7 below, will see it as something to go on and on about.

        The change was very quick, so to me I accept that it was a mistake, and if that was a retrospective mistake, at least they fixed it faster than the Rudd boat fiasco's and pink batts.

        The point I was making about backflips, is that we want pollies to listen to us, but if that means they change their minds then we should credit them for that rather than lampooning them.

        Otherwise all they do is not listen.

        They are human even thought we may think thats more like the sub-human sector. And humans can make mistakes.

        • +2

          It does highlight several issues. Turnbull admitted he only saw the policy that day and tried to make sense of it. One of the most senior elected members of the party was caught off guard by their policy announcement?

          ….just who is making the policy?

        • One of the most senior elected members of the party was caught off guard by their policy announcement?

          You could say that about every damn announcement Kevin Rudd makes, and don't take my word for it Listen to his own cabinet.

          Here's the latest one : K Rudd announcing moving the navy to Brisbane without the knowledge of the defence minister.

        • +2

          Yes but K Rudds wasnt official Policy.

        • -1

          The dog barks for BORDER PROTECTION then whinges about more Naval resources up north?

          Betting you were dead against HMAS Stirling because you didn't like the cut of KB's jib?
          Stirling has been great for WA, particularly Freo/Rocky.
          Growth, jobs, security.

          If record low interest rates, third lowest debt to GDP in the OECD, proper NBN, proper school and health funding isn't enough for you, enjoy the Mad Monk.

          Don't forget we had SIX interest rate increases under Howard, who kept boasting:
          "Interest rates will always be lower under a Coalition government."

          I'm sick of idiotic, fair-weather, hip-pocket, swinging monkey-brained voters!!!

        • Lulzsec.

  • +3

    Vote for Tony Abbott to get:

    PRICE INCREASES
    Increases in the price of EVERYTHING you buy (food, housing, petrol, banking, everything) as companies whack up prices by at least five percent to pay for his paid parental leave scam. Abbott will make up the funding shortfall by slashing services and hospital funding. He will step on the faces of homeless people to frantically thrust $75,000 cheques at women who already drive BMW'S and earn $150,000 a year. All because they choose to have a baby.

    FRAUD
    Rampant abuse of the paid parental leave scheme will see rich husbands and wider family members hire accountants to artificially boost the incomes of mums-to-be so they can claim the full $75,000. Any expectant parents will be mad if they don't try to do all they can to inflate their incomes prior to the birth of a child.

    Many will offer interest payments in return for temporary loans from family members or friends to be marked as ''income''.

    A $150,000 loan ''off the back of a truck'' from a family member as ''income'' can easily be returned in full after the child is born with $15,000 in interest. So mum still gets a clear $60,000. And the lender makes a very nice ten per cent return on a short term loan.

    The stakes and rewards are now so high that any future parent would be insane not to make the most of this FREE money.

    Get as much as you can while you can!

    Eastern suburbs and north shore mums will no longer talk about property prices at dinner parties. The big topic will be ways to get the biggest baby payment.

    Wealthy husbands have the means and ways to ensure their wives get the maximum cash under Abbott's scam.

    GREED STAMPEDE
    Those who can least afford it will pay for the unlimited cost of what will quickly become an unprecedented and uncontrollable greed stampede.

    As a result taxpayers will pay for a massive, unforecasted cost blow out of this scheme.

    SCAMS
    Watch the shysters start hunting these big pots of government money with bizarre, but quite legal, schemes.

    Some will offer single women earning $150,000 per year no strings attached deals in which they source and screen perfect ''Adonis'' males to donate sperm -(outside Australian law even overseas)- so mum can produce a baby to get the maximum bonus. The wealthy mum gets a genetically perfect baby without the ongoing baggage and hassle of a bloke around the house. Tony's scam will create a taxpayer funded generation of fatherless children. Any long term problems or fallout from this can be paid for by the wider welfare system.

    INDENTED POVERTY
    PAYS FOR
    INDENTED PRIVILEGE
    Mum's on no income - who need the most help - will get nothing under this brutal scheme. But they will pay more at the supermarket and everywhere else as companies whack up prices and cut jobs to fund it. Hospitals and a wide range of other services the Liberals deem as unecessary will be brutally cut to fund it.

    Abbott will use Federal Parliament to engineer the greatest redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest that this country has ever seen. This obscene policy will indent poverty and disadvantage on a scale unheard of in a modern democracy.

    In short your money will be legally ''stolen'' from you so that wealthy women can buy new cars, homes, TV's, etc and pay for overseas holidays.

    SCHOOL FEES SCAM
    Many may use the $75, 000 to pre-pay private school or university fees to ensure their child starts life with indented privilege paid for by at least a five per cent increase in prices paid by the poorest of the poor.

    Expect to see private schools advertising for their cut of the cash in early 2015.

    Entire industries and scams will offer wealthy women ways to spend their taxpayer funded windfalls.

    NO NEED TO BUDGET
    Such families will never have to consider for a moment that they need to modify their lifestyle or downgrade their spending, or the size of their homes, boats, cars or mortgages to fund their own family. Normal forward family planning and budgeting that have been practised by generations of responsible parents will no longer apply. Tony will make their privilege so much easier to bear and indent it for life.

    BABY FOR CASH NOT LOVE
    This whole approach will weirdly skew the very reasons for having a child. Child birth will now be based less on pure love and more on Tony's powerful and totally unnecessary financial incentives.

    So vote for Tony and give your money - bucket loads of your money - to people who need it least.

    Don't worry about homeless people, single parents, disabled and the unemployed. They can take care of themselves. That's the Liberal way.

    WHAT'S NEXT?
    If this disaster is what Abbott is prepared to overtly foist upon voters prior to an election then what other nightmares does he have secretly planned for us once he is in the Lodge?

    • +1

      A little off topic. But Hey if you feel better then go for it.

      I'll have to reconsider my vote now…. LOL

    • +2

      All this from someone who has lived under labour for 6 years, he obviously thinks it was liberals ruling the country all this while.

      PRICE INCREASES>
      Carbon Tax , coming soon Carbon Tax on Fuels

      FRAUD>
      Oh yeah, Craig Thompson, ACCC - Mining Licenses , Union corruption.

      SCAMS>
      Solar & Green Loan Schemes.

      SCHOOL>
      BER(Building the Education revolution) - Billions and billions wasted..

      BUDGET>
      Coming from Labor, never balanced a budget in 20 YEARS

      WHAT'S NEXT?
      God knows who will be the leader, We voted for Kevin Got Gillard, Voted for Gillard, got Kevin, WHAT'S NEXT?

      • +8

        We voted for Kevin Got Gillard, Voted for Gillard, got Kevin, WHAT'S NEXT?

        No we didn't, not unless you live in their electorate, and even then, you still got who you voted for!

        Party leaders are, and always will be until we move to a republic, voted for by their party. The electorate gets no say apart from those who live in the seat of the leader of the day.

        Australia had a chance to become a republic back in the 90s and the vast majority voted against it!

        • Party leaders are, and always will be until we move to a republic, voted for by their party.

          If I recall correctly the 90s version of this did not allow direct voting of party leaders. It was pretty much what we have no with an elected governor general.

          I don't have a problem with this. History shows unfortunately that time and time again people do things against their own self interest (no matter how much you try to explain this).

        • +4

          My friend I humbly disagree,

          The whole election was sold as Kevin 07 remember, if what you say is right why even bother announcing a prime ministerial candidate. Why not just go to the Election campaigning the Party name,

          Who will be the PM.. ohh..That's for the party to decide after the election.. That's for internal power brokers like Eddie Obeid to decide… We can't announce that beforehand.

          Bask in the glory of all the + votes but this is precisely why Labour is getting punished.

        • +3

          you certainly followed the party line well. maybe you should give jaymes diaz some private tutoring

        • +1

          You remember (slightly) incorrectly.
          The referendum would have had us elect from a pool of "pre-approved" candidates.

        • Just cause it's marketed that way doesn't mean it is that way..
          Note that he was PM following his election (as was Gillard following hers)
          And just because it is that way, doesn;t mean I support it… I supported the Republic referendum and still think it was a good model, certainly better than the current one.

