Slashdot Mirror


Australia To Build Fiber-To-the-Premises Network

candiman writes "The Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, has just announced that none of the private sector submissions to build a National Broadband Network was up to the standard, so instead the government is going to form a private company to build a fiber to the premises network. The network will connect to 90% of premises delivering 100Mb/s. The remaining 10% will be reached with wireless and satellite delivering up to 12Mb/s. The network cost has been estimated at 43 billion AU dollars over 8 years of construction — and is expected to employ 47,000 people at peak. It will be wholesale only and completely open access. As an Australian who voted for the other guys, all I can say is, wow."

54 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Damn... by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 3, Funny

    8 Years?! Oh god won't someone please think of the pornography?!

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    1. Re:Damn... by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry - if you're in Tasmania (and who isn't?), they'll start building your PornoPipes as early as July.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  2. What's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Australia is a censor black hole. If anything this is a trick to install filtering equipment everywhere.

    1. Re:What's the point by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      How did this get modded up?

      For the last time, this has already been voted down in parliament once. Every new government tries something like this only to see it shot down. Labour could never hope to get this passed without the support of the Greens and they don't have the support of the Greens.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:What's the point by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the last time, this has already been voted down in parliament once.

      Sure. But until it is slapped down definitively, Conroy is going to keep talking the thing up. Trouble is, there are still far too many nanny-state idealogues in Parliament, and I am not nearly so confident that this censorship won't be imposed. There are also too many naive twits there who fail to see the "thin end of the wedge" aspect of the thing with regard to freedom of speech.

    3. Re:What's the point by mjwx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Conroy and labour lost the support of Xenofon (Anti-gambling) and the Greens (anti-pollution) so unless he gets 6 Liberals to help him out this is all but buried.

      To be totally honest I don't think that Conroy hasn't got much of a career left, if labour has any brains they'll drop him for the next election. The Greens and Xenofon want the public to forget that they were ever in favour of this because they need the public to vote for them as they don't have what the major parties consider safe seats.

      For all the idealoges in Australian parliament there is enough people who rely on public popularity and sentiment just to stay in parliament to counter them. Conroy's getting plenty of negative press regarding the internet filter (which is why the NBN announcement came from Kevin Rudd not the Minister of Communications), although enough people see through the "think of the childern" rhetoric (the more he says child porn the less people beleive him) but that's no reason for us to let up on him.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. Filtering by james.mcarthur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, a fibre-to-the-home network by the same Government that wants to filter the internet out of existence.

  4. It's always the same 90% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    90% of premises already HAVE access to high-speed internet in the form of ADSL2+ or cable. And these are the same premises which are going to get upgraded while those with only low-speed DSL and dialup are going to be ignored again. Rage.

    1. Re:It's always the same 90% by eclectro · · Score: 2

      Cable and dsl no matter how fantastic is still a dirt road compared to 100 Mb/s coming from fiber.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:It's always the same 90% by kaos07 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Rubbish. Do a tiny bit of research. NO ONE in Australia has access to 100mbps. SOME people have cable (10mbps) and SOME people live next door to the DSLAM and get 24mbps ADSL2+. I live in the inner-city, but I'm stuck between two exchanges so I only get 8-10mbps. Me, and 90% of Australia will be getting fibre to the home and speeds of 100mbps. Unfortunately for rural folk, it's completely un-feasible to roll out fibre to every backwater town. So to make up for that, they're getting what they were promised at the last election - 12mbps.

    3. Re:It's always the same 90% by SlashWombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      But DOCSIS is on a shared cable, so you cannot get those speeds 24/7. If 100 subscribers are all on the same bit of cable, the ultimate potential bandwidth could well drop to only 2.2 or 4.4 megabits per second!
      You might think this is not reasonable, but if Video on demand becomes popular, there might well be very little bandwidth left. Where as, with 100 mbit fibre, you are not going to be sharing that bandwidth.

      If Australia wants to maintain, or even improve its status with OECD countries (WRT education/poplations intelligence), this is exactly the right way to go!

    4. Re:It's always the same 90% by snaz555 · · Score: 2, Informative

      DOCSIS is TDMA, which just doesn't play nice with TCP congestion control. This is why once the time slots become more intermittent as utilization goes up TCP performance tanks.

    5. Re:It's always the same 90% by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 2, Informative

      Australia had one of the first WiMax commercial rollouts. Guess what - it failed. WiMax is still a pipe dream. Be interesting to see how it pans out in San Fran.

  5. If I was cynical by davisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And I am, I'd label this an attempt by Senator Conroy to backdoor his internet filtering into existence by tacking it onto a massive government controlled network. Also, being Australia, we'll likely have to pay $100/month for access and be limited to 20GB of data traffic (both up and downstream) per month.

