NBN Discussion

[RAM]

I don't. It's a relevant analogy. Modern telecommunications infrastructure will be as critical as roads in the future, both are core infrastructure that should be publicly funded and owned.

Yet all State Govts are privatising the rights to operate high volume roads as toll roads - breaking the 'monopoly' of the State whilst the Fed Govt is doing the opposite for Telecommunications.

 

[drsmithy]

Yet all State Govts are privatising the rights to operate high volume roads as toll roads - breaking the 'monopoly' of the State whilst the Fed Govt is doing the opposite for Telecommunications.

Of course they are. A sweet sugar hit for the budget and juicy rent-seeking profits for their mates in perpetuity.

Corrupt, neoliberal vandals pretty much to a man (/woman). Not that the Federal Government is any different in that regard (with the apparent exception of most Greens and some independents).

 

[DeKa]

So how does Dodo, for example, provide internet capacity etc? Do they not use the Telstra or Optus or Eftel to provide the bulk of their connections – mostly Optus?

Once the NBN has passed a premise then after 18 months (from memory) Telstra's old connection is turned off and you have no choice but to use the NBN for a phone line. To me that's their last mile access sold off?

They all lease the copper PSTN lines from Telstra for the last mile for ADSL. ADSL slows with distance from the exchange, so isn't as good as HFC in that regard.

The MTM NBN is using HFC where available, and FTTN (which re uses some of the last mile copper over short distances).

You can't buy say Eftel or Dodo internet delivered over Telstra HFC cabl

 

[RAM]

Of course they are. A sweet sugar hit for the budget and juicy rent-seeking profits for their mates in perpetuity.

Corrupt, neoliberal vandals pretty much to a man (/woman). Not that the Federal Government is any different in that regard (with the apparent exception of most Greens and some independents).

Funny you should mention the Greens.

Do you know which political party accepted the single biggest ever political donation in Australian history?

The donation was so big it paid for every print, radio, TV, movie, billboard and internet advert they used for the 2007 Federal election Australia-wide.

Any ideas who it could be?

Given it was so large - immediately after the 2007 Federal election a Senate inquiry was launched into it but for some reason that inquiry never seemed to get under way - funny that?

I'll give you a hint - it was made by a Tasmanian Property Developer who wanted the zooming changed to allow him to build a resort in the Tasmanian wilderness. The then current zoning was NO DEVELOPMENT.

Yes, your powers of analysis are strong...

It was the Greens who took this donation.

Bob Brown in fact.

Funny how the Senate Inquiry never got going....

Now what was it you were saying again?

Of course they are. A sweet sugar hit for the budget and juicy rent-seeking profits for their mates in perpetuity.

Corrupt, neoliberal vandals pretty much to a man (/woman). Not that the Federal Government is any different in that regard (with the apparent exception of most Greens and some independents).

Yes, VERY good use of the phrase 'apparent exception'!

Snouts-in-trough or ends-justify-the-means is not colour blind!

 

[drsmithy]

Funny you should mention the Greens.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to provide some useful information about this so I can actually do some reading about it ?

 

[RAM]

I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to provide some useful information about this so I can actually do some reading about it ?

Blue Green or Red - snouts-in-trough rule. Or is it the ends-justify the means?

I think my memory is correct and it was 2007 but it is also possibly 2011 as well or perhaps only 2011. I cut out the clippings at the time and filed them away to scrap book one decade - 50 fruitless minutes later I resorted to google.

The letter below details $1.6m given to fund the 2011 Greens Federal Election media campaign by the Wotif founder who at the same time was wanting to get zoning changed to allow a $35m resort to be built. That make's him a property developer under the legislation's definitions. Also came upon piece (see bottom) about a $200k donations taken by the Greens from the owner of the Tote facilities in NSW regional centres (Greens - we don't accept money from Gambling)
Letter, from Senator Kroger to the President - Parliament of ...

www.aph.gov.au/.../donations/.../donations/.../lette...


Parliament of Australia


Nov 22, 2011 - donation to the Greens, and thereby entered into "an arrangement" with him. ... account of a conversation with Senator Bob Brown and his Chief of Staff over ..... Tasmania and the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts and ..... In 2007—08 the Greens disclosed receipts - public and.



Chris Harris
2. From Lee Rhiannon, 28 August
No Green light to channelling
Clover Moore (Letters, August 27) is wrong when she alleges funding impropriety by the Greens. The Greens do not “channel donations through head office”. Each local group raises and expends its funds locally, but we are obliged by electoral law to make disclosures on a statewide basis.
The Greens do not accept donations from corporations or others with interests in development, liquor, gambling and the like. We spend the funds we receive from the NSW Political Education Fund within the requirements of the law, mostly on educational items and some on party administration. Our claims on this fund are audited and available for public scrutiny.

Lee Rhiannon, MP Sydney

Other than for $35m resorts that is!


Race on to point finger

WHAT is it about the Tasmanian Greens and certain Sydney racing identities? In 2007 high-rolling Greg Beirne and his wife, Joanne, of Kellyville, donated $200,000 to Tasmanian Greens to help fight the federal election.
Despite their wealth and racing-industry eminence, the couple managed to remain low profile for years - although they did attract some media coverage 19 years ago for a slightly "alternative" view to education: they decided to teach their three children at home.
Beirne, the brother of former big bookmaker Dominic Beirne, made a fortune over the years from the NSW racing industry. He used to run most of the totalisator facilities for country race clubs and has been a director and shareholder in a swag of companies.
The Beirnes' Greens commitment came to light when the Australian Electoral Commission published its annual political donations list. But a minor scuffle in the Tasmanian Parliament over political donations has reignited the issue of where the Greens were getting financial support.
With a state election looming, the Labor Government tried to insinuate there was something untoward in a $45,000 donation to the Tasmanian Greens from Susie Russell and Greg Hall, who live at Elands on the NSW mid-North Coast. But Bob Brown told the Senate on Wednesday that the money was an inheritance and sneered at state Labor for attempting to traduce the couple who, he says, were only trying to save Tasmania's forests.
Meanwhile the Greens acceptance of the Beirne donation has been juxtaposed against Greens upper house MP Lee Rhiannon's frequent attacks on political donations from gaming beneficiaries. The NSW Greens gambling policy also slams the Government and the Coalition for accepting millions from pubs and clubs, saying it could compromise regulation of the industry.
No fear of that with the Beirnes, of course.
Although given the Greens' concerns over global warming, they may be worried that one of the couple's investment companies, Rotherwood Enterprises, last year owned shares in Aviva Corporation. It owns thermal coal deposits in Western Australia and Botswana.

 

[drsmithy]

Your links are broken.

 

[whatmeworry]

Your links are broken.

I blame the MTM.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

What's the upload like ? How does it handle congestion ?

DOCSIS 3.1 - First released October 2013, and updated several times since. The DOCSIS 3.1 suite of specifications supports capacities of at least 10 Gbit/s downstream and 1 Gbit/s upstream using 4096 QAM. The new specs do away with 6 MHz and 8 MHz wide channel spacing and instead use smaller (20 kHz to 50 kHz wide) orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) subcarriers; these can be bonded inside a block spectrum that could end up being about 200 MHz wide.[SUP][5][/SUP] DOCSIS 3.1 technology also includes some new energy management features that will help the cable industry reduce its energy usage.

As for congestion, that entirely depends on how the Fibre is provisioned to the HFC head end and to what capacity.

And for those who may be unaware, DOCSIS is the standard of technology used in HFC networks. Telstra and Optus currently have DOCSIS 3.0 networks, requiring head and tail end equipment upgrades to DOCSIS 3.1 to support the above speeds, along with backhaul upgrades. My understanding is that NBNco intends to upgrade these as part of the rollout.

The HFC cable is only about 20 years old at it's oldest, and is overall in excellent condition as it is a much more rugged cabling type with greater insulation and shielding from interference.

And as for Optus, sure, it's rubbish on the infrastructure end, but the Telstra HFC infrastructure is actually in reasonable shape, and has a far wider reach than Optus.

 

[moa999]

I think the HFC transition is a good idea, as is FTTB and short loop FTTN (both with speed upgrade paths in gfast and xgfast)

The losers are those 500+m from an FTTN node who will get on average <50Mb/s and not really have an upgrade path unless more fibre is rolled (eg FTTdp or FTTP)

 

[RAM]

Your links are broken.

How odd? The Fed Parliament ones don't work but the Greens ones do.

Even more curious - it was removed shortly after I posted it here?

I have checked 3 separate sources for it (including Mr Woods response to it where he cites it on the parliamentary web site).

Did you manage to track it down? It was quite lengthy (137 pages) and contained many links itself which were revealing (both for and against). Serves me right for not saving the PDF.

Of course nobody would be swayed in favour of someone who gave them $1.6m would they?

That's why over $300m was given in 'declared donations' to all political parties in Australia in 2012/13. Interesting in one interview where Mr Wood states he wanted to interfere with legislation getting through the Senate by ensuring the Greens got the Balance of Power. Obviously he had NO motives in donating the money.