          Do you believe that Cocoa Pops are a healthy breakfast just because the ad says they are (with a little asterisk in the bottom corner saying that all the healthy aspects come from the milk you pour over the Cocoa Pops)

          Having said that, I completely agree that disunity was Labor's downfall in both this and the last election.
          I think they'd have comfortably won both with a united party and focus.

      • -1

        Excuse my enjoyment of taking you apart, point by point. But hey, you're just a lab.

        PRICE INCREASES>
        Carbon Tax , coming soon Carbon Tax on Fuels

        SIX interest rate rises under Howard, GST "on the table" for review under Abbott.

        FRAUD>
        Oh yeah, Craig Thompson, ACCC - Mining Licenses , Union corruption.

        Australian Wheat Board, anyone? Peter Reith's phonecard scandal, anyone? Iraq war, anyone?

        SCAMS>
        Solar & Green Loan Schemes.

        Middle-class welfare, anyone?

        SCHOOL>
        BER(Building the Education revolution) - Billions and billions wasted..

        Trying to destroy the Teachers Union at every opportunity to ensure you get robotic drones indoctrinating your kids in the Right Way, anyone?

        BUDGET>
        Coming from Labor, never balanced a budget in 20 YEARS

        Ohhh Big Surplus from Howard and Costello! How, exactly did that benefit you and me? Saving money is for a rainy day. In 2008, there was a flood of Biblical proportions = money used properly for jobs, stimulating economy and infrastructure.
        Not just a number in credit on a piece of paper!

        WHAT'S NEXT?
        God knows who will be the leader, We voted for Kevin Got Gillard, Voted for Gillard, got Kevin, WHAT'S NEXT?

        Turnbull will roll Abbott once the media turn on him. And turn they will, because in truth, he's not a nice man. I seem to recall Brendan Nelson was knifed by Abbott supporters, you clearly don't.

        But so much more if the LNP prevails: Fraudband, GST increase, environmental disasters, upper-class welfare, internet filter Mk2…many wonderful things!

    • +1

      Wow. That was intense

  • +1

    Pirate party.

  • +1

    Well either that or it was a honest mistake that has been corrected. Certainly didn't make them look good, and I am a switching voter, planing on voting lib now.

    At least with the Libs you can be SURE the filtering won't go ahead now. Unlike a back-flips and broken promises with Labour.

    • At least with the Libs you can be SURE the filtering won't go ahead now.

      You must be truly naive to believe this. They backflipped once on the issue… who's to say they won't do it again? The only reason they reacted so quickly is to maintain a good image for the election - nothing more, nothing less. So no, you can't be SURE this won't happen… you can't take any politician by their word.

      • +2

        You must be truly naive to believe this.

        I am not Naive, I think you are getting them confused with Labour. Let me remind you

        It was Gillard who said " There will be no carbon tax… " not the libs

        And before you bring up history…. when John Howard Backflipped on the GST he went to the election with the new policy and got a mandate from us for it.

        • Umm you do realise that Tony Abbott originally wanted the Carbon Tax.

        • +5

          I am not Naive,

          Your rabid devotion, apologia and blind fanboyism beg to differ. Let me emphasise this again: you can't take any politician by their word this close to an election. Stop making out that the Liberals are a paragon of virtue; they are still politicians, and they are in it for the exact same reasons as Labor. There are no good horses in this race.

        • Stop making out that the Liberals are a paragon of virtue;

          I'm not, They are not and don't have to be. Then again it doesn't take much to improve upon such miserable failures. For the record , I've voted Labour before and now regret it.

        • No one believes you are a labor voter or a switching voter. Possibly you voted with the landslide in 07 but that's it. The way you spew daily telegraph propaganda with such consistency shows you are a liberal die hard or a fool.

        • John Hewson campaigned for the consumption tax (GST) = FAIL.

          Howard went into the '96 election having said "never-never" to a GST the previous year.
          With "tax reform" on the agenda for 98, the LNP didn't get the popular vote (49.02% won on prefs) and claimed a mandate for the GST.
          There's your duplicitous back-flip!

          You can call it a Carbon Tax all you like. It is, in fact an Emmissions Trading Scheme that the LNP supported.

    • If thats your only reason for voting libs thats sad.

