Hiding the NBN business plan not a good political one

Joel B1 says:

05:21pm | 18/11/10

Absolute rubbish. “Essential Infrastructure” is code for “I want to download porn faster”. “Cause that’s all it’s good for.

Keith Hammersmith says:

05:23pm | 18/11/10

essential infrastructure that needs to be built?  - A matter of opinion at best. I work in the IT industry, and the overwhelming consensus from people that understand the changing internet technologies is that hard lines will be a thing of the past soon.
Tech is changing so fast
wireless is the future, it gets better and better every day, 

also explains the reluctunce to produce the business plan…

the real point is that by the time the NBN is completed it will be antiquated technology, and as it showed in tests in tasmania, most people wont use it because it is too expensive to justify for a speed upgrade.

so in actuality Badger, it being commercially viable does in fact matter, to think otherwise is just welll..  silly and self serving.
If it is too expensive for most people to use, then why make it? 
Because Labor has invested too much talk about it to go back on yet another election promise?

not a good enough reason,

produce the business plan,
show Australians what the real cost and effectiveness will be
let parliment make its mind up with all the facts.

Rosie says:

05:28pm | 18/11/10

Badger one question for you; “What is your dear Julia Gillard hiding???? The NBN that is.

Gillard and her team are losing their way again or should I say the Rudd/Gillard Govt never ever got back on track. On Question Time today there was clear indication the woman is losing it!

TimB says:

05:43pm | 18/11/10

How is it essential Badger?

There is nothing that we need (read that again, NEED) to be able to do that we can’t do now.

Any applications that the faster speeds might have will in no way justify a $43 billion dollar expenditure.

Phil says:

05:47pm | 18/11/10

Badger. And how much are you personally prepared to pay for 100mbps per month. Or do you want it for free. Is you home wired up for the technology or do you expect this again for free. Will you pay the $1-3,000 to wire up your home or are you so blinded by labors BS that you will agree with this project regardless of its outcome. Do you expect you kids to pay for this over the next 50 years.
If they have nothing to hide why not release the business case and recommendations.
This project is 50% of our greatest previous government debt, Well before this bunch of no hopers got in anyway.

Andrew says:

06:38pm | 18/11/10

The Badger is completely correct - this is essential infrastructure. You see, once Senator Conroy and Co are done putting a mandatory filter on the internet, it will be so slow that the only way to bring it back up to speeds comparable to what they are now.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:49pm | 18/11/10

Joolya is hiding something or no business plan existed in the first place . We are still waiting for detailed costings and i’ll be surprised if the bill to taxpayers isn’t a lot higher than the $47 billion touted by Swan.
Something is radically wrong with this project . Lets hope we find out the truth before being committed to another Labor economic disaster.

Bruce says:

07:04pm | 18/11/10

Badger: If you do not pay any tax now or into the future I guess it does not matter to you. Where do you think the money comes from ??? TAX PAYERS. I want to know that the NBN project, is a commercial reality.  If its so good then the business case should be a lay down success, and if it is great, lets have it. Otherwise, whats to hide. If labor was in opposition they would be screeming for the business case. Any opposition would just not let a government get away with it.

MDMConnell says:

07:33pm | 18/11/10

You could argue a 250km/h train connecting Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane was “essential infrastructure”. Would you support building that without any sort of detailed costing/benefit study?

Ben81 says:

08:07pm | 18/11/10

“It really doesn’t matter if the NBN is commercially viable”
...ok, moving on…

What Badger means to say, and may as well just paste into every political comment he makes with no exception yet that i’m aware of, is “No policy or project delivered by a Labor government in the past or future should be questioned under any circumstance, they are completely infallible and they know better than you.”

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

10:56pm | 18/11/10

If they upgrade all the very old copper in the inner city & gave us country folk wi max it would be almose as fast & save a bundle, Oz can’t afford 43 billion. would you buy a car without seeing it? ? ? No & we shouldn’t buy this without seeing the costings, not to mention if this follows all the other Dullard/Dudd fiascos you’ve got to know it will cost a bundle more

BobbyDan says:

11:11pm | 18/11/10

Why should I wait in the bush to down load anything, note that Joel B1, that interests me?

DaHof says:

12:02am | 19/11/10

Badger, your argument in three short lines in totally internally inconsistent.  If it were essential infrastructure that needed to be built, private enterprise would have already built or be on the way to building it because customers would be willingly paying a very high price which in turn would generate the profit level required for private enterprise to be willing to take the risk to undertake the venture.  You are an idiot, go and learn economics before you write such drivel again.

acotrel says:

05:45am | 19/11/10

When you bought your first computer, did you really know its capability?  I recently bought a much faster model, and I’m still finding more interesting applications for it?  The NBN will be the same.  Until it’s available we won’t be able to assess it’s real capabilities.  The monetary input will always be done on blind faith.  Julia Gillard has only just begun to realise that the NBN is central to every issue she has ever promoted to improve the future for Australia’s people!  Abbott would have us being taught from the bible by a lot of frustrated old men! And relying on God to treat our illnesses.

Macca says:

06:47am | 19/11/10

Essential Infrastructure would be world class highways, rail networks and ports. Our export industries are already battling with increadibly poor supply chains, housing prices and the cost of living is going up as accessibility to basic services and jobs is becoming increasingly more difficult and our Education and Hospital systems are constantly having to turn people back or put them on waiting lists.

The final product of the NBN will probably be wonderful. But for $43bn, we’ve missed a massive opportunity.

To say this project is the best way to improve the lives of average Australians, by spending $43bn, is a complete lie.

Macca says:

06:47am | 19/11/10

Essential Infrastructure would be world class highways, rail networks and ports. Our export industries are already battling with increadibly poor supply chains, housing prices and the cost of living is going up as accessibility to basic services and jobs is becoming increasingly more difficult and our Education and Hospital systems are constantly having to turn people back or put them on waiting lists.

The final product of the NBN will probably be wonderful. But for $43bn, we’ve missed a massive opportunity.

To say this project is the best way to improve the lives of average Australians, by spending $43bn, is a complete lie.

Tom says:

07:51am | 19/11/10

@ Badger and BobbyDan. The problem with your Labor spruiking is that you already can download in most parts of the bush. People are sceptical on your assertion that people in the bush will somehow perish without 100MBps.

Your second problem is that people in the bush have second rate medical services and other infrastructure while the NBN “White Elephant” diverts funding from the here and now needs of our community.

There are other solutions available. If a car is “essential” Badger, a Rolls Royce is not “essential” if you can afford a Holden.

“Essential” Badger? You are using sophistry to confuse the reader Badger. At $43 billion (or so we are told), it is not “essential”. It is extravagent Labor waste. The issue is too important for political spivs to dominate the debate.

Adam Diver says:

07:56am | 19/11/10

If it is essential infrastructure, then no commercial case in necessary. However 43B + need to be added to the governments bottom line.

The issue is that no-one is going to take it up, the cost will be far too prohibitive for the average consumer. There is no doubt they over-reached on this one FTTH is simply absurd.

The main reason you know this wont work is that all the commercial entities wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole when it was originally touted as a private/public undertaking. They had probably seen or created thier own business case for this.

Also I still havent seen a relevant reason to have such insane high speeds to every house. A modest imporvement in most places would be sufficient.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

07:58am | 19/11/10

@ Keith Hammersmith

I also work in It and I disagree with you. Hard lines will not become a thing of the past because too many applications require low latency and security to name but a couple of reasons. Yes, wireless is becoming faster (CSIRO are developing a technology to allow near-gigabit speeds over wireless), but then, so is fibre. What’s more even ADSL will improve as will DOCSIS (what you get with Bigpond and Optus cable).

And wireless is shared bandwidth. For every person accessing a wireless gateway, the effective bandwidth to each individual is decreased.

The argument will boil down to mobility and setup. If you want to be mobile or you can’t be arsed cabling your premises, then wireless may well be a good option.

As for the NBN in general, I think it is a good idea. However, I do not believe it is necessary to do it all in one hit, given the current economic climate. If Krudd and Gillard had not blown so much money on shoddy pink batts and school building rorts, then maybe. But a better solution would be what the Coalition proposed. Put the competitive backhaul (the fibre trunks between towns) in now and then build out progressively, starting with Telstra-imposed blackspots, such as RIM’d estates. Use ADSL in most places, HFC cable in others, wireless for remote or inaccessible areas.

