[AusNOG] A look at the coalitions NBN so far

[Tony]

It's not really a fair comparison. Hands up anyone who thinks that the FTTP model would NOT have had considerable cost blowouts if it had continued along its course ? One of the reasons there was no real variation in the Labor estimate for FTTP is that they refused to do any real costing of it, instead relying on back of the envelope type calculations that suited them (politically).


We could speculate all we want, but at the end of the day we're going to end up with something slower (for those who don't get FTTP), that costs more than either party estimated (not surprising) and that takes longer to deliver than either party thought (again, not surprising).

That whole article is pretty much "nothing to see here, move along" if you ask me. Govt's of all persuasions make promises they can't keep, make stupid decisions on things they don't understand and spend our (taxpayer) money inefficiently.



regards,
Tony.



________________________________
From: Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
To: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2015, 13:19
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] A look at the coalitions NBN so far



Karl,
Thanks for the interesting reply.

I think it's unfair to compare the NBN's actual performance under Turnbull, with NBN's initial FTTP estimates. I think it's fairly partisan to suggest that there wouldn't have been cost blowouts under Labor. For one thing, the exchange rate has moved considerably.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins







On 9 September 2015 at 12:39, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 12:12 +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
>> Those are Prof Rod Tucker (of University Melbourne)'s views and figures. He
>> wanted $43bn from Stephen Conroy back in 2009 for a FTTN network. This was
>> when the AUD was trading at USD$1.15. His is a fairly partisan position.
>
>To assume someone is partisan because they argue for one position or
>another is very poor form indeed, unless you can demonstrate their bias.
>And even if someone IS partisan, they may still be right, even if for
>the wrong reasons. That's the problem with ad hominem attacks - they
>don't address the facts.
>
>A position that is argued from supportable facts is not partisan unless
>other facts are being deliberately ignored. If you have a problem with
>an article, you need to attack the statements made in it, either by
>showing that the facts being used are not true, by showing that
>information the writer had access to is being ignored, or by showing
>that the facts as given do not support the conclusions drawn.
>
>So - is the author wrong? If so, how so?
>
>Regards, K.
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
>http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
>http://twitter.com/kauer389
>
>GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
>Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>


_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog