Nelson plays down report of Turnbull row

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nelson-plays-down-report-of-Turnbull-row/2007/12/02/1196530460355.html

Brendan Nelson has refused to deny reports his unsuccessful Liberal leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull stormed into his office on his first day in the job demanding he toughen up.

Dr Nelson defeated the high-profile Mr Turnbull 45 votes to 42 in a partyroom ballot to seize the Liberal leadership on Thursday.

It was reported on Saturday that a furious Mr Turnbull walked into Dr Nelson's office within an hour of the vote and tore into his colleague for delivering a "funereal" leadership acceptance speech.

Dr Nelson would not be drawn on the issue on Sunday, but did not deny the conversation occurred.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 12:38pm:

Nelson plays down report of Turnbull row http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nelson-plays-down-report-of-Turnbull-row/2007/12/02/1196530460355.html Brendan Nelson has refused to deny reports his unsuccessful Liberal leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull stormed into his office on his first day in the job demanding he toughen up. Dr Nelson defeated the high-profile Mr Turnbull 45 votes to 42 in a partyroom ballot to seize the Liberal leadership on Thursday. It was reported on Saturday that a furious Mr Turnbull walked into Dr Nelson's office within an hour of the vote and tore into his colleague for delivering a "funereal" leadership acceptance speech. Dr Nelson would not be drawn on the issue on Sunday, but did not deny the conversation occurred.

Brendan Nelson is not the man for the job but it doesn't really matter at the moment, it's three years until the economy gets back on track now.  And it will require massive intervention by then so someone worthy should be in place then.  Turnbull would do the trick.

deepthought wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 10:23pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 12:38pm: Nelson plays down report of Turnbull row http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nelson-plays-down-report-of-Turnbull-row/2007/12/02/1196530460355.html Brendan Nelson has refused to deny reports his unsuccessful Liberal leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull stormed into his office on his first day in the job demanding he toughen up. Dr Nelson defeated the high-profile Mr Turnbull 45 votes to 42 in a partyroom ballot to seize the Liberal leadership on Thursday. It was reported on Saturday that a furious Mr Turnbull walked into Dr Nelson's office within an hour of the vote and tore into his colleague for delivering a "funereal" leadership acceptance speech. Dr Nelson would not be drawn on the issue on Sunday, but did not deny the conversation occurred. Brendan Nelson is not the man for the job but it doesn't really matter at the moment, it's three years until the economy gets back on track now.  And it will require massive intervention by then so someone worthy should be in place then.  Turnbull would do the trick.

Tell me DT, even though it is only eight days after the election, why is it that suddenly the economy is off track?  Are you saying that just because Labor won only eight days ago, that, in that time, the wheels have ipso facto fallen off and that basic economic indicators predict that it will take three years to get it back on track?

Aussie wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 10:29pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 10:23pm: freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 12:38pm: Nelson plays down report of Turnbull row http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nelson-plays-down-report-of-Turnbull-row/2007/12/02/1196530460355.html Brendan Nelson has refused to deny reports his unsuccessful Liberal leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull stormed into his office on his first day in the job demanding he toughen up. Dr Nelson defeated the high-profile Mr Turnbull 45 votes to 42 in a partyroom ballot to seize the Liberal leadership on Thursday. It was reported on Saturday that a furious Mr Turnbull walked into Dr Nelson's office within an hour of the vote and tore into his colleague for delivering a "funereal" leadership acceptance speech. Dr Nelson would not be drawn on the issue on Sunday, but did not deny the conversation occurred. Brendan Nelson is not the man for the job but it doesn't really matter at the moment, it's three years until the economy gets back on track now.  And it will require massive intervention by then so someone worthy should be in place then.  Turnbull would do the trick. Tell me DT, even though it is only eight days after the election, why is it that suddenly the economy is off track?  Are you saying that just because Labor won only eight days ago, that, in that time, the wheels have ipso facto fallen off and that basic economic indicators predict that it will take three years to get it back on track?

Kevvy's stated policies will cause a fair amount of destruction to the economy and the current fiscal position.  I'll give you an example.

One of his stated aims is a fibre optic broadband network which will reach something like 99% of Australian households.   If this was a profitable goal a telecom would do it - but they have resisted due to the uneconomic and unreasonable insistence to get a cable to the Old Jigabboo Station in Whoopwhoop.

All the profit, obviously, is in the city.

So if Kevvy builds the cable network the resposibility to service the outback is now the taxpayers and not the telcos.  What's more Kevvy will have plundered the future fund for the money to build it.

Now if I was Telstra I would build a second fibre optic network.  One which only serviced the cities.  This will make them vast amounts of money and they will not use Kevvy's cable at all.  Why rent his when you can own your own?

So the money Kevvy ploughs into the cable will be lost and will return nothing at all of substance.

