I highly recommend all Australians who are interested in the National Broadband Network to watch this. It has changed my view of Liberal Party Communication's Policy and I will be voting for Turnbull in ~12 months time.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address…
You can pay for fibre to the home if you really want it!!!
In the grand scheme of things that's not a lot of money. According to them, it's a good idea if more people got engaged, especially the young talent out there.
Malcolm, I'm sure your username could have said $100million, not tendollar.
More like 186milliondollar (rounded to the nearest million)
Interesting tidbits:
In 2005, the combined net worth of Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull was estimated at A$133 million,[84] making him Australia's richest parliamentarian[85] until the election of billionaire Clive Palmer in the 2013 elections.[86][87]
Turnbull made the BRW Rich 200 list for the second year running in 2010, and although he slipped from 182 to 197, his estimated net worth increased to A$186 million, and he continued to be the only sitting politician to make the list.[88] Turnbull was not listed in the 2014 list of the BRW Rich 200.[89]
This was the party who bought the archaic HFC network from Foxtel/Telstra (I'm sure they have "mates" in Foxtel/Telstra, or are big shareholders) which Telstra/Foxtel were looking to lose millions on in maintenance and dropping subscribers due to Video On Demand eg: Netflix etc…. and then say to us our NBN will rollout quicker now, whilst they send the bill to the taxpaywers…us!
I feel sorry for the poor people who end up with a HFC connection to NBN. Back in 1996 I had a foxtel cable with tesltra cable internet. It died at 4pm when school was out and downloads ground to a halt and any real time gaming would be impossible.
Now with things like Netflix, I'm sure the whole neighbourhood grinds to a halt every night of the week, not just 4pm m-f….
Fast forward to 2015, and welcome to your "new" NBN….enjoy….lol.
I am currently on Optus cable. Will I end up getting a HFC connection to the NBN?
The CEO of NBN mentioned HFC in the Q&A. I can't remember his answer, but it was one of the last 3 questions.
Morrow and Turnbull are also the dynamic duo that spent $11 billion to buy the decrepit copper network, and have had Telstra admit publicly that they don't really know the state of it and how much it would cost to fix faults. But nevermind Telstra, you don't have to pay to fix it now, NBN does!
Turnbull is the biggest hypocrite in the country over the NBN. He was on the news a few weeks ago cheering on his "achievements" including NBN satellites for remote communities - he just neglected to mention that they were planned under the previous Government and he called them a "gold plated waste of money" in Opposition.
They also had a fully costed and ready to go plan. 2 years on and ONE SUBURB (Belmont in Newcastle) in the whole of Australia got FTTN turned on yesterday. Oh yeah, the budget has blown out by $15 billion so far as well.
Revenue projections are also plummeting because FTTN won't be able to deliver the speeds that premium customers want, they'll still go for their own fibre. They won't touch NBN's Fibre on Demand because the geniuses also "redesigned" the network topology to a plan with massive single points of failures unlike the previous star topology.
They also don't know the ongoing repair costs per annum, and despite bagging labor for years about not producing a Cost Benefit Analysis, haven't produced one either!
There was plenty to criticize Labor for over the previous rollout, but at least they got the technology and design right.
If instead these bunch of clowns focused on fixing what was wrong, instead of stalling a massive project for two years, turning it around to a technology that really is obsolete already we would all be better of.
And for what - this was all done for political reasons and egos, Abbot's "Not labor at all costs" mentality.
And here we are, what a mess.
There's only one winner here, and that's Telstra. Oh and the pollies and NBN staff who gave them all of this money of ours. What's the odds on seeing them offered cushy jobs on the telstra board in future?
Someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Voting for Turnbull, on the basis of his Malcolm's Technological Mess (MTM), would be as clever as voting for Abbott on the basis of all the promises he kept.
I will be voting for Turnbull in ~12 months time.
That's all it takes to get you voting Liberal Party again? Despite the 2 years of turning Australia into an international laughing stock? This is exactly the reason why Abbott should have remained PM.
I usually just vote Liberal, because my parents vote for them.
I know, I am stupid. Still pretty new to politics.
I know, I am stupid.
Eh, at least you know. thumbs up
I think it''s great you are looking at the reasons behind your voting choice and can even say so. So many people that vote don't. I often hear people say "I'm not interested in politics". Or if they follow it at all it's via Murdoch Media, the Bolt Report, Alan Jones etc.
Parliament question time is delinquent and no way to follow what's going on. It's hard to sift through the media headlines for an idea of the facts.
Here's a little background (IMHO as I lean to the left )
Liberal Party (let's ignore the National Party who the Libs use to have enough seats to form government as a coalition) -
Heavily funded by big business. Don't believe in social spending as this means collecting higher taxes which impacts on businesses. People often vote for Libs because they equate the success of business as opportunity for them. Others might vote for them because they view social spending as hand outs.
Labor Party: from a recent speech on core values by Luke Foley (leader of NSW Labor Party (in opposition) "We understand that competitive markets are best placed to deliver the economic growth that the people we represent rely on.
We also know that regulation and redistribution are necessary to correct market failures, to ensure dignity and opportunity for all Australians."
Greens: strong in social and environmental issues beginning to show stronger leadership in regard to business and economic issues.
This gets too long but on a parting note - Malcolm Turnbull tried to join the Labor party before he joined the Liberal party. This makes many of us hope that were we to have to contend with more years of the Libs he might end up with enough support to be his own man and bring some social equity to the Liberal Party approach.
Or if they follow it at all it's via Murdoch Media, the Bolt Report, Alan Jones etc.
As distinct from following all via the ABC, Guardian, Fairfax?
ROFL
@Lisazzzzz: True
As for the rest you are talking of ideals.
Ideally Liberals support the encouragement of intitative
Ideally Labor supports the underdog
Problem is that each is beholden to interest groups outside those core values.
Libs Big Business Owners
Lab Union bosses (not Union members)
So issue is that you have to decide which devil is lesser evil.
And nothing is absolute, its trade offs. i dont support all the policies of my choice, just those i see as more important to me. And sometimes this choice gets reversed.
While the Greens is a group of extremists who have hijacked the environmental agenda, which should always be apolitical.
So issue is that you have to decide which devil is lesser evil.
I know you're comparing Lib and Lab, but I'd like to compare the rivals you have presented: "Big Business Owners" and "Union Bosses"
What caused the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010? BP, a big business, owned by big business owners.
What caused the Ford Hunger March Massacre? Ford, a big business, owned by big business owners.
Who helped the Nazis facilitate genocide? IBM, a big business, owned by big business owners.
Last but not least, what caused the Financial crisis of 2007–08 and not only did the entities not get punished by they got rewarded for it (via bail outs)?
I'm not a fan of corruption and misdeeds by any person or group but I think it's pretty clear which devil is the greater evil.
After all, what is a business but a small union of like-minded individuals?
While the Greens is a group of extremists who have hijacked the environmental agenda, which should always be apolitical.
1) In what way are the Greens "extremists"?
2) As long as money is involved (the very thing big business exists for), it will never be apolitical.
@DeafMutePretender: What about Stalin and the workers groups of Russia, Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters/Mafia in the US vs Ford Massacre abuse and so on.
Then there is the Catholic church and its support of Hitler, and my uncles pet dog crapping on lawns,
What about the Magna Carta and Jesus's nailing to the cross by Roman dictators.
The point I was making was that each side has its vested interests, each side is not pure and clean, and just because one votes one way doesnt mean that they support all the policies of that side, Its a balancing act for each person to decide. Its never easy.
Just like you said
As long as money is involved
Goes for individuals as well as big business, look at the Greek pension for an example
The only ones who have any influence in politics are those who can un rust themselves from a party and vote different when things get out of balance.
The Greens are extreme left wingers who have hijacked the environmental agenda . Their policies even conflict with this agenda, Population is the enemy of the environment. We have too many people in this country for the land to sustain true environmental policies. And they push for unfettered access to others to come here. (Many in power are ex CPA - communist - members)
If you want to look after those seeking asylum, then to do that you need to stop other immigration from countries where this is not an issue, No more from China, Hong Kong, USA, Canada, Britain, NZ, EEC etc. But the Greens wont say that, because like all their policies they dont have to cost them or look at the true impact of them.
As the population increases so do the demand to accommodate the people, thats more urban encroachment on rural land, also more demand for power and food production plus all the other ancillary resource use.
Countries that those on the Greens point out are reducing their reliance on Coal, like China, Germany France and the USA all are heavy users of Nuclear power. But the Greens wont support Nuclear power, and I dont want it either. But dont just take the good impact that someone does without looking at the bad impact they make at the same time.
lol politics is so bad.
I believe there is a good chance that this NBN will be made obsolete by a satellite network in the next decade.
OneWeb and SpaceX are getting pretty serious about their prospective solutions.
http://www.nanalyze.com/2015/09/bransons-oneweb-cheap-satell…
Richard Branson already had a meeting with Turnbull about his satellite Internet.
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/11/richard-branson-tells-tu…
Yeah, lets just ignore physics and satellite will be a great option. 100-200ms latency on every single packet would be awesome.
I'm not denying satellite is a great option for isolated communities who don't have any other option for connectivity but it would be awful for everyone else.
Too bad if you want to use it when it rains heavily as well.
Yeah, let's just ignore the physics of their actual proposal which is to use satellites in low earth orbit…
By bringing their satellites closer to home than other satellites, SpaceX and OneWeb could cut latency from 500 milliseconds to 20 milliseconds, which is about what you’d expect from a fiber optic home internet connection in the US.
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/elon-musk-space-x-satellite-int…
I assume you didn't read the rest of the article where it goes on to explain the downsides of LEO satellites, including the phenomenal cost of launching so many required to get the required coverage, and that there's a very good chance that it would be nothing more than an enormous money pit.
Not to mention all the inherent problems with wireless that are bought up over and over again, such as lack of spectrum. How many times do these people advocating wireless over fibre need to be schooled on basic physics?
Wireless is a great complementary product, and is a good option for mobile use, and for deployment in remote or difficult to service areas.
It is not, and in the long forseeable future will likely never be a baseload technology.
Billions of dollars of investment says they believe these problems can be overcome. Remember that this investment is coming from the likes of Google, Richard Branson and Airbus.
OneWeb already owns spectrum and has launch contracts for ~20 launches with Ariane and say they could load some ~30 small satellites on each launch.
SpaceX is pioneering radically cheaper rockets. They own the rockets. They want to send some test satellites up next year. If they can demonstrate a successful prototype then I think money and investment will be no object.
Arguably the NBN is already obsolete, and it's not even completed yet.
This is the same NBN
Co.that spent $700,000 to become NBN ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/26/nbn_co_loses_the_co_… )and the same Turnbull that twice wrote to the ACCC insisting that broadband prices do not drop right ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/24/lower_prices_are_bad… ) ?