    1. Re:If I was cynical by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I am, I'd label this an attempt by Senator Conroy to backdoor his internet filtering into existence by tacking it onto a massive government controlled network. Also, being Australia, we'll likely have to pay $100/month for access and be limited to 20GB of data traffic (both up and downstream) per month.

      Not cynical enough good sir. The next Liberal government will just privatise the entire network just like they did to every other bit of government infrastructure to raise enough cash to give themselves a pay rise.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:If I was cynical by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd label this an attempt by Senator Conroy to backdoor his internet filtering into existence

      He doesn't need to spend $43B to do that; passing legislation to force ISPs to do it for him is quite sufficient.

      we'll likely have to pay $100/month for access and be limited to 20GB of data traffic (both up and downstream) per month.

      We'd be wishing for $100/20GB, if Telstra built the network. Because this is wholesale-only (no Telstra-style conflicts of interest), ISPs can compete fairly.

      The other side of the coin is our overseas links. Right now there's a comfortable duopoly keeping prices high (and quotas low), but that may change a little when PIPE Networks gets their Guam cable built. We're going to need a lot more, though, when 19M people get their connections bumped up to 100Mbps.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    3. Re:If I was cynical by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The next Liberal government will just privatise...

      Sure. Just like the present Liberal government. ;-)

      Although I was one of those who helped elect Rudd, I was never under any illusions that current Labor party policy is in any way distinguishable from the Liberals'. We just needed to get rid of that vile little twerp John Howard and his posse of jackbooted fascists.

      Rudd's short tenancy has been characterised by the odd ray of sunshine here and there, but for the most part he has been a sheep in sheep's clothing.

  6. Sounds Great by Frogbert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It sounds great in theory, and I applaud the thought, but the cynic in me says "I'll believe it when I'm connected to it".

  7. Telcos in the United States by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

    took the Federal money that was to be used for fiber to the home, and used it for other things instead.

    Now, they are complaining about Cable monopolies and the cost of taking fiber to the home, in order to combat cable.

    Boo hoo. We have lots to complain about, with these cable companies. But the telcos are as guilty for creating the status quo as anyone else.

  8. Bigger internet pipes first? by WaXHeLL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too bad Australia needs a bigger pipe to the rest of the world first before this will be a decent benefit.

    --
    The troll with karma.
    1. Re:Bigger internet pipes first? by dakameleon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly what I was about to say - all well and good that we can chuck bytes at each other fast, but we're constrained by the puny pipes out of the country to the US (shared with 3 million in NZ), Japan and Singapore.

      OTOH, lag on Australian servers should be non-existant - that's got to be incentive to host locally. Not bad for my future employment prospects.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  9. Actually that's already in the plan by baileydau · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not cynical enough good sir. The next Liberal government will just privatise the entire network just like they did to every other bit of government infrastructure to raise enough cash to give themselves a pay rise.

    Actually, according to the Whirlpool homepage story they are already planning it's ultimate sale (in the not too distant future)

    Private industry would contribute up to 49% of the funds, and the government would sell the company after operating it for 5 years, he said.

    --
    Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
    1. Re:Actually that's already in the plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt there is a business case for private industry to buy back a $50bn investment in a fibre network. The buyers would be lucky to turn in $2bn in revenue from household and business use of the network. Much of that revenue the industry is already making via use of existing broadband technologies such as ADSL, Cable and private fibre networks. "Up to" 100Mbps internet by 2018 is not an impressive aim either. Many large businesses in Australia already have access to private 1Gbps private fibre networks within cities. Many consumers already have access to internet speeds of 20Mbps.

      There is no doubt a national fibre network is a desperately needed infrastructure project for Australia. Currently it costs ~$30,000 to get a premises connected via a 200-300m fibre run to a private fibre network. If the number of houses connected to broadband is 5 million, it works out to each household costing $10,000 to connect (and the actual value is much less considering the number of businesses that would also connect, the number of new household connections, etc).

      If you compare ~$30,000 vs ~$6,000 for connection to a fibre network, it really does make sense to make this a national project. Infrastructure rollout becomes dramatically cheaper when everyone is connecting at once.

      I just don't see how private industry would be interested in investing their money into this network when the return on investment period is probably going to be as long as 30 years.

      Another problem is Australia will turn into a Korea/Japan situation where internal bandwidth capacity within the country is impressive, but external transit to the rest of the world is still expensive/in short supply.