Furthermore the future fund - set up to fund the unfunded superannuation of public servants - is now depleted.  Who will pay the super?  You and me, the taxpayers.

Kevvy will be roundly screwed by corporations if he tries to compete with them - they are far smarter than a dim-witted public servant like him.  Trouble is when he gets screwed we pick up the tab.   We will need to fund the super all over again, and it is highly likely that by the time he lays the useless thing the technology will have surpassed a fibre optic cable running all the way to that town sprint said is the farthest away from an ocean way out west.

Anyone noticed the uptake of wireless?  Apparently not Kevvy.  The coalition very wisely got out of the technological race and sold off Telstra - Kevvy wants to wind the clock back and pour billions into competing with cutting edge technology at our expense.

The coalition will have one hell of a job putting Kevvy's disasters behind us.

deepthought wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 10:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 10:29pm: deepthought wrote on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 10:23pm: freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 12:38pm: Nelson plays down report of Turnbull row http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nelson-plays-down-report-of-Turnbull-row/2007/12/02/1196530460355.html Brendan Nelson has refused to deny reports his unsuccessful Liberal leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull stormed into his office on his first day in the job demanding he toughen up. Dr Nelson defeated the high-profile Mr Turnbull 45 votes to 42 in a partyroom ballot to seize the Liberal leadership on Thursday. It was reported on Saturday that a furious Mr Turnbull walked into Dr Nelson's office within an hour of the vote and tore into his colleague for delivering a "funereal" leadership acceptance speech. Dr Nelson would not be drawn on the issue on Sunday, but did not deny the conversation occurred. Brendan Nelson is not the man for the job but it doesn't really matter at the moment, it's three years until the economy gets back on track now.  And it will require massive intervention by then so someone worthy should be in place then.  Turnbull would do the trick. Tell me DT, even though it is only eight days after the election, why is it that suddenly the economy is off track?  Are you saying that just because Labor won only eight days ago, that, in that time, the wheels have ipso facto fallen off and that basic economic indicators predict that it will take three years to get it back on track? Kevvy's stated policies will cause a fair amount of destruction to the economy and the current fiscal position.  I'll give you an example. One of his stated aims is a fibre optic broadband network which will reach something like 99% of Australian households.   If this was a profitable goal a telecom would do it - but they have resisted due to the uneconomic and unreasonable insistence to get a cable to the Old Jigabboo Station in Whoopwhoop. All the profit, obviously, is in the city. So if Kevvy builds the cable network the resposibility to service the outback is now the taxpayers and not the telcos.  What's more Kevvy will have plundered the future fund for the money to build it. Now if I was Telstra I would build a second fibre optic network.  One which only serviced the cities.  This will make them vast amounts of money and they will not use Kevvy's cable at all.  Why rent his when you can own your own? So the money Kevvy ploughs into the cable will be lost and will return nothing at all of substance. Furthermore the future fund - set up to fund the unfunded superannuation of public servants - is now depleted.  Who will pay the super?  You and me, the taxpayers. Kevvy will be roundly screwed by corporations if he tries to compete with them - they are far smarter than a dim-witted public servant like him.  Trouble is when he gets screwed we pick up the tab.   We will need to fund the super all over again, and it is highly likely that by the time he lays the useless thing the technology will have surpassed a fibre optic cable running all the way to that town sprint said is the farthest away from an ocean way out west. Anyone noticed the uptake of wireless?  Apparently not Kevvy.  The coalition very wisely got out of the technological race and sold off Telstra - Kevvy wants to wind the clock back and pour billions into competing with cutting edge technology at our expense. The coalition will have one hell of a job putting Kevvy's disasters behind us.

So, it is all just speculation on your part.

Aussie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 9:44am:

So, it is all just speculation on your part.

No, I actually have a time machine.

Well it didn't need to be much of a time machine in the end - fast forward just one day . . . .




Quote:

