Do you blame the poor NBN on the LNP or the millions of people that voted for them?

Is the fact we have a third world NBN the fault of the LNP or the voters?
Something else?
Maybe the blame should be laid at the feet of the ‘swing’ voters who got the LNP over the line, since the rusted ons (typically old people) won’t ever change

Poll Options

  • 756
    Liberal National Party
  • 105
    Voters for the Liberal National Party
  • 88
    Other (see comments)


    • +3

      Yes JimmyF. I came here looking for 'Both' poll option…

    • Left hand vs Right hand, arent they the same

      I blame the love of $$$.

  • +1

    I reckon it's everyone's fault except for me.

    Too late now to play the blame game. WYSIWYG.

  • +26

    The problem with Labor is they were ahead of their time in terms of the NBN. A large percentage of the population just saw the internet as something that you use when you want to do bit of web browsing.

    Of course the L/NP would have known where things were headed but choose to play politics, cheaper, faster slogan was born the the public bought it. Well enough not to make it a higher priority over other polices that went into the mix.

    I don't really blame the public as they did what was expected. I do blame the L/NP because they put winning the election and placating media interests they are in bed with in that effort. Foxtel. Not putting the nation first.

    • +21

      LNP put winning in front of every election promise they make. Just look at Tony Abbott's backflip over increase maternity/paternity leave. Lie to the voters, get in, then immediately back out of the policies that got you the win. Classic LNP tactics.

      • -5

        Sorry - I find that totally amusing.

        You telling me that

        Labor doesnt put winning in front of every election promise they make.
        The Greens either?
        Bob Katter?
        Pauline Hanson?
        and who ever else has ever been elected.

        And none of the above have "lied" "Backflipped" etc??

        We vote in politicians because we either like what they are telling us - or more probably, we dont like what their opponents are saying.

        We (the collective voters of Australia) elect the party which promises more what we want.

        Classic voter behaviour

        However if you are advocating policies the people dont like, then just install a dictator!

        I cant help laughing again reading your crazy post.

        • +17

          How's about you see what policy and legacy Labor leaves Australia vs what LNP leave Australia, and re-write your absolute drivel.

    • +4

      Sounds like what the LNP are doing again at the federal level attacking Labor in Queensland and Victoria.

      • -1

        Yep totally, the family of that girl whose stepdad died wrote a piece condemning the PM for doing exactly that.

    • The problem with Labor was they started installing the NBN to places that didn't want them, they had less than 10% uptake. If they started with areas that wanted it the most. It would have been a major positive marketing for them.

      • +3

        Labor made promises to make them (edit: I.e. crossbenchers) first in line in order to get their support.

      • +1

        Luckily my area was one selected location. I wouldn't imagine moving to place with FTTN after hearing from all my friends issues with it. Meanwhile my FTTP has been pretty solid with probably less than 3 major drop out during day for last 4 years.

        • I agree. I am in an FTTP trial area and signed up in 2011. Was with one ISP for 8 years without contacting them.

  • +1

    The politicians could have changed their minds at any stage after winning the election.
    They could have built more FttP, they could even have just outright killed it (at least in metro areas), and left it to commercial entities to build out, which should be the Liberal's ideological position anyway.
    Instead, they chose the worst possible option…

    I also blame Labor for being an absolute basket case through that period.

    • +23

      I suppose you could say it is faster then dial up as well.

      • -4

        Don't get your point.

        Think of the world without NBN ever being thought of. What would Australian's be using for internet now? Probably wireless 4G and the like might be more popular. Or some souped up HDSL connection.

        I remember at the time thinking to myself that the government should be pumping that money into a giant mesh for 3G and just delivery that to the country. That probably would have been very unpopular with the public also. I just think there was no winning with whatever policy was devised for NBN. Maybe the Labour party should have just guessed the cost and then doubled it before going to election. But even then it would have been shouted down for being gold plated. All policies that any government comes to power with always costs more than they forecast.

        • +6

          Nobody is saying NBN itself was a bad idea. You've totally missed the point.