The main thing was to get competition and reduce Telstra’s monopoly. The huge mistake made by the Howard Government was in gifting Telstra the infrastructure and then allowing them to become vertically integrated ie wholesale, retail and content. They were the ‘default’ provider and as a public company with the same sort of board and shareholder structure as other greedy bastards like NAB and Westpac, they were ALWAYS going to shaft their wholesale customers and end-users alike.

We need structural separation of Telstra and we need competitive backhaul - what we do not need is Gillard and Conroy killing off Telstra and simply replacing it with NBNCo once it is sold. One monopoly would be as bad as another.

Sprie says:

08:00am | 19/11/10

Geez Badger….........I wish someone would download you…........But than maybe you belong on the totally uninformed shelf…............Forever…......

Ciao Buddy

@craiglambie says:

08:26am | 19/11/10

@The Badger is absolutely correct.
My father lives in the country, just 3 km out of the CBD of Bendigo you can’t even get ADSL2 as it is to far from the exchange.  You also can’t get Cable, as a town of 80,000 people is not big enough for a cable company to come install in the streets.
It is not commercially viable to install any essential services into the streets of places like this.  Telecom did it as it was Govt owned and operated, and was legislated to provide “equal” services to all, as was Telstra as part of the deal it got when privatised.
Now NBN Co will carry that torch for regional Australians.
I think it is interesting how people debate on immigration and suggest we have all this space, but forget it is empty arid land with no infrastructure like the simple ability to communicate.

@Keith Hammersmith I totally disagree with your comments about Wireless.  For starters the technology is at least 10 years away from being good enough to cover half of what the NBN will offer now.  I recently used a “business grade” wireless ‘fibre’ connection for a workshop where I needed the speed of fibre to run 40 computers on the net concurrently - ADSL2 would of done a better job - this is the best on offer today.
Secondly the amount of energy required to send 100 Mbps down a wireless line instead of a fixed line must be at least 1000 x, and given our current increasing costs of energy, increasing demand is not going to help with this.
Thirdly the less waves and spectrum floating about through the air the better off we are from a health perspective.  Have you ever heard of anyone doing a study on Mobile Towers and people getting cancer - RMIT Melbourne.
How about on Fixed line causing cancer / disease - NO.

NBN is the best thing we can install, regardless of the cost.
Regional - So we can have equal distribution and access to the internet across 93% of the country. This will also encourage regional development, thereby reducing stress on the groaning cities.
Metropolitan - As the copper networks need replacing and expanding so why not with the best proven technology from today, the Govt is not an early adopter, nor will it ever be.

I think the Liberals and supporters of the Wireless would have us wait another 20 years.

I live in the CBD of Melbourne and enjoy up to 1 MB/s on ADSL2+ mostly because I am near the exchange. http://www.screencast.com/t/ZDMyZTdkMWEt

I am not a member or employee of any political party.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:54am | 19/11/10

@craiglambie

Ask someone other than Telstra. There are a number of providers who have equipment in both Bendigo and Kangaroo Flat exchanges and 3Km (even with a cable length of 4km) is doable with ADSL2. The speed won’t be great, but it will be better than nothing. If you have a spare copper pair and can get naked ADSL2, then the result will be even better.

Keith Hammersmith says:

11:23am | 19/11/10

@ graiglambie,  to be honest, your ergument is not very good. I doubt your knowledge of the IT sector entirley, in fact I do not hear to many IT experts claiming a good reason to not use wireless is that it causes cancer….

you also say that you think that wiresless tech is 10 years away from being as good ,  your wrong it wont take that long, but even if it does, how long do you thnk it would take to finish the NBN???
IE antequated tech before its finished. thats my point,  you dont spend 50k on a diesle car when hydrogen fuel cell cars come out in 6 months….

now, the argument about the small % of the population that live in the country,  they need faster broadband so the country should go broke supplying them with it…...
they make their choices, there are Pros and cons living everywhere, I put up with traffic every day and have faster internet at home,  soo - a pro and a con,  if you dont like living in the country, - move you get clean air, no traffice a mellower life style,  probably the reasopn people choose to live in the country, if their internet is slower, ok tech is changing - be patient.

