Govt told to get on with broadband rollout
Posted
Updated
Delay: The Govt is yet to open the bidding process to build the new high speed network (ABC: file photo)
The Federal Opposition has called on the Government to get on with its plan to provide Australians with faster broadband speeds.
The Government had hoped to find a company to build its $4.7 billion National Broadband Network by June this year.
But it is still to open a 12-week bidding window for companies to signal their interest.
Opposition communications spokesman Bruce Billson says the Government has all the information it needs to get the bidding process underway.
"Work was supposed to have started before the end of the year and ... we won't even be close to seeing a bidder selected the way things have been going," he said.
"I think Telstra's assessment, Phil Burgess thought it might not be until September next year before things start happening, he may be well right."
"In this fog of confusion and behind closed doors wheeling and dealing, broadband users and telecommunications companies and the national interest is all just left wondering when it will get a look in in this very confusing process."
Search for news
Comments (99)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Geoff D:
22 Aug 2008 7:15:56am
Well, it may be slow, but it should be done properly. At least the present government seems to have a serious intention to make it happen.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
johnno42:
22 Aug 2008 7:33:38am
so true... good point geoff. i know that the oppositions job is to oppose (everything) but it sure sounds hollow, dunnit??
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
22 Aug 2008 8:55:43am
I don't often take the side of the coalition, but on this case they are correct. Labor did go into the election with this as I believe a core promise with a June 08 selection date. I know that it is important not to rush into things, but if you provide a date you should make every effort to deliver (I sure know the Commonwealth are not as forgiving in my line of work if we don't deliver on time or budget).
I also feel that Telstra did not help the process by denying key information for the open tender process to other bidders. However, being a private company (which we can thank the coalition for) I assume they have every right to protect their interlectual property (which would include information about grids, etc.).Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
22 Aug 2008 9:22:14am
I expect that if Telstra were still a government controlled company they would not have been able to deny the key information that you speak of.
I find it rather hypocritical of the coalition after bastardising the government controlled telecommunications carrier to be demanding a broadband rollout by a certain time. It would be far more appropriate for them to simply remind Australians of the governments false election promises AFFTER the promised date had expired. It seems the coalition still dont accept that they no longer govern.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:33:44am
Newsflash: the promised date was June 08. The government has broken its promise.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
thom:
22 Aug 2008 9:29:51am
Sorry? what? I can't read that, you're breaking up. My internet is too slow.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
stephen:
22 Aug 2008 11:01:13am
Buy a wireless broadband at your local shopping centre. Reception is good. Its cheap. And over 80% of Australians have access.
Is this yet another subsidy for idiots who live in the bush and expect to have the same service as those in the city.
I think it is about time country people faced the realities of life.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Marchpig:
22 Aug 2008 11:39:09am
"Idiots" you say, you better be careful saying such things with a full belly mate, if it weren't for these "Idiots", you'd pretty hard up for a meal.
Typical blinkered, selfish, city centric thinking.
There is no impediment to the bush receiving decent broadband, it's one of the few things that we can have parity with the metro areas.
Just remember when you're squealing 'bout paying $1.50 for fuel, that we have to pay .20 - .70c more per litre. Add to that the fact that we have to travel further just to go about our day to day.
The reality is that without we idiots, you wouldn't last a month in the city.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
thelonenut:
22 Aug 2008 11:41:48am
Whoa, There, Dude - I've met more idiots who live in cities than in the bush, my friend. And I won't even bother to even respond to your somewhat fascistic opinion that people living in non-urban areas should settle for less than their big-smokin' counterparts simply 'cos they choose to live in the "'country" - I thought the Government is obliged to consider all citizens of this country - so bush people's lives are somehow less "sophisticated", that they should be satisfied with extremely poor telco services? ...looks like I HAVE responded to the inane and puerile opinion expressed in this post, haven't I?So There !!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
pete:
22 Aug 2008 11:41:51am
are we a developed country or not. sorry mate but i live in china and the internet im currently connected to (i just checked) is 100mb/s. i think australia's is about 15mb/s. internet and phones work all over this country. i was up in the mountains in the far west of China a month or so ago, 250km from the nearest significant town, at an altitude of 3600m and guess what, i had phone reception. if a country such as china can do it why the frig cant we???