      • -1

        Faster than videotex (1200/75), and better than the accoustic coupler I still have somewhere. It just won't fit my mobile phone…

    • +10

      But the NBN is actually better than the internet most people were getting

      not exactly a wise investment of $ for potential future usage/lifespan

      hands you a pushbike… see, its faster than the walking you use to do
      meanwhile the words driving around in cars

      Spend on critical infrastructure should weigh potential lifespan and return on investment over quick political wins

      Same as when we decide to spend $x million on buying things like trains or ferries from overseas instead of building it here..sure, its $5 cheaper, but we get zero ROI on the expenditure we would if spent locally based on economical returns on employment, taxes coming back anyway etc etc

      • not exactly a wise investment of $ for potential future usage/lifespan

        It would have been fine if they were allowed to do what they wanted but the LNP changed the plan. Now instead of having a FTTP NBN that could have been sold off back to a telco to run, we now have the mess that we have.

        critical infrastructure should weigh potential lifespan and return on investment

        Again ROI would have been fine if implemented as planned.

        • +4

          100% agree…
          as someone stuck on FTTN, saying its 'better than ADSL' is true… but at best its 2x (im limited to 50mbps)
          If they had done FttP everywhere as the initial plan, it might have taken a few years longer but we would have a technology with the potential of a lifespan 100x longer and 100x faster

          At best, we've literally just paid $ to kick the can down the road a bit

          • +2

            @SBOB: A few years? Where I live we got some of the first NBN FTTP. That was 7 Years after Kev promised the build that would take 7 years TOTAL.

            And that was a year after it appeared in Port Macquarie and Tasmania where the independents helped elect Kev the second time.

            My MIL just got FTTC (which is newer technology better than FTTN) but thats almost 14 years after Kev's promise and 7 Years after we got FTTP.

            Btw our house was connected to FTTP after 5 technicans were employed to dig trench etc for 4 days, and was relaid about a month or so later by another 3. (They also laid it from the wrong pit, but thats another story.

            And yes I agree FTTP is far better, will last longer etc. But how long would we have waited to have the last connected, which BTW still hasnt happened for some unfortunate, difficult installs.

            Its is unfortunate, we will never know how much extra time was saved by the FTTN/FTTC decision. Its speculation and no matter what its always going to be tinged with political opinions.

            • @RockyRaccoon: How much did it cost to get FTTP installed?

              we will never know how much extra time was saved by the FTTN/FTTC decision

              Oh it saved time and money. But it also turned into something that wasn't the NBN. Personally for me it still turned out ok because I am on FTTC and the C part is right outside of my house. So I can get a full speed 100/40 connection. But even that feels limited in the world of 4k streaming. At least the FTTP would have future proof things for another decade at least.

              • +4


                Oh it saved time and money.

                It did not save any money. The ongoing maintenance needs of corroding copper will see to it that it ends up costing more capital expenditure than fibre ever will.

          • +2

            @SBOB: my adsl2+ couldnt even break 6mbps so 50mbps is a lot better for people that were in the same situation as me.

  • I blame poor management decisions with respect to skymuster.

    I was in an online forum presentation with a former executive of NBN and they blamed the decision to give the satellite contract to an overseas contractor as the reason why its so terrible who didn't fully understand Australia geographically speaking. The satellite design doesn't suit Australia's use case. If it had of been used in the country that the overseas contractor is located in it would have been fine, but it wasn't.

    • +1

      Yeah because no one has tried to deliver a satellite internet service to a whole continent before. I don't think you can give the contract to anyone that actually has any experience in it.

      But the LNP wanted cheap. So that is what you get I suppose.

  • +5

    Both! why can't we have fast internet like New Zealand.

    • +1

      New Zealand is 3.5% the size of Australia.

      • +16

        Seems like a pretty redundant point considering most of Australia is on the coasts. It's not like we're advocating fibre to be installed in the middle of the desert.

        • +3

          Yes, it's a very short stint to join the west to the east, and then north to south. 🙄

          • +4

            @brendanm: Exactly, glad you understand how our population density works.