Here (hopefully) is a working link to the final report by the Senate Committee stating they cannot find any evidence of an arrangement linking the $1.6m donation to Bob Brown for all election advertising and any subsequent development application.

If you click on (hopefully) or copy and paste into your browser (certainly) then you get the download of the PDF of the letter.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...q_nJ1OrkyQ6sB8jhg&sig2=4WLXJ_ICdifYdnFSUolnBg

www.aph.gov.au/.../donations/.../donations/.../lette...


Parliament of Australia


Nov 22, 2011 - account of a conversation with Senator Bob Brown and his Chief of Staff over ... A donation by Mr Wood to the value of $1.6 million ensued.You visited this page on 12/17/15.


Having regard to matters raised by Senator Kroger relating to donations made by Mr Graeme Wood – Parliament of Australia

Privileges Committee; Report: 19 Mar 2012: Senate debates (OpenAustralia.org)

in that report the committee states that it: ... does not have such evidence before it in this case. While the allegations made in Senator Kroger’s letter are serious ones, the committee does not consider that the material submitted to support those allegations amounts to more than circumstantial evidence. The committee considers that any questions which do arise as a result of that material are answered by the responses of the three people named in the terms of reference. <Of course everyone always admits their guilt don't they?>

It goes on to say:

Where Senator Kroger’s letter raises a question around the perceptions arising from Senator Brown personally discussing these matters, it merely invites the inference that Senator Brown entered into an improper arrangement, rather than providing evidence.
It goes on to say:
The committee considers that the evidence before it does not establish—

 

[serfty]

"[noparse]www.aph.gov.au/.../donations/.../donations/.../lette...[/noparse]" is not a valid url ...

 

[Cossie]

"[noparse]www.aph.gov.au/.../donations/.../donations/.../lette...[/noparse]" is not a valid url ...

If you click on the 'google' link, it will open a pdf.

 

[drsmithy]

How odd? The Fed Parliament ones don't work but the Greens ones do.

I don't really want to derail this thread with an OT political discussion, but what's your actual point here ?


"They're all as bad as each other" is not a rational or supportable position. It's a copout and a fallacy generally used to misdirect and obfuscate. I would never try to argue any politician or party is perfect, but I'm happy to argue some are far, far better than others, in philosophy, motivation and intent.


There is no other political party I'm aware of in Australia that has better policies or behaviour towards donations, nor practices what they preach, more than the Greens. Donations are accounted and published promptly and transparently - typically well before both other parties and legal requirement - and they consistently argue for more stringent rules around limits and transparency. They are also strong advocates and campaigners for anti-corruption measures like a Federal ICAC.


If your argument is that any party receiving and accepting donations is implicitly corrupt, then I have no idea what underlying point you're trying to make other than "no Government".


Is there evidence any expected outcome was actually influenced by this donation, that Brown's or Milne's behaviour or decision-making was inexplicably inconsistent with Greens policy, that they made personal gain, or that the country suffered any harm ?


A skim through and quick revision through Google seems to suggest that Greens Senators have argued against federal funding of ongoing pulp mill operations but were in favour of an "eco-resort". It is hard to see how this behaviour would have been any different in the absence of a large political donation, or is inconsistent with Greens policy (or either of their personal viewpoints - Bob Brown has been trying to get logging of Tasmanian forests shut down for probably decades). It also seems rather disingenuous to conflate this sort of "developer" with the same kind of "developers" involved in residential and commercial operations in and near cities.




My personal view on political donations is that they should be strictly limited to natural persons, and capped at an annual amount attainable by pretty much anyone - I suggest the equivalent of four weeks worth of full-time minimum wage income is a reasonable benchmark.


EDIT:

Even a fairly cursory reading of the material here (the two submissions and Wood's letter) makes it pretty clear the allegations of corruption are without any merit. As Wood says in his letter, they don't even pass a basic test of timing, to say nothing of the selective references to other data and events.

Nov 22, 2011 - account of a conversation with Senator Bob Brown and his Chief of Staff over ... A donation by Mr Wood to the value of $1.6 million ensued.You visited this page on 12/17/15.


Having regard to matters raised by Senator Kroger relating to donations made by Mr Graeme Wood – Parliament of Australia

 

[RAM]

• You made a point about the Greens vs ALP/Libs being so different
• Greens UNDISPUTEDLY received the largest single donation in Australian Political History and it was from a property developer who had been angling to buy the site for some years. By his own admissions in interviews - he viewed his donation as an "investment" that would return him many times the amount he donated.
• Greens site says it does not accept donations from property developers - OOPS!
• Did you read the various newspaper interviews (which he NEVER contested as inaccurate and in some cases were recorded by the journos specifically for 'accuracy purposes)?
• All the major parties have 'transparency' rules with donations.
• What they say and what they do is VERY different
• What is the same is the hypocrisy.