Stand-off in Rudd telco plan KEVIN Rudd's plan for an $8 billion broadband joint venture with Telstra could be stillborn, after the telco giant ruled out any financial co-operation with the federal Government yesterday. But the Government confirmed last night that its intention to invest in the network, and seek a commercial return, remained unchanged. A key plank in Mr Rudd's policy plan for Australia's future is by way of either a public/private partnership, or equity investment with either Telstra or another telecommunications company or consortium. Mr Rudd has committed a taxpayer contribution of up to $4.7 billion to a national fibre-to-the-node network that Telstra was the frontrunner to build. But at an industry conference in Sydney yesterday, Telstra's public policy chief Phil Burgess ruled out Telstra's participation in any financial joint venture. "It won't be with us, it will be with somebody else," Dr Burgess said. "We're not going to do consortiums, or equity or things like that. It's not the way we do things." "The Government's policy remains as announced," freshly sworn-in Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Stephen Conroy told The Australian. Dr Burgess claimed that Telstra's position on the issue "is clear and we have not changed that position since July 2005 and it remains the same". "And that's to build an advanced communications network in this country as rapidly as possible, as cheaply as possible. "And it should be an open- access high-speed broadband network. That is what we want to do. "But what we have also made clear is we're not going to do it in a consortium, because consortiums don't work. We're not going to do it in partnership with some other provider. We're not going to do it if the Government is going to be an equity holder and decision-maker." Under Mr Rudd's plan, Labor has said it will create a new panel to scope the broadband project, disbanding an existing panel created by the previous Government for a tender for a metropolitan-only broadband network. Senator Conroy said he was working on the panel and was in the midst of departmental briefings on a range of matters. Optus, which is leading the G9 consortium's rival bid to build a structurally-separated FTTN, said Telstra's should reveal its wholesale access pricing to industry before the Labor government considers its bid. Pointing to pricing for wireless broadband services on Telstra's Next-G network, which is the only one of its kind in Australia, Optus regulatory director Paul Fletcher said pricing should be critical to Labor's assessment process. "The lesson that it sends to us is clear - that where Telstra has the only network you're going to see exceptionally high prices," Mr Fletcher said. Dr Burgess refused to reveal how much the carrier would charge for access to its network, but said that the "new Telstra" would pursue premium service business model. "The new Telstra will be a premium provider charging premium prices and we make no apology for that," he said. "If someone starts undercutting us and people start wanting to do, then we'll start working out how to deal with that competitive situation. But the fact is we don't want to be the low-cost producer." Mr Fletcher argued Telstra's pricing position justified public spending on alternative infrastructure. "If you've got an incumbent saying we're going to be charging these kinds of prices, then it's a very good thing to be allocating public money to subsidise the rollout into areas to give new choice, new alternatives and new pricing. That's competition working," he said. Dr Burgess said if the Government wanted to continue with its investment policy "they can go in that direction. They have Optus ... and all kinds of other companies around here they can do consortiums and joint ventures and PPPs and ... whatever else they want to do." He added that if another provider begins deploying a new broadband network, Telstra would follow with its own. Dr Burgess referred to what will likely take place under Labor for the telco industry was a "pretty massive renovation" rather than "cosmetic repaint" or a "tear down" or "demolition". "We need to see whether the post-election rhetoric matches the election rhetoric," he said. Prepare to be enthusiastically screwed by business all ye taxpayers

It is the beginning of the economic disaster that Liebor will bring to we previously prosperous and happy Australians.

There is sound economic justification for government ownership of resources where the nature of the marketplace makes monopoly either inevitable or more efficient.

---

Turnbull more popular than Nelson: poll

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Turnbull-more-popular-than-Nelson-poll/2007/12/04/1196530606596.html

Voters have rejected Brendan Nelson as the Liberal's choice for federal leader, with a new opinion poll showing rising star Malcolm Turnbull nearly twice as popular.

The Newspoll, conducted for The Australian newspaper, has Mr Turnbull on 34 per cent support as best leader for the Liberal party, compared with 18 per cent for Dr Nelson, 14 per cent for deputy leader Julie Bishop, and 9 per cent for former health minister Tony Abbott, who pulled out of the race.

In Thursday's Liberal leadership ballot, Dr Nelson pipped Mr Turnbull, the former environment minister, by three votes - 45 to 42.

Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd has received 61 per cent support as preferred prime minister in their Newspoll, up from 46 per cent just before the election, while Dr Nelson polled 14 per cent.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 10:22am:

There is sound economic justification for government ownership of resources where the nature of the marketplace makes monopoly either inevitable or more efficient.

There might be but a cable isn't a resource as it has no residual value.

OK I'll rephrase for you.

There is sound economic justification for government ownership of engineered capital where the nature of the marketplace makes monopoly either inevitable or more efficient.

I hope I won't have to define engineered capital for you. Suffice to say that it includes a cable, regardless of the residual value.

http://www.don-iannone.com/edfutures/2003/08/five-forms-of-capital.html

Engineered Capital is the collection of human engineered products not already covered as human, social or financial capital. Hard-engineered capital includes physical infrastructure such as fiber optic cable, and soft-engineered capital includes the organizational and institutional infrastructure, as well as the governance of these two.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 9:07pm:

OK I'll rephrase for you. There is sound economic justification for government ownership of engineered capital where the nature of the marketplace makes monopoly either inevitable or more efficient. I hope I won't have to define engineered capital for you. Suffice to say that it includes a cable, regardless of the residual value. http://www.don-iannone.com/edfutures/2003/08/five-forms-of-capital.html Engineered Capital is the collection of human engineered products not already covered as human, social or financial capital. Hard-engineered capital includes physical infrastructure such as fiber optic cable, and soft-engineered capital includes the organizational and institutional infrastructure, as well as the governance of these two.