            • +6

              @boomlogical: All well and good for those in the city, but it was promoted as the leveller for the rest of Australia.

              And even eliminating the deserts and country we are of far greater size than NZ

              And much of NZ is in same boat with coverage in the population areas.

              Most is wireless based if you look at this map


              The real NZ advantage is the speed offered vs our current NBN speed.

              • +1

                @RockyRaccoon: Agreed, but I think fixed wireless/satellite would've been fine if there weren't so many people on them. The original approach would've still got 96% of people with fibre and would've financially worked given the average installation cost we've observed in NZ.

              • -1

                @RockyRaccoon: Bandwidth and data for the price. NZ demolishes us

            • +2

              @boomlogical: Yes, we are sparsely populated, which is what makes it difficult and expensive. I don't use Reddit sorry.

        • It isn't the cities that blow out the cost, and it has never been an issue getting it cost effective for the capital cities. But that is not what NBN was billed as, it was billed as fast internet for all, most of the cost is spent on the minority of people.

  • +35

    Going back in time, the whole thing is Howard's fault for not having the balls to split Telstra when he privatised it. We would have been in NZ or UK's positions if he had.

    So given that, combined with Tony's idiocy and Malcolm's rolling over, I blame the LNP more than anyone.

    Can you really blame the voters when the average person is too stressed out from their shitty jobs and shitty lives to decipher the truth hidden in what the media does or doesn't actually let them see easily? Yeah, everyone should be more informed, but there's so many things that people need to be informed about, or at least know how to tell which info sources are reliable, that it is practically a full time job comprehending how shit really works (NBN, the economy, climate change, covid both health wise and economically, tough on law & order vs rehabing crims properly) - everything is really complex and the truth is generally not intuitive at all so the average punter doesn't have a hope when they're so time poor and distracted.

    Politicians are supposed to lead in the nation's interest and bring the people along with them, but yeah nope gotta keep donors happy and line up my cushy consultancy job in the mining industry once I collect my inflated parliamentary pension…

    TL;DR everything's (profanity), nuke from orbit, etc

    • -8

      Just remember it was Labor who first sold part of Telstra, and also before that gave away parts of the network to Optus (Cable and Wireless of the UK), which undermined Telstra (Telecom)

      • +10

        Just remember it was Labor who first sold part of Telstra

        Factually incorrect.

        Telstra was privatised completely by the LNP.

        gave away parts of the network to Optus

        No they allowed them to us part of the Telstra infrastructure.

        • +2

          Factually incorrect.

          Correct, I was confusing the Sale of Aussat by Keating, which then became Optus.

          After it was sold the Mayne Nickless and Cable and Wireless (and others) it was given a license to use the Telecom (Telstra) network by Keating.

          This in effect was the start of the privatisation of the Telecommunications network.

          • +3

            @RockyRaccoon: Great. So change your original post so that people don't "read something on the internet" and turn it into "facts" in their mind. So much blatant misinformation out there, we don't need more.

            This in effect was the start of the privatisation of the Telecommunications network.

            Well no, this was deregulating the telco industry to provide competition which was sorely needed given the astronomical rates charged for long distance calls and the fact that AUSSAT was losing money anyway.

        • +1

          Not only that, selling Telstra meant NBN had to buy/rent infrastructure back from Telstra which made it more expensive along with causing a lot of delays, which then got blamed back onto Labor for being slow and costly.

          • +1

            @scupper: Not with fttp rollout they didnt. The point if MTM was to line the pockets of the aging private infra companies ie corporate welfare for the few. See foxtel grants etc etc etc.

            • +2

              @abuch47: For FTTP they had to negotiate to rent the pits and ducts back from Telstra to run the fibre from the exchanges to the premises - then when Malcolm Turnbull's Mess happened they had to renegotiate again to get the copper cable inside those ducts from the pillars to the premises.

              So two lots of negotiations with Telstra combined they delayed the whole thing by 18mths-2yrs and added over 20B onto the price tag (can't remember exact times or $$$ figures, but it was absurd both times - then there was the asbestos delay too that started pre MTM and slowed down the FTTP roll out even more and made it look slow and expensive).

  • +1

    Here is a list of the cost of installing FTTP.

    • +3

      I'm pretty sure these are costs of installing complex installs. Hence why they often have 100's of meters of cable, new LICs and civil works. A lot of installs would be much cheaper and would get many properties at the same time.

    • Damn, only 100 places in the entire country have FTTP. It's worse than I thought!

      • Yeah that's not correct lol. There would be close to 100 houses in my street that have FTTP.

  • +9

    With so many people working from home, they are now grasping the point of upload speeds
    Too little, too late, too uneducated (& probably too old)

    • When is our next federal election anyway. When can we start counting on the ALP calling the Coalition out on this.

  • +2

    No worries 5G will give us diversi…..oh wait we banned Huawei.

  • +6

    i blame the cloud!

    off to yell at cloud

    • +7

      What we got was effectively already being provided by private industry

      Really? I don't remember HFC capability being rolled out to most of Australia. I remember waiting 20+ years for that to happen though.

      • +2

        I was on cable at my place since 2006 (when I moved in). Got forced onto "HFC" on the NBN … got slower speed at a higher price. Useless.

        • +2

          We got between 2Mbps to 7Mbps (or nothing at all when the pit was full of water) on PSTN. We now get 30Mbps on a bad day with HFC.

          Are we happy with nbn? Absolutely.

        • +5

          You are not most of Australia as I stated.

      • +4

        I'm in a town that had a private HFC network rolled out in the late 90s.
        We've had limitless plans with speeds of over 500mbps since 2015, for half the cost of an unlimited data NBN connection.

        Starting next year we have to pay a per-month levy to prop up the NBN. Basically punishment for having access to a superior network.

        • -1

          Well you should have voted so all of Australia could have your quality. Always vote for the efficiency of your country, corruption is not efficient.

        • The old Neighbourhood Cable? That network was the stuff of dreams for the rest of us looking for broadband at the time.

          Who else remembers Ziggy's 3GB cap? Optus netstats that could get you terminated for overuse? We've come so far in some respects, but moved very little in others.

          • @Tsuivan: Still a dream for most unless they can get FTTP.

    • +8

      would cost an absolute fortune and never deliver ROI.

      critical infrastructure doesnt necessarily have to have an ROI though (but the FTTN would have)

      We build roads, bridges, park areas, railways…. none of which necessarily every return a profit, but are deemed critical infrastructure to propel us forward
      High speed connectivity everywhere should be included in the same categories

  • -1

    I blame that Labor clown Conroy who decided that Australia needed the NBN and did his job justification numbers on the back of an envelope.

    • +1

      You are 1000% correct. This was Rudd and Conroy's "big plan" (to p1ss taxpayers' money up the wall). Shame they'd struggle to reach a triple-digit IQ if you added them together.

    • +5

      And what would you suggest, now that we have ongoing issues with bandwidth and speeds? I'm not even for Conroy, he had ridiculous ideas on ISP censorship, but at the moment, a lot of work is limited by the state of our NBN.

      Unfortunately, it's made it very unequal. People who live in FTTP regions can get gigabit speeds. FTTN on the other hand can barely get to 25 Mbps.

  • +6

    Never seen a post more tailored to Diji1 and he's no where to be seen!
    Must just enjoy the posts irrelevant to politics to bring up politics

  • +2

    I was getting 2 to 3 mbps per second on a good day before I got the nbn it worked for me when I got it.

  • +10

    I got bicycle nbn.

    The total cost according to a nbnco financial review cuppla years ago was hoped to be approx 51 billion dollars… they hoped

    I ended up with a bicycle outside the house….

    The ALP put $46 billion in the bank and started the FTTP roll out in 2011? 2012?

    My exchange was due to be converted to FTTP starting sept in 2013.

    In sept 2013 the majority of australian voters decided that i should not get FTTP and i got got a bike instead.