      The libs have lied and backflipped on just as many issues as Labour have eg. Tony Abbott originally supported the Carbon Tax. They are both as bad as each other in that respect. And I wouldnt be so sure, they obviously want to put some sort of filter in place even considering the backlash that both have received. But they will wait until they find the best way to present it without the outrage and with little advertising so you dont notice how bad it is until it is implemented.

      I dont trust or like either side but in my oppinion Labour have been the only ones to release policy with any sort of understandable detail and costings.

        • What buy all the boats…. if that happens I am moving to indonesia and making dodgy boats to sell to the Gov.

        • the biggest being to stop the BOATS.

          So the biggest reason to vote for the Liberals is completely hypothetical? Can't wait for the other 49,999.

        • +2

          i lose my faith in humanity every time i see a comment like this. needless to say i've been rather disappointed lately

        • -4

          Obviously no one has any facts to dispute the argument.

          Edit Correction to my comment it was a 33 Billion Dollar hole not 15 Billion.

        • +1

          And what caused it.. A dramatic fall in revenues that not one person was able to predict. Most believe that the original forecast was optomistic (myself included) but no one expected the coffers to take a hit as it did. The is no way that the Libs could have expected that either. And how does an overall budget forecast relate to costings of specific policies. There is definately a lot more variables when trying to budget rather than just provide costs.

        • +2

          read: http://www.smh.com.au/business/abbotts-most-dangerous-pledge…

          and abbott just contradicted himself by saying he will "honour' all spending promises, regardless of what it does to the budget bottom line, when his first and biggest promise was to 'cut the debt and return to surplus' (which, incidentally, is absolute crap from a keynesian economic point of view)

        • -2

          A dramatic fall in revenues

          Oh I see is that why for the past 20 YEARS no labour government have ever been able to get to a surplus.

          absolute crap from a keynesian economic point of view.

          Just a slight change there keynesian economic point of view is absolute crap. Any point of view or a reading of it that suggests living / spending within their means is not wise is absolutely stupid.

        • +1

          Just a slight change there keynesian economic point of view is absolute crap. Any point of view or a reading of it that suggests living / spending within their means is not wise is absolutely stupid.

          there's no point in us arguing when you have no grasp of even basic economics.

          here's food for thought. published by NewsCorp
          http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/economic-uncer…

        • That settles it, this guy's Jaymie Diaz

        • Enjoy the irony:

          Howard = Bought the guns and stopped the boats.

          Abbott = Stop the guns and buy the boats.

          !

    • +2

      Don't feed the troll people!

  • For the record, Here are Malcol Turnbull's own words.

    In other words - no mandatory filter, no opt out filter, but support parents taking resp'y for their own kids' activity online.
    — Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) September 5, 2013

    • The problem with this is that neither he or Tony have all the details on this policy. It came out so quickly that neither have a complete grasp of it and they can not be sure that that it 100% correct.

      • -6

        Dude, you are going on an on about a policy that has been denied and clearly refuted, The case is closed there is no Filter coming. Don't you have anything of consequence to talk about?

        • +7

          If you don't want to talk about the censorship issue, then I suggest you leave the thread dedicated to discussing the censorship issue.

        • You can talk all you want.
          The fact is - The policy has been denied and a filter is not happening.

        • Yes, but was it a 'core' promise? LOL

          Believe a Tory? You must be kidding.

  • +2

    Side-note: A widening of the 48 hour advertising blackout may need to take place in future… Saw no less than three (unavoidable in pre-roll form) coalition ads via Youtube mobile app today.

    • +2

      Agree,
      Ditto with Labour sponsored posts on Facebook.

    • +3

      Agreed for both Parties.

      And I think it should go further no advertising via news articles. The Media could be allowed to quote policy but with no commentary. Let the voters have a break and time to decide for themselves.

      • +1

        I was just making a point referencing the changing media landscape.
        I am subscribed to hundreds of Youtube channels and now spend far more hours watching YT than TV.

        • +2

          the media landscape nowadays pretty much consists of News Corp using their toys to get Murdoch's sheltered opinions across, FairFax and their miserly few papers taking the moral high ground and watching NewsCorp self-destruct in glee, and a bunch of bogans who think they know all about politics because they read an article on "how to vote in this election" sledging it out on social media

  • +1

    Does anyone think (looking as Liberal will win) that they will not go through with this FTTN and undo all the planned work from Labors NBN/FTTP?