there should be no excuses as to why everyone in this country cannot have access to fast broadband!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
renn:
22 Aug 2008 11:48:33am
Stop bush bashing. We know how it goes. What goes around comes around. You might have to spend time in the bush oneday,see how you survive then. You're the one whinging.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
TB:
22 Aug 2008 11:55:59am
There's an intelligent comment "Idiots who live in the bush".
Let's think about this logically ... firstly wireless broadband is about 5% of the internet speed proposed by the new network.
Secondly, extending the network into the bush will have strategic benefit for the entire nation, including multiple Internet routing in the event of damage to particular cable points and improved communication for emergency services and defence. Not to mention that expansion beyond the small minded capitals where land is plentiful may actually be encouraged.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bertrand:
22 Aug 2008 12:16:43pm
I know people who live 20 minutes from the centre of Brisbane and can only get dial up.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Hekler:
22 Aug 2008 8:23:38am
They went to the election saying they will do this in record time. A rollout commencing June 2008!! Instead all they have done is deny regionals who will never see Fibre to the Node good wireless coverage which if they had not interferred would be 20% complete now and 100% complete by the time this even gets started. RUDD has no idea - sold a bunch of promises that are not even hollow but just down right "I'll get elected at any cost" lies. This was one of the biggest
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
rambo:
22 Aug 2008 11:28:06am
Fast Broadband what is that???
Australia is so far behind the rest of the world in this regard it should be ashamed, second world countries have much better and faster Broadband that we do.
Rudd is a show pony that has promised ANYTHING to get into government and now all he does is galavant around the world pushing his own agenda making himself look good(or so he thinks).
Get back here Mr Rudd and do your job and what you are paid for also what you promised in your election speeches which now are fading into the mist, as expected.
When will the voters ever learn.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
John:
22 Aug 2008 8:46:30am
They can't go any faster, they're still on dial-up.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mike:
22 Aug 2008 10:19:29am
NO kid will live in poverty by 2000 !
NO kid by 2008 will be without a laptop !
NO kid by 2008 will have a slow broadband connection !
Are they gunna export kids to achieve the KevVie 007 Kommitments ?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
22 Aug 2008 10:24:55am
Delay may be successful: technology might make this a. cheaper and b. able to be privately provided
The real issue is how it is being paid for: by intergenerational theft. The Future fund is a super fund for public servants. Take from it and these expenses will come from workers down the track, thereby inflicting gen y and x with (another) Boomer debt. The fund's integrity is more important than subsidy of a faster internet for the few unwilling to pay for it themselves.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Tc:
22 Aug 2008 7:20:57am
Ah - the Labor Government is starting to loose its glitter and shin. Looks like it could be a one term government if it does not lift its game.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mlad:
22 Aug 2008 9:06:21am
hey dr nelson get off the internet
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
22 Aug 2008 9:13:06am
For a one term government we would need a strong oppostion, this one only appears to want to score cheap political points by opposing everything. They remind me a little of the 'boy who cried wolf', which is sad because I'm on their side for this one (but I think most people aren't because they are sick of the constant opposing every current policy).
I feel the Greens will have a lot to gain at the next election if both major parties continue along these lines (also independents).Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
James:
22 Aug 2008 11:09:21am
Ah-ha, this is just a distraction from the Liberal's losership - they need to shack loose the leader they have.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Geoff:
22 Aug 2008 7:28:05am
It constantly amazes me how the Opposition take us for complete fools. They seem to think their job in Opposition is simply to "oppose" and to criticise, regardless of history and their own appalling record on so many of the things they try to take Labor to task for.
Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 8:54:34am
The problem is that the Labor mantra of 11 years of inaction carried a promise with it that not only was it possible to do things, but Labor would get on and do them.
That mantra was combined with a whole bunch of promises like computers in schools and high speed broadband.
Labor election promises weren't qualified by statements that the computers wouldn't come until just before the next election, or that the high speed broadband was only a half baked idea that would take time to think through.
The continual lowering of the standard from 'we will fix it' to 'we're no worse than the last mob' can only lead to the next step of 'we're not too much worse than the last mob'.
How do we all think that will play with the voters next time around?
GET ON WITH IT!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
James:
22 Aug 2008 9:07:04am
It would be a mistake to discount what the opposition is saying because history suggests they are hypocrites. The important thing to concentrate on is whether what they are saying holds water.
The government pledged to have their broadband internet project up and running quickly. Either they made irresponsible promises or they have been slow to act.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jamie Bloomfield:
22 Aug 2008 9:30:52am
The Opposition DO take us for complete fools. No change really from when they were in Government. They sacrificed housing, skills, health, education, aged care, infrastructure, transport et al for cheap political opportunism during their term of Government and it is now Labor who have to provide the fixes and cop the electoral flack. Nelson and Co are opposing for opposition's sake because they are totally devoid of policies, are too preoccupied with internal bickering and positioning over the leadership, and because they still have not come to terms with the fact that they are not in government. As far as I'm concerned, they have no credibility due to 12 years of lies, deceit, corruption, inaction and ineptitude, and therefore have no right TELLING this government what and when they should do something.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:40:40am
Hmmm. I smell a smoke screen.
Don't blow all of Labor's political capital now Jamie. You may need some later on.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
whitelephant:
22 Aug 2008 7:33:13am
I don't particularly care when it happens- but if Trujillo feels he is entitled to a $13million salary-then I am entitled to a significant cut in broadband costs.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
22 Aug 2008 9:06:05am
Don't think it works that way whiteelephant, Trujillo's goal is to maximise profit to the company and share holders. Somehow I don't think that providing significant savings to customers is going to achieve this, it will be gained by providing cheaper solutions (and in Telstra's case probably substandard) and cutting staff costs. Unfortunately Telstra aren't the only teleco doing this in Australia, and I thought competition was supposed to drive prices down (well that's what we were told when Telstra was sold off by the previous government at least) - hope the NSW (labor) state government is paying attention here with your power assets (or you may also go the same way as the previous federal government).
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:17:53am
The sale of public assets isn't a Labor/Liberal thing. It was the next idiotic economic theory after economic rationalism which was also adopted by both sides of politics.
The current idiotic economic theory is carbon trading but that's another subject.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
rocky:
22 Aug 2008 7:33:30am
IMO one of the biggest mistakes the previous govt made was to sell off telstra as a single entity. It should have been divided into a service provider division and an infrastructure division, with the infrastructure remaining in public hands. It was akin to a state govt privatising their main roads work crews and selling ownership of the roads themselves. Utter stupidity for a quick grab at some cash - basically trying to make the howard govt look fiscally responsible by having more big surplusses, while sabotaging the ability for future organic growth by creating a private monopoly.
Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
22 Aug 2008 7:54:49am
Except for the fact that roads don't have a technological aspect. Road infrastructure is hardly dynamic in nature...once you build a road it is, and will always be a road....it won't evolve into something else. It is my belief that Telstra spends over $10 Billion a year in technological research and development alone....just keeping up with the world in the rapidly expanding/competitive and ever evolving telecommunication industry.
Now we all know how Governments are addicted to buckets of money, particularly when it comes to return on investment.....so development thus competitive aspects would surely be compromised if it remained solely in Govt hands....because Govt would want maximum return. Telstra would then have lost it's advantage as a market leader in this respect as other competitors(world-wide) would have overtaken Telstras' technological capabilities.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SpikeyHair:
22 Aug 2008 8:45:47am
i'd like to know what Telstra spends $10 billion a year on - we don't exactly have the best telecommunications system in the world - and I for one would be very interested to know what "research" costs $10 billion a year. A YEAR mind you...
i'd also like to know why everything remains so expensive, given that they rake in $10 b a year profit to use on "research".
i know that my phone bills are excessive - i hardly make any phone calls, the services that i have aren't "technologically brilliant", and as for "remaining competitive" - tell me again who Telstra competes with? Optus and all the other phone providers depend on Telstra to supply them with lines. My phone bill is around $200 a month and I only make around 20 calls in that time, each fairly short.