So back to the initial point - the original machinations in changing what had been contracted (and would already be in service Australia-wide) with OPEL was provided with a fully tested cost/benefit AND business case.

The Rudd Govt claimed it missed one condition and cancelled it. The OPEL consortium contested the claim and requested an independent expert be appointed to investigate the validity of the claim. The Govt refused. Subsequently a payment may have been made in compensation that was commercial in confidence and could never be revealed.

The first 9 versions of the NBN were not provided with a fully tested cost/benefit AND business case. In fact no analysis was ever produced.

Colour of party does not matter - if the project does not stack up then the C/B and Business case is not prepared/published.

In NSW the CBD & South East Light Rail is a great example with the Libs. Spending over $2bn - Not Cost/benefit analysis nor Business Case ever published.

Response to questions in Parliament, "There are no other documents that exist."

With over $300m+ in declared political donations a year (last report 2012/13) the community does not stand a chance.

He/she who pays the piper calls the tune...

and the tax payer suffers the consequences.

 

[RAM]

A skim through and quick revision through Google seems to suggest that Greens Senators have argued against federal funding of ongoing pulp mill operations but were in favour of an "eco-resort". It is hard to see how this behaviour would have been any different in the absence of a large political donation, or is inconsistent with Greens policy (or either of their personal viewpoints - Bob Brown has been trying to get logging of Tasmanian forests shut down for probably decades). It also seems rather disingenuous to conflate this sort of "developer" with the same kind of "developers" involved in residential and commercial operations in and near cities.

Well the Greens do not suggest, like animal farm, that there are different types of property developer. They state they DO NOT ACCEPT donations from Property Developers.
That the Greens reversed their opposition to the one point that was a condition of sale of the site (which caused an earlier contracted sale to another party to fall through) - was pure coincidence of course. Nothing sinister in it.

My personal view on political donations is that they should be strictly limited to natural persons, and capped at an annual amount attainable by pretty much anyone - I suggest the equivalent of four weeks worth of full-time minimum wage income is a reasonable benchmark.

Sounds good to me - funny how certain organisations can have dozens or hundreds of employees make a small donation to a political party...

IEDIT:

Even a fairly cursory reading of the material here (the two submissions and Wood's letter) makes it pretty clear the allegations of corruption are without any merit. As Wood says in his letter, they don't even pass a basic test of timing, to say nothing of the selective references to other data and events.

The original 137 page 'letter' contains many published interviews where the donor makes some VERY EXPLICIT claims and explanations about what he expected TO GAIN from the donation. In fact he stated he expected to make many times what he donated.

The technicality of the Senate ruling was whether an arrangement had been made (that could be proven) and it acknowledged there was MUCH circumstantial evidence.

With no written contract or recording thereof - they let it go. Curiously enough the timing of all this was pre/post the wrangling for Senate support and the tone of the committee changed radically from when it was set-up to when it reported. Just coincidental of course nothing to do with politics.

 

[whatmeworry]

Another analysis into Malcolm Turnbull's MTM.

Cost blowouts and delays had turned Labor’s nation-building exercise into a political disaster. Fibre would have meant internet speeds light-years faster than copper, but at a price. The opposition’s promise of an NBN delivered years sooner and $60 billion cheaper – with 25Mbps download speeds to all Australians by 2016 – sounded unbelievably good.
But two years on, most of Turnbull’s August 2013 election promises are broken. His “multi-technology mix” NBN, which uses a mix of technologies including old Telstra copper cables and Telstra and Optus hybrid fibre coaxial (HFC) cables (the kind used for Foxtel connections), faces many of the problems that dogged Labor, and is arguably more politicised than it was then, with one expert describing the NBN company’s relationship with media as “adversarial”.
Advertisement
The 25Mbps by 2016 is not going to happen, and the overall completion date is now 2020 (originally 2019). Peak funding costs have blown out three times: from $29.5 billion before the election; to $41 billion following the Coalition government-commissioned Strategic Review; to a range of $46 billion to $56 billion in August this year.

Malcolm's Mess: How The Coalition's NBN Came Unstuck | Gizmodo Australia

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Another analysis into Malcolm Turnbull's MTM.