It doesn't matter what you call it.  If the taxpayer forks out $8b for engineered capital that has no return you may as well call it a white elephant.

After all it will have no residual value when Telstra build their own and use that and then rent it at a far better price to the competition.  Will the government compete with private enterprise and price cut?   They do so at their peril because they will lose even more taxpayer dollars if they try.

And when the technology replaces it altogether Telstra will have depreciated their asset and the taxpayer will have paid for both - but we still own one which never had any income and now has no residual value.

What makes you think it would be profitable for Telstra to put in cables alongside the government ones?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 11:33am:

What makes you think it would be profitable for Telstra to put in cables alongside the government ones?

Because they will use their own.

Do they have special cables that the government doesn't have access to?

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2007 at 9:28am:

Do they have special cables that the government doesn't have access to?

They will be identical.

What makes you think it would be profitable for Telstra to put in cables alongside the government ones?

Perhaps you should give a bit of an explanation, rather than assuming everyone shares your particular misunderstandings about economics.

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2007 at 1:00pm:

What makes you think it would be profitable for Telstra to put in cables alongside the government ones? Perhaps you should give a bit of an explanation, rather than assuming everyone shares your particular misunderstandings about economics.

I already have explained that.  No need to say things several times.  Though I am beginning to think you don't read any posts but your own.

Would you like me to copy my post for you?

No, I want you to explain it. I wouldn't ask if your first attempt conveyed any kind of understanding.

No worries.


deepthought wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 10:47pm:

Kevvy's stated policies will cause a fair amount of destruction to the economy and the current fiscal position.  I'll give you an example. One of his stated aims is a fibre optic broadband network which will reach something like 99% of Australian households.   If this was a profitable goal a telecom would do it - but they have resisted due to the uneconomic and unreasonable insistence to get a cable to the Old Jigabboo Station in Whoopwhoop. All the profit, obviously, is in the city. So if Kevvy builds the cable network the resposibility to service the outback is now the taxpayers and not the telcos.  What's more Kevvy will have plundered the future fund for the money to build it. Now if I was Telstra I would build a second fibre optic network.  One which only serviced the cities.  This will make them vast amounts of money and they will not use Kevvy's cable at all.  Why rent his when you can own your own? So the money Kevvy ploughs into the cable will be lost and will return nothing at all of substance. Furthermore the future fund - set up to fund the unfunded superannuation of public servants - is now depleted.  Who will pay the super?  You and me, the taxpayers. Kevvy will be roundly screwed by corporations if he tries to compete with them - they are far smarter than a dim-witted public servant like him.  Trouble is when he gets screwed we pick up the tab.   We will need to fund the super all over again, and it is highly likely that by the time he lays the useless thing the technology will have surpassed a fibre optic cable running all the way to that town sprint said is the farthest away from an ocean way out west. Anyone noticed the uptake of wireless?  Apparently not Kevvy.  The coalition very wisely got out of the technological race and sold off Telstra - Kevvy wants to wind the clock back and pour billions into competing with cutting edge technology at our expense. The coalition will have one hell of a job putting Kevvy's disasters behind us.

Well there you go freediver, a day after I explain it Telstra explains it in exactly the same way - if you failed to understand me this will make you equally baffled.  But it makes perfect sense to two eyed people.


Quote:

Australia's Telstra rejects government broadband plan SYDNEY (AFP) — The head of Australia's largest telco has criticised the government's plan to build a national broadband system in partnership with the private sector as a "kumbaya, holding hands" idea. Telstra head Sol Trujillo praised newly elected Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had campaigned strongly on upgrading Australia's broadband Internet services, in remarks published Friday. "He gets it -- he understands it," the US-born executive said. But Trujillo bluntly rejected Rudd's proposal for the government to invest up to 4.7 billion dollars (4.1 billion US) in a high-speed broadband network in partnership with the private sector. He called it a "kumbaya, holding hands" theory -- a reference to the feel-good spiritual or folk song of that name. "We are only going to participate in the things that we own and control," Trujillo told The Australian newspaper. Labor has not spelled out the exact ownership structure for the new network but has said it wants a shared equity investment, rather than just a handover of funding to the telco or consortium providing the service. Trujillo said such an approach would be confusing. "We don't want to muddy it up with what you can do and what you can't do and when," he said. "It makes managing your business too hard." At the same time, Trujillo warned that Australia will suffer unless it makes significant investments in broadband soon. "I think there will be huge economic impacts for Australia because Australia will fall behind the rest of the world," he said. Trujillo's comments could delay the government's plan because while its rivals such as Singapore-owned Optus are expected to bid for the tender, they would have to make use of Telstra facilities and this could be difficult. Questions have also arisen over how to roll out the technology across such a vast country with a sparsely populated centre. Dig deep taxpayers - this nutty scheme will have the country in debt in no time

Telstra have Little Kevvy, and now the poor taxpayer, firmly by the balls.    :-[

DT is right Freediver

On a technology vs timescale x labour cost- This is a foolhardy move by any govt.

By the time they actually roll out any kind of infrastructure, it will be an obsolete white elephant- wireless is where technology heading...in all facets of comms

Private companies are also interested in doing it because it is profitable.

If it were truly profitable they would have already done it. The simple fact is the tech is changing so rapidly that no one wants to get lumbered with a static infrastucture

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 7:26pm:

Private companies are also interested in doing it because it is profitable.

Yes, I said that already.  I said "All the profit, obviously, is in the city."  But you said you didn't understand me.

If it were truly profitable they would have already done it.

This is not the sort of thing a private comany can just go out and do - digging trenches through all the suburbs etc. There have been a lot of negotiations going on between the government and the telcos, for example about what sort of monopoy power such a company would have. When I say the government should own/control it, that doesn't mean they should do the nitty gritty stuff ala telecom 20 years ago. They should contract out all the work on both the installation and billing side. They should just maintain control so we have neither monopoly prices nor redundant infrastructure.

This is not the sort of thing a private comany can just go out and do -

nor redundant infrastructure.

My point exactly- This is not the sort of thing any company wants to go out and do, hence the advent of wireless comms on a grande scale.

If you ignore this, you will end up with redundant infratructure

Now Little Kevvy's complete lack of business acumen has seen him drawn into commercial warfare between corporations and that is absolutely off limits with taxpayer funds.  His bumbling simple-minded understanding of the world (no doubt gleaned from economists) has led him by the nose straight into inappropriate territory.  A government in competition with corporate Australia with the risk totally underwritten by the people of Australia.

Optus want to take on Telstra - with our future fund!!!!!!


Quote:

Optus woos Rudd Optus says it is ready to build a fibre-to-the-node broadband network in Australia with the government, in response to Telstra's vow never to partner with the government to build one. CEO Paul O'Sullivan was responding to his counterpart, Telstra boss Sol Truijllo who said Telstra would not build such a network if it meant less than double digit returns - or if it had to work with the government to do so. Mr O'Sullivan said other telcos would be able to access the network under regulatory requirements. 'Mr Trujillo wants to hold Australia to ransom,' he said. 'He wants us to believe that the only way to get a FTTN network is on Telstra's terms - a Telstra monopoly charging very high prices.' Optus says it will lead the G9 consortium to be a participant in the new Rudd Government's planned bidding process to award the building contract of the network. Australia goes down the toilet

This is not the sort of thing any company wants to go out and do

Not true. They want to do it because it is cheaper and would give them a monopoly for a long time. The Howard government was actually holding them back. At the moment, and for the forseeable future, cable is a better option. I actually just looked into cable vs wireless for my connection. The wireless option was crap by comparison.

::) They only want to do it if the govt funds it.

I actually just looked into cable vs wireless for my connection. The wireless option was crap by comparison.

Your comparison is flawed and you still don't get it. Wireless connection is now on par with what ADSL offered only a few years ago...it will outpace wired infrastructure in the coming years

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 10:25am:

This is not the sort of thing any company wants to go out and do Not true. They want to do it because it is cheaper and would give them a monopoly for a long time. The Howard government was actually holding them back. At the moment, and for the forseeable future, cable is a better option. I actually just looked into cable vs wireless for my connection. The wireless option was crap by comparison.

The wireless option was crap by comparison with what? At the moment remote users have nothing at all but dial up.   Are you comparing the speed of wireless with dial up?

I'm sure you don't understand.  See air, as a carrier, is free.  No cable need be laid to get the signal from here to Bullamnutsoff with a wireless carrier wave.  Digital broadcasts on high frequency waves are pure.  Fibre optic over thousands of kilometres needs amplifiers, repeater stations and all sorts of infrastructure.

By the time Kevvy lays his cable it will be worth about as much as a laid cable.    He will bankrupt the country.  The proposed $4b is nowhere near enough for his madness - he will need many billions more.

They only want to do it if the govt funds it.

Wrong. The government is not going to fund it (for the most part - this obviously exludes proposals for cable in rural areas). They are going to allow the telcos to build it, and limit how much they can charge in return.

Hmmm...so they don't really need that $4.7 Billion of taxpayers dollars then

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 1:50pm:

They only want to do it if the govt funds it. Wrong. The government is not going to fund it (for the most part - this obviously exludes proposals for cable in rural areas). They are going to allow the telcos to build it, and limit how much they can charge in return.