I had to wait 5 months for a landline - the Telstra technician who came to install the line put in an outdated phone jack and the line didn't work - instead it buzzed until a contractor came and replaced that line, which cost me another $100. I had to wait a further 4 months for a broadband connection. My mobile phone still has no reception at all inside my house - to have a conversation on my mobile phone I have to go and stand in the middle of the road. Is this a service I should be paying $30 a month for?
Tell me again - what technology is Telstra using???
The Howard Government spent 13 years sitting on their hands and now the Liberal Opposition is bending over backwards to try and force the Rudd Government to move quicker than lightning. The question I'd like to ask is: why don't they do something more positive - instead of using the Senate to block everything that Labor wants to move on.
The Liberals when in Government appointed Mr Truillijo and he sits in his office earning a $13 million salary - tell me again what his role is exactly???
Given a $10 billion profit to spend on research I think I would have achieved something by now - Truillijo has been sitting in his office for how many years now? What are his achievements thus far???Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:23:26am
Quicker than lightening? Everything up to and possibly including the drought is the result of that evil nasty man?
The 13 years (it's getting longer apparently) mantra will come back to bite Labor in the bum
GET ON WITH IT.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bruce:
22 Aug 2008 12:09:02pm
Imagine the service we could have had by now if the previous government had devoted more time to make it happen and less time desperately selling Telstra.
Liberal staffers should get off public forums and start getting on with helping their team come up with some policy. One policy of any kind would at least be a start.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
22 Aug 2008 9:31:30am
Hi SpikeyHair....don't get me wrong..I'm in no way an advocate for Telstra...quite frankly i wouldn't touch them and their overpriced products with a barge pole anymore. When I was in rural areas I had to rely on them because that is all you could get. Other providers had no service so I realy feel for people still in this situation. Without exageration, my bills have halved by changing providers. Because of business I have 4 mobile phones....3 hardlines....and 2 ISP....so the savings in my case were considerable.
I don't know exactly what they spend their research dollars on but consider the advancement of technology in this field and then think to your self what Microsoft would spend on research and development in a year and you would find it would be a drop in a bucket. In your comment you stated telstra rakes in $10B PROFIT to use on research....it wouldn't be profit...it would be an operating cost.
But one thing I know.....Governments should not be in this industry as they are the biggest procrastinators in the business world....hardly a partner/boss you want in the telecommunications business these days. They were alright back when hardlines...basic mobile services...and when internet first came on the scene but in this day and age they live in a world of procrastination....thus they cannot keep up with the world.
In a way and to some degree, this article validates my comments....see the stalling by the gov....ohhh we haven't organised the tenders yet and we MIGHT put it off until next year....yawn....see what I mean....typical.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
elsa:
22 Aug 2008 7:58:08am
i agree. the communications infrastructure of the country is far too important to be run for profit. especially in a country like australia, where delivering broadband to regional areas will always be unprofitable.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
22 Aug 2008 8:11:11am
But elsa, telstra was (prior to privatisation) getting run for a profit....a very tidy profit....for the Government. Let's face it....Governments cant even return the fuel excise back into transport infrastructure ie...roads and bridges etc...as the excise was originally designed to do. How could we then expect them (Gov) to give the appropriate consideration to the rapid data and telecommunication technological evolution. They would have stymied development and sucked it dry....
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
22 Aug 2008 9:19:47am
You don't work for Telstra do you Chappy?
As far as I can see, since the sale of Telstra we get the same substandard services at a higher cost (hardly the improvements you lead me to believe). Tell me where is all that money going Chappy? (my guess is into the share holders pockets).Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
22 Aug 2008 10:48:08am
Gidday Ben....no (lol) I don't work for telstra buddy....never have. My best friend did though...27 years...he's happy now.