    Dont blame me i voted labor

    Watch this youtube video and all will be revealed

  • +4

    Doesn't matter which party built it, it was going to be well out of date by the time most people connected to it. I went from adsl to wireless 4G and get 180mbps. I'll just upgrade to 5G when it becomes available. I avoided NBN because it was not price competitive.

    That said, I voted for it before they back pedalled on what they were actually going to deliver.

    • +3

      If it was FTTP throughout, gigabit speeds would be available to everyone, just like it is now. It's just that most people don't have FTTP to be offered this. Even my HFC isn't yet upgraded to allow 250/20.

      • Yep. As soon as fttp was put in the too hard basket there was no point even proceeding imo. Wait until the budget allows a significant and worthwhile upgrade to ALL residents.

  • +3

    My nbn meets my needs.

    • we are talking about your needs in 15 years

  • +3

    Thank you for this thread. I'm constantly annoyed at how NBN eventuated, yet the politicians in charge of the "multi mix" option don't seem to be held accountable for this.

    Where were they when Netflix had to be throttled for working from home, or when Aussie Broadband slowed to a halt when COD and Fortnite updated on the same day…

  • I blame both. Happily.

    'scuse me

  • +2

    A bit exaggerated to say 3rd world. You can have 100Mbps internet, you just have to pay more.

    Whoever runs NBN, the biggest problem would've been the cost. Everyone knows how expensive it is to build infrastructure in this massive country/ continent. So the pollies made the prudent choice, and Labour would've done the same. If you pass the cost to the consumers, it will be very unpopular. And what's going to happen, NBN will be so expensive, not everyone can afford it. Then the whinge will be that the NBN is not for everyone and that is not fair.

  • +1

    Why doesn't the poll have the option to blame Labor? It was their silly idea in the first place.

    • +9

      The issue is the internet speed. We know right now the households with FTTP (Labor's original plan) are able to get gigabit speeds. FTTN households struggle with 25 Mbps.

      Feel free to suggest better ways of increasing internet speeds

      • -9

        What do most users need gigabit speeds for?

        Last time I looked the majority of internet bandwidth was being used for entertainment.

        • +6

          There is a lot of video conferencing happening at the moment, as well as VPN to their office for work.

          The other issue is the influence of Netflix and video games on productivity uses.

          Just 2 popular games were able to bring Aussie Broadband to a halt. If more people had gigabit speeds, the CVC wouldn't be as limited.

          My colleagues working from home require accessing radiology (CT / MRI) from home to diagnose, video conferencing to see patients, VPN to access hospital systems, and video conferencing for education / work meetings. These would all be helped by faster internet to share, even if individually you don't need gigabit. Gigabit internet also allows for faster upload speed, which is extremely important for work.

          • @ozbking: I was happily videoconferencing with ADSL2.

            You and your colleagues are a part of a very small minority. While fast internet may be important for you to work from home it does not justify spending public money connecting every house in the country.

            • +3

              @Bystander: People keep saying these workers are a small minority to try to justify. Given most people are actually working from home now, I would argue it is now a majority. The limited internet will be what limits our society from allowing more people from working from home after COVID.

              ADSL2 had an upload speed of 0.5 mbps, definitely not ideal for sharing powerpoints / videos / screens during meetings.

              • @ozbking:

                People keep saying these workers are a small minority to try to justify.

                Yes. And it IS a justifiable point. I sometimes work from home and the 25mbps link I have is much more than I need. I was working from home before NBN and it worked just fine.

                My argument is that if people such as yourself need faster internet, especially for business purposes, then it should be up to you or your employer to pay for a commercial service rather than having tax payers foot the bill for a project that is much larger and more expensive than necessary.

                • +6


                  My argument is that if people such as yourself need faster internet, especially for business purposes, then it should be up to you or your employer to pay for a commercial service rather than having tax payers foot the bill for a project that is much larger and more expensive than necessary.

                  And my argument, is that if you need more than single lane dirt.road for your commute into work, especially as it's for business purposes, the it should be up to you or your employer to pay for it, rather than tax payers that aren't using that road to pay for.