@CraigLambie says:

11:24am | 19/11/10

@Tony of Poorakistan

I was simply using Bendigo as an example.  As you can see in this graph, ADSL 2 may as well be ADSL after 3km….
http://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/adsl/extreme/performance/ My father uses Bendigo Community Telco, which is one of the best ISPs in Bendigo, def not Telstra.

The point is that Exchanges are not ubiquitous, but NBN will ensure 100 Mbps is as distance from the exchange will never matter, hence why we need it in regional Australia.

James Hunter says:

01:04pm | 19/11/10

spot on, it is like rail and roads and water. all things that until the privatisation idiocy of recent times were concidered part of building a nsation. the north south telegraph the rail to perth the water to the west australian gold fields the snowy mountains scheme.  no one cared it it made a profit because the government owned it and did it for the people. now with rampant privatisation   big business makes squillions cost go up and up and we the people are working for the service prtoviders instead of the op[posite.
Capitalists do things for one reason only . profit for themselves.
look at the appaling decline in service levels at Telstra since it was privatised. alwaysanouncements of we will cut another 9,000 jobs so that we can inprove service. pure lies and piffle.

acotrel says:

07:25am | 19/11/10

Macca, ‘To say this project is the best way to improve the lives of average Australians, by spending $43bn, is a complete lie.’

The same sort of thing could have been said about the costs of inventing the wheel!  Intellectual development of the average Australian is critical t o our future success in the global economy. The NBN will give that factor a major boost. Julia Gillard’s BER might sound like just a bit more spin to you, but you’ll believe what you want to believe, to justify your political bent towards the luddite conservatives!

Tom says:

08:06am | 19/11/10

@ acotrel. Blind optimism has its limitations.

Using ad hominems such as “Luddites” etc is a tawdry device to divert us from the business realities. I am not a Luddite but I am extremely sceptical that an effective solution is not available a whole lot cheaper.

Just tell your man to stop hiding the business case. PS, government did not invent the wheel.

TimB says:

08:36am | 19/11/10

Still haven’t mastered the ability to reply to the right comments yet have you Acrotel? We know you can do it so why the hell don’t you?

Also the argument that the NBN is critical to our future economy is a lie. Don’t Labor keep spruiking the fact that our economy is going gangbusters despite the GFC? (This is true, but their policies have bugger all to do with it). There are many countries around the world with superior internet infrastructure….yet their economies aren’t anywhere near as healthy as ours. Which just goes to show you, needessly fast internet is not a critical factor to the nation’s economic growth. For the most part, what we already have is perfectly fine already.

Upgrade the bush areas sure, but the sheer scale of this project is a waste.

Oncely Twicely says:

10:46am | 19/11/10

When your laboured justification doesn’t stack up, when your hypothesis starts to crumble, when even your best friends start walking away and the dog eats your lunch, resort to name calling, acotrel; I always do. It may not win the day but it does allow you a short spurt of self-satisfaction, like masturbation. Trog trog trog nyaaah! See?

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:20pm | 19/11/10

This is a good point - if Gillard is using the expense of the NBN as a reason to delay the release of the document until they have ‘‘run a fine tooth comb’’ through it…....why did she not do the same with the Pink Batt Fiasco (which ended up actually killing people, not just being an horrendous waste of money) and the BER Rorts Debacle where billions were wasted on tin sheds? Why, in those cases, did the ALP Govt simply push ahead without a care? What is different here? $43Billion vs $14Billion - when does the size of the bill become important?

Gary says:

06:00pm | 18/11/10

Agreed, if the product is good we will pay for it.

The evasiveness of our leadership is making me thinking there is a black hole in the document and we are not worthy of seeing it. Speculating on the reason, 1) it wont work, 2) it will cost 90M 3) Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra get it 100% cause they are so close and the rest well…. just pay for it alright!!!

fairsfair says:

06:08pm | 18/11/10

LOL, I hope the heading of the plan (if we ever see it) includes the technical descriptors of “whiz bang shit hot”.