The substandard services you speak of fairly well documented. But to objectively make a comparison of before (privatisation) and now is to some degree very difficult because they're not necessarily providing the same level of technology or capitalisation. It's a moving target....comparing aples with oranges...that sort of thing
For instance...10 years ago how many of us thought you would be able to watch the Olympic Games on your phone?...I would say most of us would have been astonished.....look how far the internet has changed the way we do business, it's awesome. Governments were OK in cotrolling basic stuff like landlines etc...but it's a whole new world today.
I know it can only be a hypothetical argument... but I strongly doubt that with all of the advancement we have seen lately, and with a view to the future, the situation would be any better if it was still in Gov. hands/control. The Gov (past and present) just don't have the gumption to keep up with it....
regardsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:00:49am
Spot on. The sale of Telstra was ideologically driven by economic rhetoric mouthed at various times by governments of all persuasions.
It is fine to say that management of the asset should be subject to competition but public infrastructure should never be in private hands.
The economists who advocated the sale of public assets were completely unable to differentiate between banks and banking services and infrastructure. What a pack of self-serving dills!Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
peacenik:
22 Aug 2008 11:40:16am
Those "dills" raked in millions of $ in fees with each part of Telstra sold.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Roland:
22 Aug 2008 7:36:12am
Are we seeing the usually hot air develop again from the current government?
I'm still waiting to see them fork out a laptop for each child in school... now they've take the opportunity to get Dad's (or Mum's) hand me down through the company salary sacrifice away...
Start doing stuff for goodness sakes!!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lancelot U.K:
22 Aug 2008 7:53:06am
About time that someone looked at the pricing of services in Australia. In the U.K I pay $36 a month. For that I get all phone calls after 6pm and Saturday and Sundays for FREE. All calls to anywhere abroad in the world FREE, all of the time. AND that includes Broadband with unlimited use 24 hours a day, no limits.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
GG:
22 Aug 2008 8:12:54am
The UK has a much larger population than Aust. to contribute to the cost. Naturally it will cost more per user for Aust.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
GrumpyNoMore:
22 Aug 2008 8:15:08am
Well if we had the population of the UK to share the outlay we would probably have something like that by now too!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mark:
22 Aug 2008 8:40:01am
I think it has nothing to do with population size but lack of good competition. Canada's population is only a bit bigger than Australia's but their internet services are on a par with the US. At least there ought to be a good ISP in Australia giving unlimited use. None of this download limit rubbish. Even third world countries don't have these limits.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:25:54am
How do we got competition when one company owns the infrastructure that is used by all providers?
The problem is Telstra. The solution is to take back the infrastructure into public ownership.
THEN you might see some competition.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Anton:
22 Aug 2008 10:56:58am
Actually Mark and Lancelot, you're both taking somewhat simplistic views of the situation.
It has everything to do with geography. The cost of transporting data into, around and out of Australia is higher than US/UK/Canada because they have lots of *capacity* - major data links, yeah? Big stonkin cables which transmit the data from one place to another.
It's not like you send information out into the ether, and from there it's "magigically transported over teh internets!!!"
That data needs a transfer medium. The more of those transfer mediums you have, the easier it is to transfer data. The easier it is, the cheaper it is. Unfortunately geographically, Australia is large, and very far away from everything else - there are one or two major datalinks from Asia into Australia (Anyone ever wonder why when an earthquake near Taiwan breaks a major underwater cable why lots of users in Australia lose their net?).
Within Australia you have an issue where due to the spread out populace you require an equally spread out infrastructure, and it's not just enabled phone exchanges I'm talking here... You also need Service Providers to have data centres and other infrastructure placed in such a way that they're close enough to regional centres that they're not spending a fortune trying to establish a viable quick and cost efficient data link out to wherever it is that Mr and Mrs Regional Australian live.
Saying "Oh these countries can do it" is just simplistic, ignorant, and if you're stubbornly hanging on to this point of view simply because you don't want to get kicked off your high horse, it's also arrogant.
