NBN Discussion

Core public infrastructure ?

Yes, perhaps - I am still waiting until I get access to this mysterious public infrastructure, but 2022 isn't too far away.



I wonder when it will be privatised? Hopefully they finish the roll out first.
 
Yeah became a white Elephant when Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull ruined it.

Funniest post of the year so far.
You really believe that Conroy etc really would have kept to the predictions they were making?Their record didn't inspire me with confidence.
 
Funniest post of the year so far.
You really believe that Conroy etc really would have kept to the predictions they were making?Their record didn't inspire me with confidence.

That's a meaning of "white elephant" with which I am unfamiliar.
 
Indeed. It's been a horrible one eye monster for the past 20 years. One can only hope the new management will get this sinker floating again!

Oh but which eye is it? You've previously claimed the ABC is biased against our current lords and masters. Yet now there is a story about the ABC not going to air to protect the sensibilities of those same lords and masters. Are you now saying the ABC is biased against the party of the honest aussie battler? Either way it's hard to reconcile this claim of being one eyed for 20 years against your varying claims of bias towards both parties. Don't tell me you've finally come to understand that the ABC is biased against poor policy and incompetence regardless of party?
 
Funniest post of the year so far.
You really believe that Conroy etc really would have kept to the predictions they were making?Their record didn't inspire me with confidence.

Look I don't know if you have a share holding in Telstra but NBN with 93% FTTH would have lasted for 50-100 years whereas a NBN FTTN means that copper has to be replaced in 10-15 years max.
 
Look I don't know if you have a share holding in Telstra but NBN with 93% FTTH would have lasted for 50-100 years whereas a NBN FTTN means that copper has to be replaced in 10-15 years max.

Which would be great if there is no new technology.Unfortunately technology is increasing at an exponential rate.
Also people are more and more wanting mobile technology.my personal bet is the NBN will be superseded well before that 50-100 years.
 
Which would be great if there is no new technology.Unfortunately technology is increasing at an exponential rate.
Also people are more and more wanting mobile technology.my personal bet is the NBN will be superseded well before that 50-100 years.

Well Graham Bell advocated fibre. Were you around for that?
 
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Nick Ross made a secret recording with Bruce Belsham, the Head of ABC’s Current Affairs division.

In the tape, obtained by New Matilda, Belsham repeatedly states that he’s under “internal and external” political pressure over Ross’ coverage of the NBN, and explains that despite “having no problems” with the specific story, he (Belsham) can’t publish it because “the Turnbull camp and my superiors will come down on me like a tonne of bricks”.
Belsham – a former Executive Producer of ABC’s flagship Four Corner’s program – suggests the story can only be published after Ross first writes a piece which attacks Labor’s record on the NBN. At the time, Labor was committed to building a fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) broadband network, using superior – but supposedly more expensive – fibre optic cabling.
The meeting opens with this comment from Belsham: “Just in terms about the latest piece (which is critical of the Coalition plan), I don’t have anything per se in terms of objections to the piece, but… what I would suggest, to give yourself a bit of capacity to be able to do a few more of these, is to, to just turn the vision around a bit and just find some element of the, you know, of the Labor plan, of the NBN plan, which is up for debate, because I mean, and purely focus on that.”
In the recording of the meeting, Belsham states: “We’ve got to give you some kind of insurance policy, you know. An insurance policy is an article where you are hard-headed about something to do with [Labor’s] NBN failings, or, you know, potential failings. One of the quite basic failures is it’s not going to happen.”
He also states: “I like the [latest]piece, and I would like to publish it. But I’m just saying, before I can let you do that, so I don’t have screams from the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] floor… we need to give ourselves [some insurance]and say ‘Look, this guy is prepared to be critical of some aspects of [Labor’s Plan], he’s written this tough article about X.
“[It could be] about [Labor’s] marketing [of it’s NBN Plan]… I’ll just leave that ball in your court. That doesn’t have to be the angle.”

https://newmatilda.com/2016/01/21/f...plan-for-insurance-against-coalition-attacks/
 
Did you read your quote.
what I would suggest, to give yourself a bit of capacity to be able to do a few more of these, is to, to just turn the vision around a bit and just find some element of the, you know, of the Labor plan, of the NBN plan, which is up for debate, because I mean, and purely focus on that.”

So he was told to do an article critical of the ALP policy so he could do a few more of these-ie articles critical of the coalition.Of course Mr.Ross is not biased-he says so himself at the beginning of the article.
Then there is this at the end-
Ross’ piece criticizing the use of copper in the National Broadband Network – the piece he sought to have published six months before the 2013 federal election, which led to his controversial meeting with Belsham – did, eventually, get published.
It was released on September 19, ten days after Emma Alberici’s article criticising the copper network finally ran, and almost two weeks after the federal election, which swept the Coalition to victory.

So not gagged just disappointed his article did not appear before the election.Sounds like he believes his article would influence the result.The NBN was nowhere near being the major reason the ALP lost.

Of course on top of that Mr.Ross has admitted to breaking the law secretly taping a conversation.New Matilda have done the same by publishing that conversation.
 
It's a technology issue, there is no ALP or LNP. Yet he was told to find something, anything about the ALP to avoid offending the LNP. WTF?

BTW in NSW, the location of ABC headquarters. It is not illegal to secretly tape a conversation. Illegality depends on the use of that recording.

Did you read your quote.


So he was told to do an article critical of the ALP policy so he could do a few more of these-ie articles critical of the coalition.Of course Mr.Ross is not biased-he says so himself at the beginning of the article.
Then there is this at the end-


So not gagged just disappointed his article did not appear before the election.Sounds like he believes his article would influence the result.The NBN was nowhere near being the major reason the ALP lost.

Of course on top of that Mr.Ross has admitted to breaking the law secretly taping a conversation.New Matilda have done the same by publishing that conversation.
 
For those arguing the value of the proposed NBN under either gov't just be thankful you are at least getting one or the other.
Some of us are not quite so fortunate!
:mad: :( :down:
 
SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 - SECT 7 Prohibition on installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

[h=4]7 Prohibition on installation, use and maintenance of listening devices[/h]
(1) A person must not knowingly install, use or cause to be used or maintain a listening device:
(a) to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party, or​
(b) to record a private conversation to which the person is a party.​
Maximum penalty: 500 penalty units (in the case of a corporation) or 100 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment, or both (in any other case).
 
SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 - SECT 7 Prohibition on installation, use and maintenance of listening devices

7 Prohibition on installation, use and maintenance of listening devices
(1) A person must not knowingly install, use or cause to be used or maintain a listening device:
(a) to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party, or​
(b) to record a private conversation to which the person is a party.​
Maximum penalty: 500 penalty units (in the case of a corporation) or 100 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment, or both (in any other case).


As I wrote, scroll down to subsection 3
(3)Subsection (1) (b) does not apply to the use of a listening device by a party to a private conversation if:
(a) all of the principal parties to the conversation consent, expressly or impliedly, to the listening device being so used, or
(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation:
(i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party, or
(ii) is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.

The guy is A principal party to the conversation, his consent it implied by the fact that he actually recorded the conversation. The prohibition DOES NOT apply depending on the purpose of the recording. His purpose at the time of recording is known only to him, but there is no reason to say that purpose wasn't as per the legislation. Illegality is determined by the use of the recording. But it is not illegal to make the recording in the first place. Precisely as I wrote, twice.

Having looked up the legislation one has to wonder what was so difficult about reading the section that I mentioned.
 
Because he fails the clause you highlighted in that he has supplied the recording to others not party to the conversation and they have published that conversation.

In NSW the law is clear.It is illegal to record a private conversation unless you clearly fall under one of the exemptions.He has now failed your attempted exemption hence his conduct is illegal no matter what his original intentions were.
 
Because he fails the clause you highlighted in that he has supplied the recording to others not party to the conversation and they have published that conversation.

In NSW the law is clear.It is illegal to record a private conversation unless you clearly fall under one of the exemptions.He has now failed your attempted exemption hence his conduct is illegal no matter what his original intentions were.

So you agree with my first post. Why did it take you so long to catch up?
You said making the recording was illegal without any qualification. That is wrong. As I have clearly outlined a number of times. Recording is not illegal, illegality depends on the use of the recording.

BTW You DO NOT know whether the exemption under section 7(3)(a) applies.

Time to stop digging that hole.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top