    2. Re:Actually that's already in the plan by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another problem is Australia will turn into a Korea/Japan situation where internal bandwidth capacity within the country is impressive, but external transit to the rest of the world is still expensive/in short supply.

      What do you mean by "will"?

      Internal bandwidth already outstrips international bandwidth, and the average broadband speed is 1.5 mbit/s. Australia only has 3 pipes out of the country.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  10. RTFA by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The other 10% will get satellite or wireless support, at 12 Mbps. It's still a big improvement for many.

    Fact is, it's a big country, and running FTTH to every cattle station out in woop-woop is just silly. Can't please everyone.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:RTFA by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fact is, it's a big country, and running FTTH to every cattle station out in woop-woop is just silly. Can't please everyone.

      Why? Fiber is cheap. Copper is expensive - rip out the copper and sell it.

      (Ok, now the economy is fucked this is less true than it was the year before last).

      Installing fiber in built-up areas is more expensive than in rural areas - here in Paris they're having to use the sewers 'cos digging new holes would be insanely expensive. (Just this morning saw the poor guy in his shit-stained overalls sat in a truck bonding connectors to a huge bundle of fiber).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't knock Woop-woop! It's a great place, right up there with Wollongong, Blowhard, Cockburn, Bonnin Head and Mount Mee!

      Australian place names ftw.

    3. Re:RTFA by therufus · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot Burpengary and Woodenbong.

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    4. Re:RTFA by Petronius.Scribe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fine. How much would you like to go and dig a trench across 100 km of sun-scorched dirt? Oh, and it has to be properly done - not just buried, but surveyed and ducted, and flood proof, and bushfire proof, and wombat proof (no I'm not kidding, the little buggers dig like mad). The cost of the fibre is, in comparison, bugger all. It's the cost of laying it that makes the difference between fibre and satellite as the best choice to Farmer Trev.

    5. Re:RTFA by ozphx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Digging a trench is expensive.

      Also our largest cattle ranch is bigger than Texas. Literally.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    6. Re:RTFA by Petronius.Scribe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doing it with a plough might work, but copper is a lot more robust than fibre (especially for fairly vague definitions of connection quality). Running it alongside the power lines is probably the most cost effective way to do the planning, but you still have to pay someone to go up the pole and add another one. Again, you're not saving a huge percentage by already having the poles (probably enough to pick it over trenching though). Long-haul fibre can span transoceanic distances. If you have dispersion-compensating segments you can get it up to a few hundred km without significant bandwidth loss on the to-the-home scale.

  11. Wahoo! by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon, people down under will be able to hit their download caps in a matter of minutes! Yay progress!!!!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  12. Telstra's back door by ghostdoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So Telstra got kicked out of the previous attempt, so they lean on a few of their mates in government and sure enough the old plan is scrapped and a new one is started.
    Only the new plan is completely taxpayer-funded, subject to no open tendering process, and managed by some demonic clique of Aussie politicians.

    Plus, Conroy can give up on his plan to make the commercial ISP's filter content when he can just wedge his filtering plans into this (and any vote becomes 'have nothing or have a filtered feed'). and once it's in it's a simple step to force all ISP's to use the govt's filtered backbone ('the only people using commercial ISP feeds are perverts and pedophiles and we need to stop them from doing that').

    I don't know whether I'm too cynical, or not cynical enough.

    But there's one last hope that this might actually be done right. I hope all the campaigning that went on to shut Conroy's first attempt down will work and we'll actually get it right.

    --
    Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
    1. Re:Telstra's back door by marcushnk · · Score: 5, Informative

      eh?
      It's 51% taxpayer funded, 49% private investment then wholly sold off after 5years of running (Like Telstra, for a fucking huge profit).

      Huge bonus' to this plan.. (stolen from the good Simon Hackett shining knight of Aussie ISP's)
      Best path: FTTH (not FTTN) (Fibre To The Home/Node)

      Retain ADSL2+
      Abandon flawed FTTN approach
      same (high) speeds for everyone
      Retain copper access regime
      New infrastructure in parallel
      Retain competitive tension
      Retain innovation
      Retain competitive pricing
      No overbuild protection needed
      No legal battles needed
      more innovation, more choice
      long term consumer benefit

      --
      "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  13. Like the previous NBN proposal by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    build out a fiber (or wireless) from a block-level, or even subdivision level green box to the end point. After that, allow the private enterprise to connect to the boxes and then provide various services.