These countries you're citing don't necessarily have the same structural issues that Australia has. You're comparing Apples with Oranges - Don't take my word for it... Ask someone who works for a project area within a major industry player like Powertel, iiNet/OzEmail, Amcom... anyone who actually deals with laying their own structure down and who isn't dependant on Telstra Wholesale as a provider for absolutely everything they use infrastructure-wise. You'll see it's not as simple as you're making out.
If you can get around to solving THAT geo-economic issue my friends, you'll not only kill that problem with Australia's speed, but you'll also kill the less often mentioned and equally vexing problem of the cost of data-quotas that come with your whiz bang new broadband service... anyone who's tried living with a Telstra/Optus 200Mb per month account will know EXACTLY what I'm talking about there....Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
I.OBSERVE:
22 Aug 2008 9:29:49am
United Kingdom = 94,247 sq miles land mass.
Australia = 2.965,368 sq miles land mass.
I think the problems and cost involved in Australia are slightly
different to the U.K.
However I agree this Government will need to show some get
up and go soon on more issues than Broadband .Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bruce:
22 Aug 2008 12:15:58pm
And after decades of building the copper network to cover most of that 2.965,368 sq miles, the taxpayers were shafted by having their greatest asset sold out from under them.
Oh well, at least some of them got something back when the proceeds were used to porkbarrel certain marginal electorates.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
renn:
22 Aug 2008 7:44:39am
We had ONEWIRE wireless broadband before the election last year, rolled out by John Howards govt. and the Australian people. It was great but has been sold off.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Clawdia:
22 Aug 2008 7:49:24am
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the broadband idea Howard's in the first place? So why is the opposition going on about Rudd not bringing it on? They don't really have anything constructive to say, all they seem to be doing is knocking everything Rudd does instead of mentioning stuff they'd like to do.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:04:58am
By definition you cannot knock what somebody does when they are doing nothing. The government is being criticised for inaction, the same allegation they made against the previous government.
The biggest problem is the apparent control freak personality of the prime minister. When every decision down to the latest sound bite has to be approved at the very top, a backlog is inevitable.
Loosen up Mr Rudd.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bruce:
22 Aug 2008 12:19:48pm
Funny, local newspapers (Yorke pen. SA) were full of news about the brand new broadband service last week. Maybe you will have to check local press for the good news as our ABC seems to be here just to give Liberal staffers something to do until 2 o'clock each work day.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
-
-
JamesFloggs:
22 Aug 2008 7:51:09am
Don't let Telstra or Optus in to do it, they will just stuff it up. I work in telecomms, let one of the "smaller" communications companies to provide the network needed!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
RuAlright:
22 Aug 2008 8:34:29am
As good as that would be James, the smaller companies just don't have the resources available to do so - it will goto Telstra in the end anyways, it's just a matter of the government to stop procrastinating and make a decision in other words - after a nice back room deal has been negotiated.....which im guessing is what we are all waiting on
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Henryk Kay:
22 Aug 2008 7:53:02am
this is typical of the opposition who are determined to cause trouble by doing it slower and taking their time it will be done properly and less risk of mistakes been made I say to the opposition get out of way
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:06:50am
We are talking about laying a bunch of cable in the ground, and then hooking it up to provide services.
The first phase could have been started 6 months ago.
This perfectionist, control freak attitude will be the death of this government.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MT:
22 Aug 2008 11:02:03am
Im wondering who really has the perfectionist attitude here, those who allow a delay in the tendering process, or those who demand it must end by the planned date no matter what.
The Liberals are just quibbling over the finer points. At least it seems that we will get a decent broadband upgrade - 6 months or a year late, probably, but then when did a communications/IT project ever run on time?Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
-
-
dragon:
22 Aug 2008 7:55:18am
Kev and Co. is finding out that promises made during elections are harder to keep than anticipated. But I am glad it's going ahead though and the sooner the better. Even countries like India are laughing at our broadband infrastructure.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
yomumas:
22 Aug 2008 8:14:42am
Your comment would be valid if it was Kev and Co's tenth year in power, instead of bearly their first.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 10:03:04am
The government needs to lift its game, otherwise there won't be a fourth year let alone a tenth.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Spank:
22 Aug 2008 10:12:36am
Labor had 11 years to come up with alternative policies. They came up with reviews and committees.
