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)


  • +2

    I kinda expect the LNP to stuff this up, but I really, really, really hate ignorant voters. Unfortunately, I find that most of them are LNP ignorant fools.

  • -2

    I get 50ish/20ish and that's fine for my household. Seriously don't know why so many people need massive speed. What you going to do with it?

    • +4

      And why do we need cars? Seriously the horse and carriage is good enough, I don't know why so many people need to go faster. Where are they even going?

      • +1

        Does everyone needs a sports car, even in remote Australia? Would maybe a scooter suffice someone depending on their budget? Maybe other people don't want cars and prefer public transport?

    • +5

      That's today….
      Dial up use to be good enough
      ADSL use to be good enough
      Today your 50mbpbs connection is good enough for you…

      If you can't imagine that we will continue along the path of a more connected world with more bandwidth requirements and applications for high speed connectivity we haven't even thought of yet they you aren't trying hard enough…

      I didn't realise spending billions of dollars on infrastructure with the inability to handle future demands was a good thing :/

      • +1

        Out of curiosity, what do you do on your home connection that requires equal to or greater than 50/20?

        • +2

          Today… nothing of urgency (but would sure make some of the work from home tasks better or things like cloud backups for achievable)

          But clearly missed my the point.
          This was meant to be the ground work/frame work for technology for the next decades. Fibre is incredibly upgradeable in its capacity without the need to go replacing the actual medium.

          • @SBOB: Personally my usage has probably decreased or stayed the same for the last 20 years or so. I don't envisage I will ever require speeds above 50/20 or even close to that.

            An I would say I am more data and speed heavy than 80% of people out there.

            Sure having fiber to every home is nice, but expensive, very expensive and vastly under utilized now, as it will be in 20 years I imagine. The vast amout of data would be pictures videos and games I imagine now and in the future.

            I am yet to hear anything that warrants $50k per connected property personally.

            • +3


              as it will be in 20 years

              so you think the transition of time equivalent to (for some arbitrary examples)
              - dial-up to what you have now
              - hiring VHS videos compared to streaming services for everything
              - push button mobile devices to the smart devices we have now

              and if we then take that same time into the future, you don't think we'll see much difference to usage or speed requirements or completely new applications for connected devices

              got it…lack of imagination or foresight is a strong point then..

              again, we we're spending money on broadband infrastructure already, so you dont need to 'warrant' the cost.. what needs to be thought of is cost/time 'A' for what we have now compared to cost/time 'B' for what would have been the initial plan
              Was it 'A' a wise investment considering it wasnt much cheaper than 'B', is more inequitable between areas/locations due to being 'mixed' and will (at some point) need to be upgraded to a 'B' anyway

              Perhaps you'd be in favour of the government building one lane roads everywhere, hospitals with only a handful of beds, schools where there was only a 1 class room, parks with only one tree…

              • @SBOB: The vast benefits of smart tech hasn't been harvested from ping or bandwidth, not will it be in the future IMO.

                For me it was a squandering of money to roll fibre out to the extent it was.

                Maybe I'm just a dinosaur with no foresight.

                But like I said I'm yet to see a solid argumemt for fibre to every house other than "anything less is third world" "future man, think of the future"

                • +3


                  But like I said I'm yet to see a solid argumemt for fibre to every house other than "anything less is third world" "future man, think of the future"

                  And you still think this during the current COVID19 crisis where many business are having to be run out of the home?

                  I work in cloud software and it would be impossible to do some of the tasks I'm doing from home currently without the reliable upload that I currently get from fibre to my apartment.

                  Some of my tasks include:
                  - Recording and uploading training videos
                  - Conferencing with colleagues and clients all around the world
                  - Sitting in real time "war rooms" during large goverment product rollouts (think SNSW's Digital Drivers license)

                  How am I supposed to do this with a paltry ADSL connection with poor upload speeds that drop out every time it rains when the copper pit outside is flooded?

                  • @fatal: Thanks for fleshing out a bit of your WFH duties, I never had to WFH so didn't experience it.

                    So recording videos, I assume that would be done with local software? So in regards to internet connectivity you are uploading files in the hundred mb range? Which could be done concurrently with other tasks?

                    Conferencing, that is hardly demanding, my 12/1 connection could do that.

                    I have 4g mobile that if I had to upload 2gb worth of data quickly I would tether to.

                    As for reliability, I guess that varies, but im sure fibre pits flood too.

                    It sounds like you would be in the upper percentiles of WFH requirement but it still seems like you could have achived it.

                    I mean what would the average WFH employee be doing, download a 1gb worth of doc connect to a VPN. I know if I was to WFH I would probably need 5gb download then sporadic syncing.

                    • @Mrgreenz: Just to break this down a bit for you:

                      assume that would be done with local software? So in regards to internet connectivity you are uploading files in the hundred mb range?

                      Depends on the video but MB to GB range. And yes you can work concurrently but you still the videos to upload at some point. Having faster internet means you can cut it closer for edits and revisions and still make the deadlines.

                      Conferencing, that is hardly demanding, my 12/1 connection could do that.

                      It can but it's not ideal. The amount of people that drop out or have patchy connections during conferences is very high and this reflects poorly on presentations especially since we're an internet software company. Additionally, a 12/1 connection isn't going to be able to share webcam video and a high res screen share very well.

                      It sounds like you would be in the upper percentiles of WFH requirement but it still seems like you could have achived it.

                      Again, yes it could have been done if I had to but the experience for the customer and my work output would suffer. If that is the case right now, what will it be like next year when the requirements are higher and the software we build online is larger etc.

                      It's not possible to sit stagnant on technology on this space without falling behind.

                  • @fatal: I love that your in an apartment as providers like TPG were hampered from offering fibre to apartments by the NBNco but were eventually successfull


          • @SBOB: You can still go to 100/40, then hopefully in a couple years they can squeeze more out of it. No ideal sure but the same line that only gave you dial up now gives you 100/40 so there is hope.

    • +5

      I get 50ish/20ish and that's fine for my household. Seriously don't know why so many people need massive speed. What you going to do with it?

      This kind of thinking is how we ended up needing the NBN in the first place.

      Infrastructure doesn't magically get installed overnight. We need to be continually thinking in terms of future use and growth, lest we stagnate in the digital connected world. If we only build for what is "good enough" now, then copper is more than good enough for most.

      This is the exact argument we had in Parliament around Iron vs Copper lines for telegraph. Iron was said to be cheaper and "good enough" but the rapid advances in bandwidth requirements for the telephone meant the entire iron network had to be pulled up and replaced with copper.

      • "640kb RAM ought to be enough for anyone".
    • +1

      Agreed. I'm on the same speed and I run a pretty amazing internet business on it.

      If you want super high speed internet, then damn well pay for it. It's not the governments/taxpayers job to support your Linux distro download / short ping / 8K streaming ambitions.

    • +2

      Do you only plan and live for today?

  • +4

    We need a royal commision into it.
    Somone stood to make a fortune selling and buying the copper network.

  • +2

    Everyone saying they love their FTTP is further evidence the LNP (profanity) it for us all.

    • I love my FTTP and I hate LNP

  • +5

    Anyone claiming that it should've been done by private companies are just wrong. Telstra is the reason we needed the government to step in.

    I had 0.3Mbps ADSL before I got FTTP. Yes 0.3Mbps, at $90/month. I complained to Telstra for months and they just didn't care. They have no incentive to upgrade since they own the lines and it is the best you will get with any provider. Now I get 100/20 for the same price.

    • -1

      What governments should've done is creating a level playing field, then you would be choosing between Telstra or TPG or some other provider. If I were you I would ditch 0.3 Mbps ADSL in favour of 4/5G, for example Telstra 200GB/$75

      • +2

        creating a level playing field

        that was literally the whole point behind the nbn

        • Interesting. How come destroying competition and setting up a monopoly is levelling the playing field? Now independent providers of broadband even need to pay levies to support NBN.

          • @srr: Because infrastructure is expensive and the government is the one best to pay for this part and leave the reselling of the product to the private companies. Any company capable of doing this gets a monopoly by default because there are so few of them, and we don't want that.

            • @scupper: This is not how it has been done in some other countries, but maybe it’s an Australian way.

              • +1

                @srr: That's just one reason, but if you're familiar with the US's baby Bells, multiple infrastructure providers also isn't an ideal situation.

    • Telstra wasn't maintaing their lines as the NBN was coming (my parents had terible issues with their internet for years as the NBN dates kept being pushed back.

  • +3

    Inconvenient Fact: Labor's original proposal was FTTN to 98% of premises. The Nationals' Fiona Nash branded it "fraudband" (in a media release which has since been scrubbed, but tidbit here) and Labor subsequently revised the rollout to FTTP for 93% of premises.
    Even as far back as 2005, she along with Barnaby Joyce were arguing that copper was fast becoming outdated for next-gen service delivery.

    As for who to blame, I think OP could also add Murdoch to the poll. Former NBN Co. CEO Mike Quigley's account of a fruitless meeting he had with a group of News Limited's editorial staff is quite depressing.

  • +2

    How about blaming Labor for sabotaging NBN by bundling it up with all or nothing global carbon tax, as a result they lost the election.

    • +1


      A carbon tax would have actually made a difference and been positive for not only the environment but business as well.

      Now business is going it alone and making changes IN SPITE of the vacuum that is Liberal Policy.

      • How can you say Wrong and then make a claim with no supporting data.

        The carbon tax was a major reason that the ALP lost the endless running of the gillard clip saying "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" I don't support the NBN with labour or libs but it was hardly a key issue and didn't feature in the libs 5 point plan which won the election. if you think the NBN was good under labor then the carbon tax was part of what caused it to die with the alp government.

  • +3

    Simple. Liberal Party pandered to Murdoch, who didn't want world class fiber to the premises. That would be a massive hit to his interests… news/video/entertainment from alternative sources other than Foxtel and his newspapers.

    Corruption of the highest order. Blow billions on substandard NBN, instead of spending just a little more and doing it right from the beginning. There's only a certain type of person that believes old copper wires are 'just as good' as fibre. And that's Liberal Voters. HOOK LINE AND SINKER!

    Abbott's fear over "debt your grandchildren will be paying off" won him the election. What's the debt now?? Approaching ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!

    Liberal fearmongering. Now you can all eat cake for all the good they are doing.

    • +2

      “you can all eat cake”
      - sums up the IPA/LNP worldview

    • -1

      Great conspiracy theory, but murdoch makes most of his money in USA not AU why would he bother?

      But all the public servents and indirect employee's of government teachers/childcare workers generally voting labor is not an issue? particularly after the unions pay for the labor campaigns and provide a good chunk of their MP's

      Abbott tried to bring in a tight budget and it sowed the seeds of him being knocked off, he tried to deliver on that and lost his job. Lib voters are concernend about the debt and huge numbers quit the party after about was knifed and the debt continued to grow.

  • +1

    Classic way to frame a question. I blame Conroy, the whole plan was a shambles from the beginning. We need more engineer politicians. Whingers who are desperate to stream high definition pirated movies and run speed tests to satisfy their childish peculiarities don't grow an economy. Debt does matter and our current situation at the moment is a disaster…

  • +4


    • +4

      Ha ha!
      Like America has its deep South, Australia has its deep North

  • +2

    LNP are luddites who masquerade as nationalists but are really just sycophants to the big boys and would whore their own mothers out for a tiny crumb of the pie.
    Silly little men reminiscing of a time that never existed and sabotaging our countries future prosperity for short term personal gain.
    History will be very unkind to the LNP but for now they are protected by Murdoch and the feeble minds of the general populace.

    • +1

      If Australia ever gets a media with half a backbone, the LNP will be absolutely eviscerated. They get absolutely eviscerated day in, day out by independent media.

  • +4

    Murdoch decided the NBN would be bad and the NBN was bad.

    It is stupid to blame the LNP or someone else and ignore the truth.

    Murdoch has a MONOPOLY on the press in this country and he HAND PICKS the Prime Minister. And he decided that the NBN was going to be shit, he moved against it, and the end result is that its crap.

    If you don't like the NBN, you should stop supporting Murdoch's monopoly.

  • +1

    The NBN, as originally envisaged, is business school fodder for how not to implement a strategic infrastructure project. K Rudd has to carry the blame for that (not to say that subsequent governments didn't carry on the cock up). Governments, everywhere, have a poor track record of getting best bang for buck for many things - nature of the beast unfortunately.

    I'm personally very happy with the FTTN NBN that I have at home. It does everything that I need it to do at a price, while not being cheap, is affordable to me.

  • Let's not forget that Telstra had upgraded their cable in some targeted areas in Melbourne to offer 100Mbps however the slightly higher price (around $20 a month) prevented uptake to the point that they canceled rolling it out in Sydney. If people wouldn't pay such small amounts for the higher speed why should the government (using money form the people) spend 40-80 billion or 2k-4k per person in australia for something they wouldn't pay $20 bucks extra a month for?

    Should be a fourth option of government should have done nothing and let the market decide. Think how much more 5G would be being rolled out if there was still only ADSL and Cable available

    • +2

      Should be a fourth option of government should have done nothing and let the market decide

      That's what was happening, and guess what! Nothing was being improved, hence the nbn

      • Read my comment

        Telstra was offering higher speeds and people didn't think it was worth the extra money, why is it worth the money for everyone to do it?

        • +1

          Because the government should have a longer vision than a company might have. It reaps the benefit from the higher GDP that eventuates from the higher productivity that the new infrastructure facilitates, and results in tax gains.

          • +1

            @scupper: But But But nan and pops don't have any use for 100Mbps!!

          • @scupper: Pretty much my point, why pay for something people don't want enough to get themselves at a cheaper price?

          • @scupper: Sounds great but this was deliberatly not assessed by the productivity commission because of fears it wouldn't improve GDP or add up economically. Also if faster internet lead to a higher gdp/competative advantedge people would be willing to spend the extra money.

            • @jerrus: Well, we don't know if that's the "real" reason that Labor didn't put the productivity commission on the NBN, despite being challenged by the Libs about that. But you'll also know that the Lib's NBN wasn't either. Either way, the Lib's were quite convinced about the productivity improvements that NBN enables. Here's one I found.

              Willing to spend the money is different to being able to afford to spend it. Any business that is saved from having to pay for infrastructure that they need gets an immediate productivity boost.

              • @scupper: The point is that if either side wants to claim productivity as a reason for doing something we have the means to test it's value and they didn't.

                I'm not defending the libs on this,my issue with the post is that there was no options in the poll to blame labor or the idea of an NBN itself.

                Businesses that will make more than the cost of the fibre, and lack the capital outlay, could arrange finance or sign a 2-3 year deal and have the rollout cost spread over the length of the plan. If they really cant afford the interest cost that means that the productivity boost is so small it wouldn't justify the cost they shouldn't do it or they are financially so crippled their business should fail.

  • +1

    I don't believe the LNP voters voted LNP to build this crap. They hoped them could serve this country better. LNP screwed it up (in terms of NBN) so it's the party to blame, not the people.

  • +4

    I blame Murdoch and pure human greed. Most people are dumb and easily lead, which allows the likes of Murdoch to pull their strings.You can see this happen throughout history with things like religion especially. But it requires a dumb populace to get started.

    We had a chance to decrease the average dumbness through education, but we can't seem to get past our own greed to see the cost/benefit of a free quality education for all.

    • +3

      LNP: The party that demonised university students because they have the potential to be the elites of society. Defunded TAFE, the cheaper option to university. Defunded the ABC, the news media that was consistently airing LNP shenanigans. Installed cronies into the ABC boardroom to reduce the scrutiny they were getting. The LNP have been consistently dumbing down Australians and pulling the wool over our eyes. It takes more effort to be educated, both academically and politically, because the LNP (with help from Murdoch) have been sabotaging us for so long.

  • Who rolls out FTTN when FTTP was the installation standard. Does my head in.

    • +1

      But NBN was costed and would still be on track to pay itself off. How can it be a waste of money if decades from now it will certainly turn a profit, even when factoring in the interest paid in the meantime? We are still going to be Australia decades from now aren't we, isn't what's good for Australia as a whole more important than just looking at the budget right now and having your eyes bulge out like a Loony Toons character. It'd have paid itself off AND we would have got to use it in the meantime. It was good policy. If there was any waste in it, then it was worth it to start building it right now instead of never.

      I don't understand the argument against the ALP NBN. Decades from now won't all that new copper the Coalition laid end up rusting and want replacing with fiber anyway? And in the meantime people have to suffer through Internet that is like 20th century cable internet. And for what, to save some corporations and rich people some tax money for a few years? The blow to the economy for not having the full NBN costs us as a nation more than all of that other stuff combined in lost potential growth and productivity. An entire nation's digital growth grinds to a halt just to save a few thousand criminally rich men a few million tax dollars each. How is that good policy for Australia?

      • There was no cost benefit analysis done at the time. You're thinking the NBN would have been future proof for decades? And there was some grand Murdoch conspiracy going on? And your contribution to the Australian economy is suffering due to the current NBN? Hmmmm, interesting.

            • +1

              @smartinet: I think it would be best at looking at the whole budget, wasteful spending and government debt over the last 10 years and consider the savings from going to FTTN which in the end will cost more to upgrade for future generations as a drop in the ocean of those alleged saved billions.

              • @Korban Dallas: I agree but politics is not a long term game these days, it’s all about the short sharp sugar hit. I’m sure the full Fiber build will come, just not under the current economic conditions.

            • +2

              @smartinet: Where do you get $72bn from?
              Labor costs capped out at $45bn in September 2013. A blow out from initial estimates of $43bn in 2009, after installation trials they conducted in order to properly understand costs.

              Yet this 5% evidence based revision was labelled a disaster while the Libs were pulling their own estimates out of their ass. And not just their own, but Murdoch was helping them invent new inflated numbers for Labor too, based on nonsense and lies (this might help explain where you got $72bn from):

              in mid August 2010 a young reporter from The Australian contacted NBN … after hearing somewhere that every home connected to the NBN would need to be rewired, at a cost of up to $3000. I spent 45 minutes on the phone with him, explaining that there was absolutely no need for any household to upgrade their internal wiring when connecting to the NBN. … However, when published a day or two later, the article repeated the same claim of $3000 wiring costs…

              As for the very early estimates,

              First we were all getting Fibre for $15bn (what a joke)

              That $15bn estimate was made in 2007 and based on FTTN, which was quickly scrapped.
              But if you're going to hold that number against Labor, at least be fair and do the same with the Libs far more absurd joke number:

              The Coalition has vowed if elected to scrap the NBN and substitute a modest $6.3bn network using existing copper, wireless and HFC cable technologies.

              Libs claimed they could build a suitable network for $6.3bn. It's harder to tell if that's absurdly low or high, given that it would have simply been an inadequate rebranding of existing technologies.
              Even going by worst case fictional numbers, 72/15 is 4.8x costs, while 52/6.3 is 8.3x.
              Or going by actual post-election costs for the thing they wanted to deliver, Labor's 43/45 is a 5% increase, while Libs 52/29.5 is a 75% increase.

              Bit ridiculous to claim Labor couldn't manage costing when their own estimates remained fairly stable, and were assessed with trials prior to full-steam rollout.
              Very ridiculous to make that claim in comparison to the Libs.

              • +1

                @crentist: Damning quote:

                But as Bill Morrow, NBN Co’s then CEO, admitted in a Senate Estimates hearing in October 2015, the analysis performed by NBN Co did not attempt to estimate the peak funding and timing for a continuation of the FTTP-based NBN. Instead, they were asked by the government to predict the costs and timing of winding down the MTM and restarting the FTTP NBN – after two years of cost blowouts, commitments and delays with the MTM.

        • +4

          Explain the 50,000 km of copper that NBNco has purchased.
          They claim 2/3's of it was/is for FTTC lead ins (installing NEW copper lead ins is still stupid), what was the other 16,666km of copper used for?

          You are spouting surface level information as absolute truths.
          Much of what you said has been refuted by experts time and time again regarding costing.

          The LNP has sold us a lemon and the NBN will be a laughing stock for decades to come.

          Are you drinking the LNP/Murdoch Koolaid or what?

          • @h0mbre: H0mbre, of course they are. Just look at this thread, lmao

  • +1

    Maybe a Chinese corporation will step in and build the network and lease it back to us. The government never will, Australian telcos never will. Why not just give in and let another country do it for us.

    • I assume you forgot the /s

      otherwise you'd get what happened on some tv show that was out years ago with an israeli company building a network for the Palestinian internet and phone networks with every byte sent through it duplicated and stored for examination by Mosad. yeah… nah… just nah…

      • That seems to be the reason Huawei has been locked out of the 5G rollout in Australia.

    • Telstra would have built it at the start but the government wouldn't ensure them they wouldn't be forced to wholesale it.

  • +4

    It's going to be the same with renewable energy / EVs, while everyone else is transitioning to that we'll be far behind because we need to please certain people.

  • +2

    "Murdoch Press" should be a stand-alone option in this Poll.
    The LNP and those who voted for them are just proxies.
    Rupert wasn't going to let reliable and fairly-priced streaming scupper his multi-billion-dollar cable business without a fight.
    The saddest thing is, FoxTel is basically dead anyway and we are stuck with a 3rd rate NBN that hurts Australian Business and Innovation as collateral damage.. at a time where we couldn't need it more

  • +2

    I have Fibre to the home, but I am so pissed off with the con job of the LNP.

  • How about blaming pork barreling in and the extent politicians (both Labor and LNP) will go for promises to buy votes.

    The concept of an NBN was a brilliant idea on principal by Labor and was well ahead of its time.

    Unfortunately, this idea was born from a concept of "broadband for the bush" where fast internet was promised and rolled out in priority to the bush first ahead of any major population centers. This led to a cost blowout which then gave ammunition for LNP to then change the implementation to go FTTN.

    Had businesses and technology leaders had a say in the rollout out, the priority would have been to connect the major population centers first (following initial smaller trials) so you can get a return sooner and so more people can benefit from the new technology as fast as possible. As it stands, there are pockets in major cities where the NBN is still a work in progress which highlights how out of touch the implementation of this plan is.

  • Liberal voters were manipulated. Weren't they told 30b by 2016 for the current situation?

    Still daft, Fibre was worth arriving later and Labor had estimated around 40b for their plan. But I can't blame people who don't understand the tech for being manipulated by media/politicians.

Login or Join to leave a comment