BobbyDan says:

11:14pm | 18/11/10

How’s the hangover?

acotrel says:

05:51am | 19/11/10

NicoleG, Did you take your grumpy pills this morning?  Personally I’d love to see Telstras costings and price justifications, but it’s never going to happen! The business case will be released in December, and that part won’t be in it! It’s irrelevant anyway.  Abbott has already decided what he wants done about the hi-tech future of Australia!

NicoleG says:

08:39am | 19/11/10

@fairsfair, wouldn’t that be funny. That’s what they say it is (just not in those words), so it should be included. He he he

@BobbyDan, I’m all better today, thank you and thank God.

@acotrel, Jeez I don’t need grumpy pills, it’s just natural. Imagine if I took them? It wouldn’t be nice.

simon says:

12:05pm | 19/11/10

And the problem with the NBN is that if it does cost too much for the average person, then there will be very limited other options except for wireless but that will be weakened by this plan. At the moment broadband plans are getting cheaper and download limits are increasing. That will be a thing of the past once the NBN is built. The government will be looking to increase the wholesale cost of it each year by CPI just to make it viable. Ever increasing costs compared to decreasing internet costs overseas. We will be shafted and ripped off again in Australia!!!!

Northern Steve says:

08:29pm | 21/11/10

@Acotrel, I don’t know if I am going to get the NBN, being rural, but if so, it’ll cost the taxpayers about $40,000 to get fibre up my driveway and in the house.  Do ya reckon I culd ask to have that money spent at the local school or hospital instead?  The NBN has certainly killed the chance of me getting ADSL instead, despite being only 3km from the exchange.

MarK says:

07:57am | 19/11/10

In news just in Opposition bill was not passed. After reviewing ther numbers in the house it was noted that the opposition has less members with pledged support than the government.

More on this breaking story soon. We are currently sourcing 3 actuaries, 2 Nobel Laureates in applied mathematics and a year 5 primary school student with a some cuisenaire rods to help explain this phenomena.

TimB says:

08:37am | 19/11/10

MarK, you forgot the Statistician.

MarK says:

08:43am | 19/11/10

Yes TimB I was remiss.

Who would ever have thought that a government with more numbers on the floor of the house would ever win a vote that relies on a majority?

I mean gosh…..it must be this new paradigm thingy.

The Badger says:

09:02am | 19/11/10

Malcolm was set up to fail by Abbott.
He might as well be fighting the carbon tax.
Thought Malcolm was smarter than that.

MarK says:

09:46am | 19/11/10

I cannot lie. I have a crush on Lucy Kippist. I think she is a right royal spunk, writes intelligently and has like the best smile ever.

THE BEST SMILE EVER GODDAMIT!!!

I also love the Punch open thread she hosts and get the shakes when it is late for the day. I also love her “list” posts. They are always good.

So in reverence to her and because imitation is the greatest form of flattery here is a list of great fictional works I have read in my life.

1. Lord Of The Rings (and Tolkien in general)
2. Badgers post just above me.
3. Anything by Crichton
4. Anything by Ton Sharpe
5. Quite enjoying John Birmingham at the moment too.

Thank you for your patience

Adam Diver says:

07:59am | 19/11/10

Rick the only moronic statement is yours. You understand the project is already being rolled out. Not much good of it being released after the project is completed.

Whats worse, this document should of been created before work got started and not after. The only purpose of this document is to provide the opposition ammunition to attack the government. Hardly much incentive for labor to release it in due time.

TimB says:

08:41am | 19/11/10

Why don’t they release it now then Holly? Give me one good reason.

MarK says:

10:51am | 19/11/10

They are to Holly

Are to

are to

are to

so there

Ask a stupid question says:

06:53pm | 19/11/10

It was “too” when I went to kindy, Mark.

MarK says:

08:02am | 19/11/10

No.

The re-wrttien McKinsey report, never forget the government sent the first effort back I wonder why, never once in all its pages says the project is worthwhile.