    Even though it may be cheaper to do FTTN, changing the program(?) and going through the whole process be more costly and like sites have said FTTN is going to be obsolete when it does come to completion?

    • +5

      sadly we will have to resign ourselves to such an outcome. Labor's NBN is expensive, yes. The roll-out has been mismanaged in many instances, but it was the chance of the century to future-proof our economy in an era when mining boom is in its death throes and where increases in productivity and the rise of new industries, of which NBN will play a crucial part in, is needed. In 15 years time, upon the completion of the already obsolete NBN, LNP will be judged for their short-sightedness and the only legacy they will leave behind would be to leave Australia further behind the rest of the world in a digital era

      • Just keep in mind while Labors NBN is better, its going to take longer.

        Like Kevin had promised in 2007 that we would have it by 2011, we didnt, and then all upgrades by ISP's stopped, so those stuck with ADSL1 are stuck until the NBN arrives, and even worse those on pairgain are stuck with dial up.

        So its going to be the NBN haves and have nots until 2024 when the last lucky ones get the NBN.

        And do I want the NBN - yep and will I get it soon. Yep, the cabling ducts are in the street now. Was due for Sept 3 but its a little late, but compared to those getting it in 11 years time I wont complain about an month or three. (I am on ADSL2 with just over ADSl1 max speed)

        And already they are saying those with NBN have more attractive real estate.

        So the haves and the Havenots still exist under the egalitarian party of the left.

        BTW the local business park - you know the one where the jobs are, hasn't even got a date for installation. Meanwhile I will be able to get my megabit downloads of movies and other playthings from the US. (great for me Zip for local business)

        So some get the goodies to the max while others gotta get Kevs "ZIP"

        • Yeah funnily enough that… the copper wire running to most of Australia? How long did it take to lay all of that to every home? And was every last metre worth it?

        • They're not digging the trenches this time.

        • +5

          i don't think many people realise the coalition is building the NBN that is two-third the cost of Labor's FTTP while having speeds 1/20th of FTTP

          to put it in ozb terms, you just spent $200 on a refurbished iphone 3GS instead of $249 on a Nexus 4, except in this instance your 3GS isn't running IOS but rather symbian s60. i hope LNP voters are proud of themselves

        • +2

          As bad as I think you're analogy is - this mean Labour plan is where you and all your neighbours were forced into buying new Nexus 4 phones, even though some of them don't wan't them or will ever use them - but don't worry you'll enjoy your new phone - not that you can speak faster on it anyway.

        • I'd rather the NBN but +1 for the extended analogy.

        • +1

          So we should intentionally cripple our national infrastructure because the older, technologically illiterate generation don't want/need/understand it? Yeah, who needs progress, anyway?

          Edit: and it's Labor, not Labour.

        • They need it (e-health/medicine) but they just don't understand it yet.

        • +3

          If you are going to upgrade something of this scale you might as well upgrade as much and best you can.

        • They're not digging the trenches this time.

          Now you havent a clue. Because they sure did outside our place and everywhere I look around my area.

          Since they cant/wont use the power poles, where the telephone cable is due to pricing disputes, they are digging away.

          AS for the other junior's comments about "doing it right".

          Would someone kindly explain, why FTTN cant be later extended to FTTP. And yes this will cost more but at least those who are at the end of this queue will get some faster speed faster than they will now.

          So its not like now where some will get everything and the rest will have to wait. So much for the sharing of the benefits, which is all what Labor is supposed to be about.

          And I am one of the lucky ones who will have the NBN soon. Friends who live only 2 km away havent even got a construction start date scheduled (Ours will be at least 18mths from the construction date start)

        • +1

          see cost analysis:http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/09/how-the-labor-and-coalition-broadband-policies-differ-a-hype-free-explainer/

          in a nut-shell, it'll take twice as long and cost twice-thrice as much if we go with FTTN and switch to FTTP later

          OmniX your view sums up the current situation precisely. Not understanding the scope of the difference between a 3GS and a 4G capable S4, and the things that are made possible by future-proofing technology explains your indifference. However, just because a pensioner doesn't know the difference between an iphone and android, it doesn't mean the economy will benefit from the whims of pensioners who have no need for mobile phones

          labor has an equal blame in this. with any big projects costing as much as NBN it's imperative to advertise the rationale well and educate the mass on why it's necessary. the promotional aspect of NBN has been abysmal.