Malcolm's Mess: How The Coalition's NBN Came Unstuck | Gizmodo Australia

Another article written and commented on by frustrated computer nerds who never step outside their front doors into the real world, as is to be expected from this blog and delimiter equally.

The NBN was completely stuffed long before the current government took office. Those who can't see that are likely misguided by ideology.

 

[whatmeworry]

Another article written and commented on by frustrated computer nerds who never step outside their front doors into the real world, as is to be expected from this blog and delimiter equally.

The NBN was completely stuffed long before the current government took office. Those who can't see that are likely misguided by ideology .

Hahaha your a comedian. We would have got a great network but now we have got a joke of network designed by a vulture capitalist.

 

[drsmithy]

You made a point about the Greens vs ALP/Libs being so different

Because they are. If for no other reason than Labor and Liberals being hopelessly in thrall to the social and economic cancer of neoliberalism which has delivered us (and the rest of the western world) into the catastrophe it faces today.

Greens UNDISPUTEDLY received the largest single donation in Australian Political History and it was from a property developer who had been angling to buy the site for some years. By his own admissions in interviews - he viewed his donation as an "investment" that would return him many times the amount he donated.

Have you considered that an extremely wealthy philanthropist with a history of donating to social and environmentalist causes might consider a "return on investment" to be something other than how much money he can put in his pocket ?

You seem happy to infer some monetary objective based on his interview, yet unprepared to mention his explicit identification of his grandson's future welfare being the driving motivation behind his philanthropic and political donations. Why ?

Greens site says it does not accept donations from property developers - OOPS!

Where ?

I even checked some previous revisions and couldn't find anything like that.

Graeme Wood isn't really a "property developer", either, outside of this one project (which, given the aforementioned environmentalist leanings has a quite reasonable explanation) and I couldn't find any evidence he was "angling to buy the site for some years".

Did you read the various newspaper interviews (which he NEVER contested as inaccurate and in some cases were recorded by the journos specifically for 'accuracy purposes)?

There's a limit to how much time I'm prepared to spend on trawling through long, hard to read PDFs on a topic that has little prima facie reason to be suspicious and an official report has found no evidence of wrongdoing in. Some more specificity would be helpful.

Which pages of that PDF have the 'incriminating evidence' ?

All the major parties have 'transparency' rules with donations.

Indeed. But not all those rules, nor their adherence to them, are equal. Again, you are pursuing the "they're all the same" fallacy.

What they say and what they do is VERY different
What is the same is the hypocrisy.

Nope. Indeed, having now spent quite some time this evening reading about this, I'm even more convinced of my previous comments.

Well the Greens do not suggest, like animal farm, that there are different types of property developer. They state they DO NOT ACCEPT donations from Property Developers.
That the Greens reversed their opposition to the one point that was a condition of sale of the site (which caused an earlier contracted sale to another party to fall through) - was pure coincidence of course. Nothing sinister in it.

This is covered in Submission 2 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...ries/2010-13/donations/submissions/sub02.ashx) points 32 (p13) and 57-63 (pp21-22).

You've clearly got a political axe to grind with the Greens, so it's fairly pointless trying to have any rational discussion. The facts of the their history in campaigning for, advocacy of, and attempts to setup, anti-corruption practices in the face of consistent opposition and denial by the other two major parties speaks for itself, as does their exemplary transparency and early disclosure of donations.

On top of that, no aspect of either Brown's or Milne's behaviour is at all inconsistent with their quite publicly stated views and actions stretching back decades.

Finally, given the antipathy, tending towards outright animosity, towards the Greens by pretty much all remotely mainstream media outlets from Crikey to The Telegraph, I'm quite confident if there was any real story about corruption here, I wouldn't have to go trawling through hard-to-find PDFs for evidence. It'd be permalinked on the front of news.com.au.

He/she who pays the piper calls the tune...

and the tax payer suffers the consequences.

Actually, having now spent a good couple of hours reading about this all evening, I'd have to say Graeme Wood is a model example of how stupidly wealthy people should behave. Nothing I've found has done anything more than reinforce my opinions of Greens behaviour, either. The whole thing REEKS of smear campaign.

Telecommunications equipment is core national infrastructure and a textbook natural monopoly. It should be publicly owned as that will provide they greatest national benefit with the lowest overheads. It should not be privately owned.

Sounds good to me - funny how certain organisations can have dozens or hundreds of employees make a small donation to a political party...

If it's voluntary, I fail to see a problem. However, I doubt that would happen at scale without some sort of intimidation or incentivising from the employer, and any employer found to be doing that should be thrown in gaol and lose their business.