The opposition is on record as saying it would be very persuasive to have a positive cost benefit analysis come back to it. Why the fear of one? All we hear is how super dooper awesome this thingy will be.

Ponder that.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:43am | 19/11/10

@ jeffb

it is patently obvious that you haven’t even read the reports on the report. The figures are rubbery at best. The TCO and payback period don’t even come close to factoring in the massive maintenenance required. Maybe they think fibre cables strung above ground will last forever, but unless they have invented a new sort, I can tell you absolutely that they will not. You will be lucky to get ten years out of most of them.

Northern Steve says:

08:36pm | 21/11/10

It’s only worthwhile at the right price.  An overpriced NBN means opportunity lost to spend money on health or education, or to reduce taxes, all of which are also worthwhile.  It is not unreasonable to expect a government to justify the money that they spend before they spend it, particularly when it is such a large amount of money.

MarK says:

07:43am | 19/11/10

I have an idea.

Lets do that. And then in Telstra’s place lets put another monopoly this time government owned. Lets call it something spiffy…..NBN has gone negative…hmmmmm I know Telecom!!!!

That is an awesome sauce name Its got tele and com in it. And we can trust the government to run this monopoly fairly, at sensible prices so ISP’s and such can make dollars and when they go to sell this off the budget item they will of course ensure that the buyer cannot do anything mean and nasty and act like a monopoly.

Sounds super.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:07am | 19/11/10

If the idiot Howard government hadn’t stuffed up the privatization of Telstra, there would be no need for a super expensive NBN or there would be real competition in the telecommunication industry. Rule number one, don’t sell off the infrastructure or you are giving defacto monopolies and encouraging arbitrages by other telecos leasing the lines….

MarK says:

08:32am | 19/11/10

Yes it was Howard.

Or should we blame Labor for setting up the monster?

Or Alexander Bell…......gawd.

The Badger says:

10:15am | 19/11/10

Mark

A most excellent rebuttal of the Howard stuff up. and you did it in less than 1000 words and three url links to news ltd. - extra points to you.

deflect to Mr. Bell - totally awesome maneuver. The conservative cheer squad are on their feet in approval.

MarK says:

11:42am | 19/11/10

inorite

I is da man

PS I linked to fairfax this morning. You must have missed it.

Never say I don’t read widely. Even Bob Ellis !!

simon says:

10:27am | 19/11/10

Yes Jim and what happens in 20 years time when the fibre needs to be replaced. Don’t worry Jim, wireless is the way of the future, no doubt about that, all you gotta do is fibre up the towers to the backbone. Wireless bandwidth will grow exponentially in the future once the 4g and wimax gets going, hopefully this NBN will not stifle wireless technology too much. All the new devices are using wireless and by the time the NBN is finished there will be only a fraction with fixed line internet. Another thing Jim, electrical signals travel through copper wires at the speed of light too, did you know that?? This NBN stinks and will be the downfall of this government!!!!

Tom says:

10:40am | 19/11/10

@ Jim the argument is not about whether wireless is necessarily the best. To illustrate your line of reasoning, “A Rolls Royce is a better car than a Holden, so let’s change everyone to Rolls Royces”.
However,
Relative Costs are mountainous and still “secret Business”.
Delivery now as opposed to “gunna” 10 years down the track (still “secret Business”).
The utility of the extra speed is still “secret Business”.

The Badger says:

12:47pm | 19/11/10

Imagine being the government and going to the bank to get a loan of 16 billion dollars for some fighter aircraft without any Cost Benefit Analysis or Business Plan.
Oh yes, they did and got the loan. Funny old world isn’t it?

MarK says:

01:32pm | 19/11/10

Badger ima let you finish but this is the worst analogy ever

EVER!!

Seriously wtf? Defense says we need to upgrade our air force hardware.

Gets a budget

Investigates all available options - performance price capabilities etc etc etc

Decides on a course of action with justifiable reasons

Makes a purchase

Defence does not do this;

1. Propose a plan worth $X that they send out tenders for. Except they stuff the tenders and leave out the biggest and best supplier off it.