        • Yeah I actually agree with you - I'd actually like to see new infrastructure - I just think there's a lot of very biased opinion on these internet forums for the "faster therefore must be better" argument all the time. You do need to justify it, and that has NOT been done really by either plan - that article by the way has so many mistakes I would be careful about that as a source of reference.

  • +1

    Hello OzBargainers

    My first post, and just wanted to add some comments to this NBN thing (probably too late but what the hell).

    I've recently moved from an ADSL2 service to a cable service here in Brisbane. I now pay $79 per month for 200Gb with bandwidth that hits 108Mbs to local pingers via speedtest.net, over 50Mbs to other states, and usually about 6-7Mbs to US sites.

    The cable works through an existing Foxtel coaxial connection to my house, which is fairly common in urban areas.

    I find this whole discussion about Fibre to Node vs Home completely bewildering. The reasons are as follows:

    There is only so much data that can be viewed at once. A HD movie streaming might take 3-5Mb/s. Your kid is killing someone from the Canary Islands in the next room in a FP shooter and might double that at most. Add your granny doing a live ultrasound in the back room with her favourite doc (add another 6mbs).

    30 Mbs is plenty, provided the pipes to the services are adequate. The main problem right now are the lines within Australia and especially the rest of the world, and upload speeds.

    In the public debate about this, why has nobody mentioned that 100Mb/s services are already available to a very large community (foxtel/optus cable). These may only have upload speeds double of ADSL2, but that is easily changed at the back end, should the Telcos decide to do so.

    By the time the NBN has rolled out, the glaciers will have melted, and technology will have advanced considerably. It makes no sense to replace copper metre by metre for a fibre that will become redundant again by the next generation.

    The future is wireless. A reliable 4G network already boasts higher speeds than many ADSL2 lines (but charges like a wounded bull). 5g is likely to be available before NBN is fully rolled, and how silly will the NBN look then.

    The main problem is not speed from node to home. It is lack of speed along the pipes beyond that, between states and countries. We already have enormous potential bandwidth laid across the oceans and not a lot of it is being used. The telcos are not paying for enough bandwidth to support their customers (are often overselling), and are trying to squeeze every penny.

    Fix the bigger pipes first because no matter how fast your home speed is, there won't be much change beyond otherwise.

    • +2

      There is only so much data that can be viewed at once. A HD movie streaming might take 3-5Mb/s.

      Wrong. Blurays require 56mbps. That is for a current gen, 24fps, 1080 film. 4K will be twice this (assuming h265 works well). 48fps will be twice this. Both? 224 mbps. 8K is 896. And this is just what we know about right now.

      There are two reason you get away with lower numbers:

      1: Everything is over compressed because people just see '1080' and assume that the video is good and are blind.

      2: The video is heavily buffered. This is fine for taking your time to watch a film, but useless for interactive media (conference, games, desktop streaming, etc).

      In the public debate about this, why has nobody mentioned that 100Mb/s services are already available to a very large community (foxtel/optus cable).

      The current cable system has two limitations:

      1: Unlike FTTP it is not expandable. Google has 1gbps up AND down over their fibre links. In labs we can do 1 peta bit per second.

      2: The speeds you get are based on your local usage. More people use more data: less data for you.

      These may only have upload speeds double of ADSL2, but that is easily changed at the back end, should the Telcos decide to do so.

      Upload is a HUGE problem. How are they going to magically fix this at the back end?

      It makes no sense to replace copper metre by metre for a fibre that will become redundant again by the next generation.

      You think that 100mbps is all you need now, but one peta bit won't be enough for 20 years time? That is 10000000 times faster.

      The future is wireless. A reliable 4G network already boasts higher speeds than many ADSL2 lines (but charges like a wounded bull). 5g is likely to be available before NBN is fully rolled, and how silly will the NBN look then.

      '4G' hardly faster than current '3G'. '5G' is not likely to be much better. We can always get HUGE improvements by using fixed line services. Also, the more usage, the more it degrades and everyone loses.

Login or Join to leave a comment