They're not going to fund it?  What are they going to do with the taxpayer dollars and how will they own it?  Do you believe any telco will front up with the bucks and then hand it over to Kevvy?

Did an economist say that too?

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 1:50pm:

They only want to do it if the govt funds it. Wrong. The government is not going to fund it (for the most part - this obviously exludes proposals for cable in rural areas). They are going to allow the telcos to build it, and limit how much they can charge in return.

Little Kevvy disagrees with you.  He said -


Quote:

. . . . the overall question about how we bring this initiative into being is based on a $2 billion contribution from the communications fund and $2.7 billion which we then transfer from the taxpayers’ equity in Telstra into the taxpayers’ equity into a brand new joint venture behind this brand new technology for the future. I’m pretty confident, given the level of support from the industry right across Australia, that we are on the money when it comes to this initiative. Someone lied

And Telstra disagrees with Kevvy.  Kevvy reckons he's on the money and Sol Trujillo mockingly reckons he's dithering about with "some sort of "kumbaya, holding hands" theory".

And that's Australia's Prime Minister?  Boy are we in trouble.   :'(

But Telstra agrees with me that Kevvy's claim of $4.7b of taxpayers money for a white elephant is billions too little.


Quote:

Telstra's value-added plan is politically expensive Trujillo also argues that both the difficulty and cost of building a national fibre network had been generally underestimated, even while insisting that Telstra could build it faster and more cheaply than anyone else could. Labor based its $4.7 billion commitment on Telstra's original costing of a national fibre network reaching 98 per cent of the population back in 2005. But Trujillo is now suggesting this is out of date and that it would cost $4billion to $4.5 billion to build a network only in the five major cities. He told The Australian last week its 2005 costing was under an assumption of a lesser amount of broadband and that Telstra had not even done the costing of a national rollout in today's context. "Distance equates to money," he says simply. But that leads to another obvious political problem in what has become Telstra's fundamental business case. Telstra under Trujillo is interested in being the best much more than in being the cheapest, or even particularly competitively priced. In the briefing with The Australian, Trujillo declared that when he arrived, Telstra had been trying to play the game of providing the same cheap monthly packages as everyone else -- and losing market share and momentum doing so. He has fundamentally changed the company's direction in order to focus on product differentiation. He calls it "adding value". The regulator, and the politicians, call it charging too much whenever Telstra thinks it can get away with it. It certainly won't encourage the Government to let Telstra roam free. But Canberra is not going to get any support from the Telstra board in anycomplaints about management's aggressive approach. McGauchie makes a bad joke about Australia eventually getting it right on telecommunications but only after it tried every other option first. Expressing frustration, he compares the wait for broadband to the ships waiting in line to load coal thanks to the mishmash of government regulations, inefficient infrastructure and political ineptitude. Even though he makes it clear that Telstra would prefer to build a fibre broadband network, he says that Telstra's alternatives are to grow even more strongly in mobile and to invest more in its cable network, which currently runs past 1.8 million homes. But these alternatives will not deliver the bandwidth necessary for the plethora of new and constantly improving services that will be available. They are simply not as efficient or as flexible given the ever increasing demand. "Plan B is not as good for us and it is not as good for the country," he says. "So we would love to have the right investment taking place in a neutral investment environment." Telstra argues that this lesson is being learned the hard way in other countries, with McGauchie saying that investment in broadband infrastructure in Britain has now stalled. Trujillo says it is up to the new Government to make a choice. "The question is do you focus on process or do you focus on outcomes?" he says. Kevvy has broken the back of the economy

Now I can once again say "I told you so".  I said that the Liebor Party's nutty scheme to have broadband to 98% of homes was craptacularly stupid because technology races and there is no place for government in that kind of race.  So today . . . . . .




Quote:

Super-fast broadband links researchers A powerful new broadband tool, 250 times faster than a standard broadband connection in Melbourne, has been used to link researchers across the Pacific. The internet connection, which sends one gigabyte per second, is being hailed as a cutting-edge mode for allowing world experts to collaborate from different countries in real time. The OptIPortal linked researchers at the University of Melbourne with others at the University of California in San Diego (UCSD) on Wednesday, via giant screens, after an initial technical glitch that stalled the launch for more than 30 minutes. Using the technology, a scan of the brain can be shown to the cellular level and maintain full clarity. It combines high-definition video and audio with the sharing of ultra-resolution visualisations from a broad range of disciplines. The resolution of the OptIPortal is 50 times higher than the highest resolution HD television commercially available. Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Victorian Premier John Brumby watched the demonstration at the University of Melbourne. During the link-up Senator Conroy said he hoped the technology would eventually reach Australian households. "We are, as you know, pushing ahead to try and develop genuine high speed broadband here in Australia, which we would ultimately hope to deliver this sort of technology into everybody's home and that's why it's so exciting to see this project up and running," Senator Conroy said. Ms Gillard was later challenged on whether the government's broadband policy would allow for that level of technology to be available to homes. She said the government would concentrate on delivering its election promise of providing fast broadband to 98 per cent of homes under a $5 billion scheme. To the homes Jules?  Stop lying, Australians are not as stupid as you dude

See she has obviously forgotten what that "election promise of providing fast broadband to 98 per cent of homes under a $5 billion scheme" actually was.  But the mushrooms haven't Jules.   We recollect exactly what you promised.  And what you promised is not going to bring this new technology to the homes at all.   Is it liar?

Craptaculate me dead, they have screwed the mushrooms good and proper.  Who fell for this nutsack scrotal?

I voted Liberal.

deepy - yes, I also thought to invest a lot of money on a fixed system in a fst moving industry was foolishness to the extreme.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 10:52pm:

deepy - yes, I also thought to invest a lot of money on a fixed system in a fst moving industry was foolishness to the extreme.

This back to the future approach to government competing with private industry on something as intangible as technology is madness.   Billions of dollars which could be spent on services that matter to people (health, education anyone?) would be buried in the ground as a fibre optic cable to nowhere from nowhere as private enterprise develops super broadband wireless technology to the home.

It's like building tram tracks while the rest of the world is using hover cars.

I voted Liberal.  They're not tangled up in the past with stupid ideas, steam age industrial dictatorships, bullying banks, threatening sovereign nations on the high seas . . . .  and they know how dishwashers work.

deepthought wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 7:14am:

Well it didn't need to be much of a time machine in the end - fast forward just one day . . . . Quote: Stand-off in Rudd telco plan KEVIN Rudd's plan for an $8 billion broadband joint venture with Telstra could be stillborn, after the telco giant ruled out any financial co-operation with the federal Government yesterday. But the Government confirmed last night that its intention to invest in the network, and seek a commercial return, remained unchanged. A key plank in Mr Rudd's policy plan for Australia's future is by way of either a public/private partnership, or equity investment with either Telstra or another telecommunications company or consortium. Mr Rudd has committed a taxpayer contribution of up to $4.7 billion to a national fibre-to-the-node network that Telstra was the frontrunner to build. But at an industry conference in Sydney yesterday, Telstra's public policy chief Phil Burgess ruled out Telstra's participation in any financial joint venture. "It won't be with us, it will be with somebody else," Dr Burgess said. "We're not going to do consortiums, or equity or things like that. It's not the way we do things." "The Government's policy remains as announced," freshly sworn-in Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Stephen Conroy told The Australian. Dr Burgess claimed that Telstra's position on the issue "is clear and we have not changed that position since July 2005 and it remains the same". "And that's to build an advanced communications network in this country as rapidly as possible, as cheaply as possible. "And it should be an open- access high-speed broadband network. That is what we want to do. "But what we have also made clear is we're not going to do it in a consortium, because consortiums don't work. We're not going to do it in partnership with some other provider. We're not going to do it if the Government is going to be an equity holder and decision-maker." Under Mr Rudd's plan, Labor has said it will create a new panel to scope the broadband project, disbanding an existing panel created by the previous Government for a tender for a metropolitan-only broadband network. Senator Conroy said he was working on the panel and was in the midst of departmental briefings on a range of matters. Optus, which is leading the G9 consortium's rival bid to build a structurally-separated FTTN, said Telstra's should reveal its wholesale access pricing to industry before the Labor government considers its bid. Pointing to pricing for wireless broadband services on Telstra's Next-G network, which is the only one of its kind in Australia, Optus regulatory director Paul Fletcher said pricing should be critical to Labor's assessment process. "The lesson that it sends to us is clear - that where Telstra has the only network you're going to see exceptionally high prices," Mr Fletcher said. Dr Burgess refused to reveal how much the carrier would charge for access to its network, but said that the "new Telstra" would pursue premium service business model. "The new Telstra will be a premium provider charging premium prices and we make no apology for that," he said. "If someone starts undercutting us and people start wanting to do, then we'll start working out how to deal with that competitive situation. But the fact is we don't want to be the low-cost producer." Mr Fletcher argued Telstra's pricing position justified public spending on alternative infrastructure. "If you've got an incumbent saying we're going to be charging these kinds of prices, then it's a very good thing to be allocating public money to subsidise the rollout into areas to give new choice, new alternatives and new pricing. That's competition working," he said. Dr Burgess said if the Government wanted to continue with its investment policy "they can go in that direction. They have Optus ... and all kinds of other companies around here they can do consortiums and joint ventures and PPPs and ... whatever else they want to do." He added that if another provider begins deploying a new broadband network, Telstra would follow with its own. Dr Burgess referred to what will likely take place under Labor for the telco industry was a "pretty massive renovation" rather than "cosmetic repaint" or a "tear down" or "demolition". "We need to see whether the post-election rhetoric matches the election rhetoric," he said. Prepare to be enthusiastically screwed by business all ye taxpayers It is the beginning of the economic disaster that Liebor will bring to we previously prosperous and happy Australians.