2. Get nothing politically palatable back becasue hey ..... see point 1

3. Get the defence minister to hop on a plane because it is impossible to get a meeting with the PM because….well just because

4. Think HOLY SHIT wtf do we do we stuffed this - quick grab an envelope and lets up the ante by a factor of 10 because that will wow people and cover our arses

5. Stand in front of cameras and spruik that investing in this thing that has no prospectus, no business plan and no modelling is an excellant investment in flagrant violation of the Trade Practices and Corporation Acts.

6. There is more but you get the picture

See what I mean?

Worst analogy ever

The Badger says:

01:51pm | 19/11/10

Mark
lot’s of words as usual, but do you have a point?

You really need to consider what point it is you want to make before you type so fast, your hands lead you brain down a convoluted path.

perhaps you could try to limit yourself to maybe 20 words for a while.
or
type what you want to say into a word document and then edit out the brain farts that accompanies what might have been a good point.

I’m sure you could make your point in 20 words instead of confusing your punchers with several hundred disjointed words.

Derrrr says:

02:05pm | 19/11/10

Badger if you cant understand why the opposiotion wants to do checks on the biggest expenditure this country has ever taken on then maybe you should be seeing a doctor about your Alzimers i think it might be kicking in.  50 billion dollars for something that we dont need when wireless is improving all the time and is the future.

Ryan says:

02:48pm | 19/11/10

The Badger is a troll people, don’t feed the troll.

MarK says:

03:58pm | 19/11/10

I love poking trolls.

Sorry Badger. I am verbose what can I say?

I will take your advice

here is the summary and as I promised and foretold

“Badger ima let you finish but this is the worst analogy ever

EVER!!”

That’s the point roflmao…..you silly mammal you. What a bad analogy.

simon says:

12:14pm | 19/11/10

Holly, I am thinking of my self when I say I do not want the NBN, I am also thinking of Australia, unlike your selfish opinion. You don’t need to be Einstein to see where this shambles of a project is headed. It is disgraceful when a government just scrapes in at the last election, only held together by some questionable independents, they have no real mandate for this and yet blindly push on in a cloak of secrecy!!! Breathtakingly arrogant!!!!

BobM says:

09:06pm | 19/11/10

Love your work, Tombowler! Just awesome!    Pity they don’t print that on the front page of the newspapers instead of the sycophantic BS that we get fed by the media at the moment.

MarK says:

10:57am | 19/11/10

Exactly - thank you.

I am all for an “NBN”

I am not for spending $43 billion without a damn good reason though. Particularly when this whole thong was cooked up between two guys on a plane flight because they botched the tender process of a 4.7billion plan that left the major telco in the country excluded and a potential competitor.

It smells putrid. This plan. Not the ideal of a NBN per se

Philip Crowley says:

11:34am | 19/11/10

Spelling, punctuation and grammar Tommy please. Whoever paid for your education will be bitterly disappointed One can’t agree with your proposition if one has trouble reading it!

I. Ronic says:

11:58am | 19/11/10

Where’s your comma before and after Tommy, and your full stop after disappointed, Philip? It’s whomever, by the way.

Mal says:

04:51pm | 19/11/10

Badger: you can’t help yourself.  Anything without positive ALP spin is attacked by you.  I usually laugh at your contributions but today it is just mindless blabber

The Badger says:

02:39pm | 19/11/10

NBN and internet filter are two separate issues.
Don’t get them confused.

Fots says:

03:13pm | 19/11/10

@Badger - They’re quite closely related actually. One aims to speed up connection speeds, the other reduces them as a consequence of implementing it.

It’s like owning a bus, but only being allowed to carry 3 passengers at a time - what’s the point?

Ben C says:

03:57pm | 19/11/10

@The Badger, I hope you realise that if the filter gets through it’ll be tacked onto the NBN and people will have no choice but to cop slower than advertised speeds because of the filter

The Badger says:

04:06pm | 19/11/10

Got me there Fots
Your excellent technical knowledge of the technology of the NBN, coupled with your intimate understanding of the technology to be used should the filter be implemented have completely convinced me.

It’s like having a brain that thinks quite fast but pouring heaps of alcohol down your throat in an effort to slow it down. This dovetails nicely into I don’t need no broadband because I don’t have a computer argument..