    Building out the last mile but not the backhaul would still entail spending 96% of the money, and wouldn't leave you with a working network. This way, the whole thing is out of the control of Telstra, so that access can be sold wholesale without any conflicts of interest. ISPs will still get to compete on price (even small ones), and the bigger ones could still replace the backhaul segment with their own connection if they felt it gave them a competitive advantage.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  14. Re:Won't someone think of the tax payers!? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, they didn't give $900 to me. Despite the fact that my income for the year was zero, and all the rest of it. If they actually spent the money on infrastructure such as this, I would be much more convinced of their bona fides than I am with these much-hyped handouts which never eventuated.

    Never believe a politician.

  15. Three upgrades are coming by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • Southern Cross have upgraded their US link from 600Gbps to 860Gbps.
    • Telstra and Alcatel are landing their new 1.3Tbps cable to Hawaii
    • PIPE Networks are on track with their 1.9Tbps cable to Guam.
    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. 'Cept it's shared by Namarrgon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Better hope that you have no more than 4 customers on your node, and that they think "torrents" are what you see in Fargo streets.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  18. Unsurprising by rastilin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    none of the private sector submissions to build a National Broadband Network was up to the standard,

    Living in Australia at the moment, this phrase doesn't surprise me in the least. The best thing you can say about Telstra is. "Their incompetence is the only thing saving us from their evil.". Right now I'm paying $70 AUD for ADSL2 with a 150GB. There's no fuzziness on what's permissible use either; they do provide 150GB... Telstra on the other hand, for $80 gives 12GB at 1.5Mbit, $100 if you want ADSL2, $160 if you want 60GB. What's worse is that my company rents lines from Telstra, so you'd think they could be AT LEAST as good as their competitors.

    --
    How do you kill that which has no life?
  19. It's for the cameras by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny

    How on earth do you expect them to keep track of you without sufficient bandwidth?

     

    --
    Deleted
  20. Escape from the Telstra monopoly by wrmrxxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This seems to me to be not just about getting better internet connections, but about ending Telstra's monopoly on wired communications.

    At the moment, Telstra has a monopoly on the phone network due to their control over the copper lines, but as a company that's about the only thing it's got going for it. They sell access to the network both as a wholesaler and retailer. This new broadband network proposal won't be controlled by Telstra, so once users have an attractive high bandwidth alternative Telstra's business model might be in trouble.

  21. Re:Telstra??? Who? by owski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "replace an inefficient public owned monopoly with an inefficient privately owned monopoly"

    That's the problem, when the "privatisation" isn't truly private, so you still have a government protected (usually through strict regulation) monopoly. You end up with the worst of both worlds: private profits and public risks.

  22. Who pays the ISP's bills? by the_raptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, that's right THE CUSTOMER DOES. This is the taxpayer paying off the taxpayers debt. The only way this is worthwhile is if it leads to an increase in production. Otherwise it is just bread and HD porn for the masses.

    It isn't like I don't want high speed internet, but with some states nearly going broke and having trouble keeping the health system running, this is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:Who pays the ISP's bills? by Whiteox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Errr... Look at the big picture for a while. Massive infrastructure projects helped pull a lot of countries out of the Great Depression in the 30's - except maybe Germany that spent all of their gdp on militarizing.
      It's the jobs that count here. More infrastructure projects like Canberra's new terminal, rail, inland ports, schools and so on, on a State and National level is only good and probably the best strategy.
      Yes, $2000/head of population is a lot of money, but Joe Blow can invest in it via bonds, get a job through it, and use it 6 years from now. It also involves every industry, from building towers, ditches, cable making, a whole pile of IT work as well as providing continued employment in many sectors for years to come.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  23. As an Australian and a geek, I have to say. by AbRASiON · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I couldn't possibly care less.

    We've got a global financial crises on our hands, we've got a water shortage in Melbourne, we're relying on non self sustaining fuels and all we can spend our money on is a 900$ handout to a tonne of taxpayers who will promptly donate the money to Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Panasonic, Samsung, Dolce and Gabana, Reebok, Nike or a plethora of other companies or we'll drop a tonne of coin on fibre internet.

    Really?

    I've got 15mbit now with ADSL2, I am happy with this, infact considering copper lines have been layed for years and are still maintained let's look at some ADSL 3 action and how about we look at somehow increasing our average download caps which seem to be between 5 and 50gb.

    I want cleaner air, I want solar, wind and wave electricity, I want money put into Australian business's which will produce products internationally, I want to see poor bastard farmers looked after who have been doing it extremely tough for 10 years.
    All this and I'm a selfish as hell geek!

    Don't get me wrong I'd love fibre to my house but is this really a priority? 43billion isn't chump change, we only have a population of 20million, let's piss it away on something more important than people needing more bandwidth to update their twitter pages.

    Oh and I guess at 31 I've finally reached enlightenment with government PR and the media, the first thing I thought to myself when I heard of this is, I'll believe it when I see it.