Labor is now in government and responsible for delivering the promises that people voted them in for, yet people still explain their failure on the previous government. They committed to this date and they have not delivered.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Steve:
22 Aug 2008 8:05:09am
We don't need it. 4.7 billion dollars of TAX MONEY - that's $400 per person, or $1,600 per family of 4. In reality it will be something like $16,000 per family as most people who want a broadband already have one. Just think about it: $16,000 per family! Wy too expensive. Give it back to the taxpayers.
We already have 2 cable networks (Telstra and Optus), DSL, 2 3G networks - what's wrong with those? I had Optus cable, works very well, used it for work-related purposes, my typical usage was 200 - 300 MB (MB, not GB) per month.
Why do peole need 20 GB per month and more? To download movies. Since most are made in the US we don't care about copyright, do we?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Batch:
22 Aug 2008 8:25:34am
Yeh, heres a better idea - lets spend the 4.7 billion on climate change policy....or um....a committee to examine the relevance of committees....Ahhhh haaa haaa...money well spent for Australia's future - spend it wisely and carefully.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kat:
22 Aug 2008 8:32:27am
Steve: 'we already have 2 cable networks (Telstra & Optus) ...-what's wrong with those?" I'll tell you what's wrong......I have a country property around 45 K from a town of 45,000 I can't get anything like broadband......a 56k dial up or sat.
In town, where I run my own business I have VERY expensive adsl......from one of the 'what's wrong with those' above.
'Why do people need 20Gig per month and more?' Not just to download movies Steve........my business is such that I have to do a lot of up and downloading........not movies, business.
By the way.......not everyone is the same as you Steve.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Steve:
22 Aug 2008 9:06:16am
So this is exactly what I thought: the money will be spend
mostly for benefit of people living in rural and regional areas.
Give them cash instead, let them spend it the way the want it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
RuAlright:
22 Aug 2008 11:35:34am
Gee shame that ey, not the rural and regional sectors.... Wouldn't want them to be part of the country now would we....
Ignorance is an everyday state of mind for you isn't it Steve..Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
mlad:
22 Aug 2008 9:19:03am
how do you download 20gb of business
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
billy J:
22 Aug 2008 8:45:51am
i have optus broadband with 9 GB per month, its because myself and my girlfriend both purchase music from Itunes, i also have used 2 GB in just watching vids on youtube in a month, thats why they have the massive GB
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Rob:
22 Aug 2008 8:22:36am
If Telstra are involved then we WILL be overcharged for broadband services!
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
billy J:
22 Aug 2008 8:48:10am
...overcharged, under serviced and only works half the time
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
peacenik:
22 Aug 2008 11:51:32am
Ahh billy J. If only this were true! Maybe my Telstra T2 shares would be worth what I paid for them (7.40)!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Dresden:
22 Aug 2008 8:25:28am
This really is so long overdue. In terms of the broadband speed and levels of access other western nations currently enjoy, Australia is really in the dark ages. My only request is please don't get Telstra inolved or things will be even worse than they are now.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ray:
22 Aug 2008 8:29:04am
The national broadband network is more about a nayional infrastructure, similar to roads, electricity, water ect. To give this to a private monopoly is sheer madness!!
If you look at any big privatisation of utilities in this country they all share a common element, that is prices go up faster than inflation, more people are screwed by deceptive contracts and unfair terms.
If we are to have a truely national network that is competitive and available it should be owned by the people for the people under a public authority. Access to the network should be truely universal and transparent with access pricing and terms made public. Then lets see how telstra competes when it is forced to compete on a level playing field.
Me thinks Sol might find he need to quit quickly and take his very golden parchute back to america.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
RuAlright:
22 Aug 2008 8:52:09am
"If we are to have a truely national network that is competitive and available it should be owned by the people for the people under a public authority. Access to the network should be truely universal and transparent with access pricing and terms made public. Then lets see how telstra competes when it is forced to compete on a level playing field."
That is called Wishful Thinking..... and we are all thinking it !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:11:51am
The government is committed to using Telstra for this project. There will be no possibility of any competitive environment when Telstra owns the asset.
The Australian government MUST own this asset.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Get Real:
22 Aug 2008 8:47:44am
The problem with the whole telephone/broadband problems lie totally at the feet of Hawke and Keating. In a mad scramble for cash in the early 90's they sold a telecom licence to a consortium named OPTUS. What they should have done was split Telecom Australia (Telstra's previous name) into 2 parts - Network and Sales&services. Then issued further licences to onsellers. Instead what we got was 2 identical cable rollouts which resulted in 4-5 billion being wasted and stymieing further progress for over 10 years. Only now is the Telstra cable becoming profitable and Optus's is nearly there. This would also have created true competition. They screwed it then and they'll do it all over again. The Fibre to the Node project should at minimum be 35% government controlled via the future fund - because it is our future and it stops it being a political football.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
tonyg:
22 Aug 2008 8:51:06am
How are we to get universal broadband if we cannot even get universal mobile phone coverage? I drove from Darwin to Broome recently and only had (Optus) coverage in Darwin, Katherine and Broome. Had I needed to make an emergency call anywhere else on the trip, I was in trouble.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
60+:
22 Aug 2008 10:48:43am
Emergency service is available on all GSM phones on 112. Although there is no mobile coverage on large parts of the route you mention an emergency call would go through on the TELSTRA networh even if your phone is OPTUS, it will even work without a SIM if the phone lets you.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Roberto:
22 Aug 2008 9:03:40am
Well I live in a dream world, but I dream that this might be a golden opportunity for a progressive government to finally "get it right"! How about a telecom revolution too Kev!??
Why don't we just make the big decision to go ALL satellite. Set up broadband satellite, and then convert telephone and TV and radio technology to satellite. Get rid of all the wires, get rid of the ratty, falling phone poles and rusty junction boxes. Maybe then Australia can join the 21st century and we will actually be a "leader" in this technology?
Surely ASIO and our CIA friends can get us off to a running start with their satellite facilities already in place here? Have it run by the gov't (I agree with others, NOT Telstra!!) and if it makes a profit in the decades to come, all the better.
It would be a funny irony: to sell off Telstra for all the $$$ you can get, then start up a satellite Telco to overtake them in the market! I love it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
22 Aug 2008 9:29:44am
Too much latency and not enough bandwidth.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
60+:
22 Aug 2008 10:54:31am
The public AUSSAT service was given to OPTUS as part of their licence agreement. If ADSL seems expensive check out their satellite rates.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jim:
22 Aug 2008 9:56:36am
All this opposition bleating about Rudd's performance on Telecommunications.
I still hold some $6000 of Telstra shares that I paid Howard and his cohorts $10000 for !! !!!
I would not have minded so much if my $4000 loss had gone into modern network infrastructure , instead of pleasing the Gnomes of Zurich.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
mick:
22 Aug 2008 10:25:51am
jim, theres many more in your boat, my uncle has lost close to $10,000, i think he got something like $60,000 in shares, now worth under $50k
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Clownfish:
22 Aug 2008 10:02:15am
I remember hearing Stephen Conroy in an ABC radio interview before the election, touting the ALP's broadband policy, in which he stated that it would "deliver internet speed 40% faster than the present speed - that's 400 times faster!"
I was appalled that the interviewer didn't jump on it, and I also thought that, if that's the best maths the ALP can do, we're screwed.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kathy:
22 Aug 2008 11:30:45am
I would not trust them with my kid piggy bank money period...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
tracer:
22 Aug 2008 10:18:24am
I live in a Perth suburb and do not even have access to fast broadband.
So much for Labour's promise. It's one year after the election and NOTHING has been done about this issue.
Thanks for nothing Kevin