What the hell, it was only 8 billion back then?

So thanks to the ALP's procastination its now $42billion.

WE'RE ALL LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE NBN DEBATE!!!!  ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:00pm:

WE'RE ALL LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE NBN DEBATE!!!!  ;) ;)

So why has the price gone up over 5 fold in four years?

UH OH, Tony Abbott has lost momentum!!!

Bye-Bye Tony 'waste of the-clever-countrys-time' Abbott!

 :-[ :-[ :'(

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:12pm:

UH OH, Tony Abbott has lost momentum!!! Bye-Bye Tony 'waste of the-clever-countrys-time' Abbott!  :-[ :-[ :'(

Why cant you tell me why its worth over 5 fold more in 4 years?

You claim to be such an expert on the topic?

more likely they got it wrong in the first place... they havent got anything else right.. so why would that be any different?..

and as the Minister conroy doesnt know where the first conections are going.. I doubt he could answer that question either verge

cods wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:18pm:

more likely they got it wrong in the first place... they havent got anything else right.. so why would that be any different?.. and as the Minister conroy doesnt know where the first conections are going.. I doubt he could answer that question either verge

double-uh oh.... TONY ABBOTT must really be scared about falling too fast to bring out the big guns of cods!??!  :) :)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:25pm:

cods wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:18pm: more likely they got it wrong in the first place... they havent got anything else right.. so why would that be any different?.. and as the Minister conroy doesnt know where the first conections are going.. I doubt he could answer that question either verge double-uh oh.... TONY ABBOTT must really be scared about falling too fast to bring out the big guns of cods!??!  :) :)

Why cant you explain a 5 fold increase in the cost?

cods wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:18pm:

more likely they got it wrong in the first place... they havent got anything else right.. so why would that be any different?.. and as the Minister conroy doesnt know where the first conections are going.. I doubt he could answer that question either verge

you are right. Labor hasnt gotten anything right since they came to power. This is just  another example.

Verge wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:43pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:25pm: cods wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:18pm: more likely they got it wrong in the first place... they havent got anything else right.. so why would that be any different?.. and as the Minister conroy doesnt know where the first conections are going.. I doubt he could answer that question either verge double-uh oh.... TONY ABBOTT must really be scared about falling too fast to bring out the big guns of cods!??!  :) :) Why cant you explain a 5 fold increase in the cost?

HEY, ARE YOU RUNNING FOR OFFICE BECAUSE I WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU!??!  :D :D :D 8-) :-? :-? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 8:23pm:

Verge wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:43pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:25pm: cods wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:18pm: more likely they got it wrong in the first place... they havent got anything else right.. so why would that be any different?.. and as the Minister conroy doesnt know where the first conections are going.. I doubt he could answer that question either verge double-uh oh.... TONY ABBOTT must really be scared about falling too fast to bring out the big guns of cods!??!  :) :) Why cant you explain a 5 fold increase in the cost? HEY, ARE YOU RUNNING FOR OFFICE BECAUSE I WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU!??!  :D :D :D 8-) :-? :-? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Why is it costing 5 times more than 4 years ago?

What has changed in that time to make it incease in value by that much when no other thing I can think of has.

Cars - Same price
Land - gone down
New houses - minor increase
TV's - massive decreases
Computers - Getting cheaper by the day

So why is this costing 5 fold.

I think its a legitmate question, and you portray yourself as an expert on the topic.

Verge wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 8:31pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 8:23pm: Verge wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:43pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:25pm: cods wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:18pm: more likely they got it wrong in the first place... they havent got anything else right.. so why would that be any different?.. and as the Minister conroy doesnt know where the first conections are going.. I doubt he could answer that question either verge double-uh oh.... TONY ABBOTT must really be scared about falling too fast to bring out the big guns of cods!??!  :) :) Why cant you explain a 5 fold increase in the cost? HEY, ARE YOU RUNNING FOR OFFICE BECAUSE I WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU!??!  :D :D :D 8-) :-? :-? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( Why is it costing 5 times more than 4 years ago? What has changed in that time to make it incease in value by that much when no other thing I can think of has. Cars - Same price Land - gone down New houses - minor increase TV's - massive decreases Computers - Getting cheaper by the day So why is this costing 5 fold. I think its a legitmate question, and you portray yourself as an expert on the topic.

IS THAT TONY ABBOTTS NEW ATTACK MANTRA IS IT?!!?  :-[ :-[ :-[ 8-) :'(