  24. It's the 21st century equivalent of building a dam by davydmadeley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is this quite a clever way to spend money in a recession?

    Building dams and bridges is no longer work that requires thousands of relatively unskilled labourers (compared to skilled tradespeople).

    You need a plan that's going to take a long time to complete, and employ a lot of people who have become recently unemployed from sectors like mining. So what do you do? Propose to dig a trench to every single house in Australia!

    Brilliant!

  25. Fiber to the premises by country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    great, now we can catch up with the rest of the world... in another 8 years time.

    FTTH is in operation in many parts of the world, including developing countries. I think 100Mbps in a decade is an anti-climax.

    See Wiki's 'Fiber to the premises by country'
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country

  26. A$2,022 for every man, woman, and child? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are 21,262,641 people in Australia. Forty-three billion is 2,022 Australian dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country. It's difficult to believe that the government could spend that much money, particularly since I understand that Australia does not have sufficiently fast internet connections with the rest of the world.

    Read the Australian government announcement.

    LOL: "... if you're in Tasmania (and who isn't?)"

    1. Re:A$2,022 for every man, woman, and child? by caramelcarrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't worry, that'll be outlawed in time - you'll only be allowed to download children's TV and watch party political broadcasts (so long as they aren't too worrying).

    2. Re:A$2,022 for every man, woman, and child? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a Canberran I can tell you that's BS. Our pornography industry is what keeps the politicians coming here.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  27. Australia announces new national broadband network by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced that the Australian government will build a new $43 billion national broadband network, connecting 90% of homes to 100-megabit fibre internet. "We believe that fast broadband is absolutely essential for our nation's future", he said.

    "Telstra has raised issues with the amount of bandwidth usage this will produce, but our Great Firewall of Australia Internet filtering project should keep usage down to reasonable levels at near-dialup speeds."

    The Great Firewall will reliably block all illegal material, child pornography, terrorism and unhappy thoughts on the network.

    "Not only are the contents of the list illegal," said Senator Stephen Conroy, " but revealing the list is also illegal, as is linking to someone linking to someone purporting to reveal the list. So blocking Google Search is required. This will also help keep usage down to an acceptable level."

    Calling it, the "single largest infrastructure decision in Australia's history," Mr Rudd said the project would employ up to 37,000 people a year scanning citizens' net access, reading their email and correcting spelling errors in their football forum posts.

    A consultative process will occur to determine the regulatory framework for the network. "We're considering getting Senator Fielding to do it personally," said Senator Conroy, "since he's the dickhead who demanded the censorship in return for his vote. Hopefully it'll melt his brain. Bloody balance of power. At least Nick Xenophon's bloody sane."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Re:Telstra??? Who? by Cathbard · · Score: 3, Informative
    I saw Telecom privatised from the inside, it was one of the ugliest things I've ever witnessed in my life. The brainwashing ("changing the culture" as they called it) was perverse. They took a group of public servants whose main interest was providing a service and twisted their minds to focus on profits only.

    The lies and deceptions that accompanied it all were no better. For example, the prices were falling in real terms faster before privatisation than after it because most of the new exchanges had just paid for themselves. Instead of the lower effective overhead going back into the network or into customers pockets it went into shareholder's pockets. The press focused on the price reductions without referencing the falls that were already happening. Pure spin doctoring. It will come as no surprise to you to learn that the very first resellers were AAP (Australian Associated Press). In fact they used a loophole in the act to effectively resell space on their private networks before it was actually legalised.

    The other thing that has occurred is a lack of routine maintenance. That is one thing that private companies rarely do but government departments always do. Speak to any tech or liney working in the field that was around in the Telecom days as well and he will tell you the same thing - things only get fixed when they break now. Now it's all about time and not about quality; get in and out as fast as possible. Private companies like going back later to fix things so they can make a buck, a public servant doesn't give a crap about the money - he just doesn't want to do go back and do more work, end of story. His boss doesn't care either, he wants good performance stats not good profit figures.

    The unions told everybody these sorts of things would happen and it has all come to pass. Bowing to the great god of privatisation fills the pockets of the greedy, it does not improve the lot of the public regardless of how much the media try to spin it that way. Some things should be owned by the people (basically ALL essential services). The cables and pipes on government land in the streets should always be owned by the people. Privatise what is hooked up to them sure, but the actual infrastructure, no. Unfortunately though there is too much money spent on PR to convince the average idiot voter that he is better off if some corporation is able to suck money out of things instead of owning it himself. Apparently they prefer to swallow ads like mindless sheep than to retain the ability to hold the providers of their essential services accountable.

    --
    "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby