Talk:National Broadband Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

final bidders

Details are still a bit sketchy on who exactly bid, but Telstra definitely submitted a non-complying bid.

Refs: Labor network tender a farce: Minchin

Telstra enters NBN race

--Surturz (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Minister says it is valid.

Telstra broadband bid is valid: Conroy

-- Rob.au (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR here, but I think that is a bit laughable. A twelve page letter proposing a $5 billion network different to the one specified in the RFT? Telstra are only offering metro coverage... ie. they want to kick their competitors out of the cities and establish/cement their monopoly. Does Telstra or the government seriously believe that a $5 bill contract can be awarded based on 12 pages? --Surturz (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note as a reminder that the government's election promise was a $4.7 billion national broadband network. Telstra proposing a $5 billion plan was not so daft as at that stage the government didn't really know what they wanted. --58.174.26.187 (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well indeed, but this is our POV. For the time being it is what it is, they say they have a bid they have witheld and tendered their 12 page proposal in the hope it gets their foot in the door. Until such time as it is officially rejected an NPOV stance requires taking it at face value, although noting the fact that it falls short of the specified key requirements. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you. I don't think it is correct to say Telstra "withheld a fully detailed bid" though. Government tenders are meant to be unforgiving, you either submit a conforming tender by the deadline or you don't. Reading between the lines, Telstra didn't, but everyone is pretending they did. --Surturz (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Telstra's submission (which is linked in the references) claims they prepared a fully developed bid but were witholding it pending a number of conditions. Per WP:NPOV the article needs to take this at face value regardless of how ridiculous it may be. That's just how Wikipedia is. Debate is raging about the validity of Telstra's foot in the door - all we can do is note that and move on - it's up to the reader to decide. Of course in reality it's up to the panel to decide. As for the deadline, there are some reports that Telstra in fact missed it. -- Rob.au (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Will Telstra's proposal last the review? (contributor unknown...?)

My appologies for editing before reading discussion. I agree - we must remain objective and stick to the facts. However, the column heading says "Reason", and saying that it was simply rejected may have a degree of bias itself. We do need to "note that" the debate is raging. How about this:

Proposal was rejected by Federal Government on 15 December 2008. The reason given was that the proposal did not comply with the set requirements.[ref] However, Telstra asserts that it's bid was valid.[ref] The situation is in contention.

Samjetski (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good text, in my ignorant opinion Sam (?), please be bold and add it. A lot of discussion below relates to presentation, a little to appropriate neutral wording. I think one thing people would agree on is that the table should remain concise and not be overloaded with info better expressed in prose. I like the table, it will remain just as valuable into the future as a historic record of the competing bids. If you want to add your text as prose, go for it, if you want to modify the table, go for that too. The second option might trigger some concerns, but talk is good, it just takes time for people to agree.

Main thing is, you're offering sourced, neutral, notable info. Please just do it! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bidders Table

I don't think long blocks of prose adds any value to the bidders table. In particular lines like "proposes a fibre grid be built using FTTN while using a competing range of last mile options" are multiply redundant. FTTN is by definition a fibre grid and also by definition does not proscribe how the last mile (or half-mile as it is normally referred to for FTTN) is achieved. A range of last mile deliveries is assumed unless otherwise stated. To maintain a table's ability to provide an overview, it is important to reduce and summarise text as far as possible.

If extended discussion of individual proposals is sufficiently notable, then this would be better handled by a normal paragraph or paragraphs following the table. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The intended use of the Bidders table is to provide further information on the bids and not to simply give one word answers, it is intended to offer a more detailed view of the NBN. Further information inside the table is very important, it is not redundant in the sense that it provides information that was previously not shown within the article, it also allows a comparison of bids. "Proposes a fibre grid be built using FTTN while using a competing range of last mile options" is a quote from Art Price and provides an explanation to users that may not know very much about this article after all not everyone is an "expert", the table allows an annotation of the bids and helps provide a clear and balanced view, removal of information from this table severely waters down this article and removes a great deal of information, which is what Wikipedia is all about. Random12347 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate use for a table... a table is a summary by nature. The large amounts of prose in the table made it hard to match and compare the nature of the competing bids and was completely unnecessary. I disagree that the prose was providing a clear and balanced view - I in fact feel it was exactly the opposite. Only now you can use the table to compare the bids easily.

Copying a quote is a copyright violation inappropriate for Wikipedia and in any case, the quote is still redundant. "Proposing an FTTN" says the same thing and it is not for this article to explain what FTTN is. There is a Fiber to the x article that already does this and this is already wikilinked from here. There is no need to repeat it.

At the end of the day there was not a "great deal of information" removed from the article. The ONLY information removed from the article by the modifications to the table was the specification of the number of nodes and length of fibre proposed by Optus. I am concerned that this information is not well sourced - it was only a throwaway line in a news report about another bid and isn't any kind of detail that was released by the bidder themselves or any other party. Accordingly it does not appear to satisfy WP:V or WP:N at this time. If it does in future, this level of detail would be better covered in a normal text paragraph following the table.

The table should be a summary. If detail is appropriate, it should follow the table. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Table does need to include more than simple one word answers, projects on the scale of complexity such as the NBN require a large amount of detail and a single yes or no answer is not suffice, this has been shown within the NBN bidding process ie Telstra's removal for this exact reason, lack of detail and missing important information. The apparently throw away line is the extra detail that makes an article more than just a yes or no piece, to remove information such as this which came straight from the horses mouth, Optus, is a very naive view to take. The table does not need to be a yes or no summary there is no word limit for a summary and it provides an easy to read and clear comparison and will provide a simple template that can easily be updated as more facts come to hand. Random12347 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure comparing a Wikipedia article to lodging a bid for a government RFP is a valid comparison. Nor is suggesting my edits to the table have resulted in it becoming "a simple yes or no". All the information excepting the Optus node count and fibre length has been retained in the table. Regarding this Optus detail, you say it came "straight from the horses mouth" - if this is the case please provide the citation from Optus. The citation from the news article is a cause for concern because the news article does not state where it obtained the information from and there appear to be no other sources that can verify this information. The table was not easy to read in its former state - this is essentially the only reason I changed it. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The previous revision of the NBN article did feature a much larger amount of detailed information and any subsequent edits have watered down this detail to simple yes or no, one word answers. The previous revision allowed the table to be updated as more information was released. There is major difference between many of these bids and this has been reveled in the media very widely, further detail is essential and the table was not difficult to ready it offered and simple all in one information source for people looking to find out about their $4.7bn National Broadband Network. This was not the first unnecessary edit performed on the page ie unsourced change from FTTP to FTTH which was subsequently changed back. Perhaps Rob.au should not remove information without first having a sourced replacement, one source is better than none. Random12347 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember that a gag order applies to the parties that submitted bids to the RFP. Optus have not said anything about their bid... the whole crux about that source is that there are no others. The information therefore fails Wikipedia policies as I have outlined - that's why I removed it. There is nothing stopping you from adding content when content is available, though I still form the view that it would be appropriate for detail to be contained in normal body text and the table left as a summary to allow easy at a glance comparison of the bids. But with the gag order in place I don't see how we will obtain real verifiable information in the short term. The gag order is Section 11.1 of the RFP - "Public Statements - "11.1.1. Except with the prior written approval of the Commonwealth, Proponents should not make a statement, issue any document or material or provide any other information for publication in any media, concerning this RFP, the Proposal evaluation, the acceptance of any Proposal, commencement of negotiations, creation of a shortlist, or notification that a Proponent is a preferred Proponent"

I won't repeat my arguments about the "one word answers" - your assertions are not correct in my opinion. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24710301-15306,00.html - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24780196-5013040,00.html I would probably call that two, count them, two different sources that provide the same details. In regard to the general table it was much more detailed and offered more information, information that was all sourced and provided in depth details of the project. The gag order does not mean that no details of the network can be revealed it means that all details or significant information cannot be revealed. The short term is an arguable phrase as the short term for the NBN is analysis by the chosen panel and the eventual selection by the minister. To be a balanced article your opinion should not influence the views of others ie removal of large slabs of information. Wikipedia requires sourcing for this exact reason. Random12347 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The extra link you have provided here (the first one in your comment) does not make any reference to the Optus information I removed as per Wikipedia policy. All Optus says there is that they had a 1000 page proposal. It doesn't verify the information I removed. There was no removal of large slabs of information - that is simply untrue, but I give up at this point and will wait for the third opinion you have requested. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Both sources link one and two both contain Terria/Optus bid information. Large slaps of information were removed, the table now contains more than six one word statements whereas it previously did not contain any single word details. Random12347 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm Aussie, so I recognized the topic and might understand the issues. I'm very strongly against removal of reliably sourced info, but I'm also against insistence on unreliable information being retained. Maybe I'm not the guy you need, but you seem to both have good cases, and are handling things pretty well already. Let's see if I can help you two agree on what Wikipedia should do here. I won't take sides or make a casting vote. Perhaps you could each explain what you think is best for readers and why. That way you're both talking to me about other people, and it takes the pressure off locking horns with one another. What's best for readers and why? Shoot! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing that this article can achieve is to offer information, information that is well sourced and is also balanced in its views. The major issue seems to be that one editor is insistent on removing information based on their own opinion. Well sourced information is the backbone of Wikipedia and without that well sourced information Wikipedia cannot operate, removal of information that allows greater depth is not a good approach to be take. This article relates to one of the largest projects ever undertaken by the Australia Government and it is essential that people who want information on this have places to turn to, this is were Wikipedia can shine, it allows the potential readers to find out information that is well sourced and probably not available on any other single website. The removal of information that was well sourced has restricted that and has restricted the ability of readers of this article to gain more than a simple one word understanding of this article. Although not only was the information easily accessible the way it was set out also allowed for readers to make comparisons on the project ie the use of technology (FTTN or FTTP). Readers need to be able to see the information for themselves and it is not up to the opinion of one editor to decide what readers see and don't see. The best approach for readers is for them to be able to see this information and the fact that all of this information had two or more references does prove that this information was important. Readers of this article need to have as much information available to them as possible and to also be able to see comparisons between the information, this is why a normal paragraph of text below the table doesn't offer an easy alternative as this would make the article confusing and would not inform the reader. I would also like to add a few extra points:: Firstly not every reader on Wikipedia is an "expert" and this means that certain technical terms must be explained. ::"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." that is a quote of what verifiable information is and it seems to say in there "not whether we think it is true" the Terri/Optus bid information that is referred to as not sourced properly or only referenced once is not true the same or similar information has been written in at least two different articles that were written two weeks apart one on the 26th of November and one on the 10th of December. The table does not feature a single list and is therefore nothing to do with lists and the table is not be used as a page layout, it is being used to organize information so that readers do not have to scroll through pages of information to find what they are looking for. Random12347 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Random, mate, I can see a number of good points there: big project, lots of reliable information available, systematic presentation needed. I suspect there are cons as well as pros to the particular strategy of presentation you seem to suggest. I'm looking forward to hearing Rob put his case. I'm sorry to ask him to repeat himself (since he's explained some of his thinking above), however, he can take this chance to add more if he wants. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair. I must say I'm not happy about being accused of tainting the article with opinion - as pair my early edits to the article I've really striven to maintain NPOV here, particularly with regards to the controversy surrounding Telstra's bid. So too the repeated claims of removing large amounts of information and "well sourced" information when this simply is not the case. The last set of comments by the other editor seem to focus entirely on this supposed removal of information, so I will start by focusing on what changes I made (as seen here), starting with the table structure.

Table Structure

Before	After
Bidder Name	Bidder
Coverage of proposal	Coverage
FTTN (Fibre-to-the-node) or FTTP (Fibre-to-the-premises)	Details

The first two are self explanatory. There's no material change, it's a simple tidying up of the table in terms of headings. With the third, firstly there's no need to spell out the abbreviations as this has been done at the top of the article per WP:MOSABBR, but obviously my change goes beyond that and ironically my reasons for the change are identical to the other editor's reasons for reverting it. Labelling the third column as "FTTN or FTTP" is quite restrictive in nature, whereas "Details" allows for any notable aspect of a particular bid to be outlined. Further, we don't have the same information available from all bidders. The government mandated in the RFP that no bidder is to supply this kind of information to the public or any media outlet. Given the RFP requirements, only the government and the bidders know the content of their proposals. The government has said nothing, some bidders have made some narrow comments either directly or been quoted by media. It's these narrow comments and media quotes that give us the small amount of verifiable information which naturally should be included in the article. However the end result of this is that the information that we have for each bidder only allows an incomplete glimpse of some aspect of their proposals. We don't have enough details for a "FTTN or FTTP" column at this time.

A broader "details" section allows whatever is available to be noted, giving the reader a clear insight into the notable parts of each proposal that we know about.

Once you have these notable details in their own section, the "Coverage" column can be used for the appropriate at-a-glance comparison. One of the non-negotiable aspects of the RFP was a choice between two kinds of submissions. Each bidder had to either make a National proposal or a State-based bid for a single state as a requirement of the RFP. It was a simple choice - National or State/Territory Based for a single state or territory. It is entirely appropriate for this column of the table to present to the reader what the straight forward choice of each bidder was. National or State/Territory. Keeping it simple means the reader can just look down the list and easily see which bids were national and which were not and of the two that were not, what areas that covered. It's quick, it's simple and delivers maximum impact to the reader, especially those new to the topic, conveying to them in an instant that bids were either national or state and which bids were what.

Table Content

I will now move on to the changes I made to the table content. I will leave the Optus/Terria change to a seperate section as that was what I regard as an active decision to remove content. I only consider the other changes to be housekeeping, which I will discuss first.

	Coverage (of proposal)	FTTN or FTTP/Details
Acacia
Before	Submitted a bid to reach 100% population coverage.	Blank
After	National	Proposes 100% population coverage.
Axia NetMedia
Before	Submitted a national bid.	Axia proposes the use of FTTP in metro areas and in regional areas proposes a fibre grip be built using FTTN while using a competing range of last mile options.
After	National	Proposes use of FTTP in metro areas and FTTN in regional areas.
Telstra
Before	Submitted a proposal but witheld a fully detailed bid and only proposed 80% to 90% population coverage, causing some debate about its validity.	Blank
After	National	Submitted a proposal but witheld a fully detailed bid and only proposed 80% to 90% population coverage.
Tasmanian Government
Before	Submitted a state based bid for Tasmania.	Blank
After	Tasmania	Blank
TransAct
Before	Submitted a state based bid for the ACT.	Blank
After	ACT	Blank

Obviously there are only two changes I made here that of any significance, Axia NetMedia and Telstra.

With Telstra I removed the phrase "causing some debate about its validity". The reason I removed it was in light of recent events. There was some media speculation (which is still cited there) about the population coverage of Telstra's bid being grounds for its dismissal. Reporting of the consequent barring from the process and statements from each party made it very clear that the hurdles for basic validity of each proposal were very much simpler, before reaching the stage of considering the "key requirements" of the RFPs. Telstra's bid was struck out for not meeting one of those more basic validity constraints (ie. lack of SME plan) and accordingly their lack of proposed coverage was never even considered. The debate that ensued on that topic has effectively been now shown to have been inaccurate speculation. There were therefore two grounds for removing it. 1. It turned out to be inaccurate speculation and 2. The potential to mislead and confuse readers when the reason for being struck out was lack of a SME plan. The key point of the lack of coverage naturally is still shown here in the table, it's only the "validity" comment that I removed.

With Axia NetMedia, I have previously outlined my arguments for changes here (all of which still applies) and in any case it has since been revealed to have been a copyright violation and therefore cannot be returned. Regardless - all Fiber to the x proposals involve fibre grids so it is not NPOV to say that one bidder is proposing to build a fibre grid. This would lead the casual reader to believe that this was something special about this proposal, when in fact it is the reverse - it's a fundamental aspect of all FTTx proposals. Secondly, the same situation applies to saying that the FTTN aspect will use "a range of last mile options". This is discussed in the Fiber to the x article - "High speed communications protocols such as broadband cable access (typically DOCSIS) or some form of DSL are used between the cabinet and the customers. The data rates vary according to the exact protocol used and according to how close the customer is to the cabinet. Unlike the competing fiber to the premises (FTTP) technology, fiber to the node can use the existing coaxial or twisted pair infrastructure to provide last mile service." So again, this bid was being portrayed as having something extra, when in fact it was simply a fundamental aspect of FTTN so again we have an NPOV issue.

The fact that the information in question is more notable in the Fiber to the x article - which is linked to this one - is perfectly suitable grounds for removing it from this one and even if there was an argument for having some summary of it here, it most certainly does not belong in the table of bidders! Ultimately this article is about the NBN as a network and not about the technology unless there is something critically unique about its application. I haven't seen any indication at this point that there is.

Optus/Terria changes

So, again lets recap what I did here.

	Coverage (of proposal)	FTTN or FTTP/Details
Terria/Optus
Before	Optus Networks Investments submitted a national bid on behalf of Terria.	Terria/Optus has released that it is proposing a Fibre-to-the-node network that would require the use of 75,224 nodes and 100,000km of fibre.
After	National	Optus Networks Investments submitted a national bid on behalf of Terria, proposing use of FTTN.

So the content that was removed here was that this bidder had "released" information that they would use "75,224 nodes and 100,000km of fibre". While the one - single - citation did quote these numbers, it gave no information as to where it got them from. Not one other publication has mentioned them in relation to the bid and a check of Optus and Terria media releases comes up with nothing. Accordingly, this information failed the WP:V policy and in my opinion had to be removed. Like you, I don't like removing content from Wikipedia and have reverted other editor's attempts to do so where no justification was given - but as stated, this information fails Wikipedia policy. All I can find regarding the 75,224 nodes are articles which are all sourcing The Australian's article, or outright copying it.

If the information can in future be verified per WP:V then clearly I would very much like to see it returned to the article, however it needs to be in such a way as to uphold NPOV. I feel that including such detailed data in table where similar information is not available from other bidders could be a problem and it would be better handled another way.

Summary

Sorry, I didn't intend for this to be so long, but unfortunately I am really bristling at the allegations that were being made about my intentions and my actions. In short this arguent comes down to WP:WTUT. Some special lists - in this case a list of bidders - do lend themselves to the tabular nature of a table, as is the case here, however we have to be mindful of "Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table". Loading up a table with text is not the intention of what is really an enhanced list. Ultimately we are comparing this with this.

Clearly I feel the latter gives a better, neutral, overview to the reader without misleading them and without reinventing the wheel by including information that's already covered more appropriately in the Fiber to the x article. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, this does help me see, very clearly, several distinct issues. The main two seem to be that text in the "Coverage" column was essentially simplified from a short phrase to a single word in each case (I think you're both telling me that and I can see it with my own eyes from the diffs.) Additionally, "75,224 nodes and 100,000km of fibre" was deleted as factually questionable, because this depended on the report of only one media outlet. There is also some question about the suitability of a table in any case, though the table format is still being used at this point. Please let me know if I've missed something major or presented this unfairly. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the change of the coverage area of the article is another important point as there is more information on hand that jst whether the bid is national or state/territory, there is also the fact of the exact reach of the proposal ie 80-90% percent in Telstra's failed proposal. This means to me that a possible alternative table, restructured to spread the information between four or five different categories:

Bidder Name	Bid Type	Proposed Coverage	Proposed Network Structure	Other Details
Acacia	National	100%
Axia NetMedia	National		Proposes FTTP in Metro areas, while using FTTN in rural areas.
Telstra	National	80-90%	Proposes FTTN with speeds or 25 Mbps to 50 Mbps within 75% of the network, with speeds of 12 Mbps to 20 Mbps elsewhere.	Submitted a proposal but withheld a fully detailed bid.
Terria/Optus	National	98%	FTTN	The network would require the use of 75,224 nodes and 100,000km of fibre.
Tasmanian Government	State			The Tasmanian Government proposes building a new broadband network in the Tasmania, little information is known on this bid.
TransACT	Territory			TransACT proposes building a new broadband network in the ACT, little information is known on this bid.

Regardless of this newer structure the NBN article still requires more than single word answers. The questioned Terria/Optus information has been published twice two weeks apart and has two credible sources. The opinion of one editor does seem to be influencing the article to large extent, while i don't disagree with sometimes further summarizing information this is only possible to an extent and is not a good idea if it is going to remove information, once again i will remind you not everyone that reads this article will have a great deal of knowledge about it, Wikipedia is often the first place people turn when they don't know what something is. Also the issue about "it is already on the Fibre-to-the-x page" is nothing to do with this article it is uncongenial to think that some atricle will have information related to other article's, this is just a petty argument to have, in regard to the overlapping of information. I believe a compromise is still possible but it is not a one sided issue and it takes some from both sides Random12347 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am an ignorant but interested Australian learning about this important topic from you two well-informed Wiki editors, rather than from the media. Random's comments here seem to include compromises, open mindedness and plenty of good sense (his continuing personal reservations about Rob being the only exception). Alastair Haines (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately as the comments in question are wrapped up in further personal attacks against myself and what I regard as repetition of false representations of my arguments that I already addressed, I don't really see how a constructive discussion can be conducted in that context. It may be easier for third parties to pick out the arguments from the attacks but for me it is impossible to respond directly. I did type a response last night but I made a judgement call not to post it given it was obviously tinged by my reactions to being personally attacked from inappropriate epithets to further assumptions of bad faith being levelled at me. I remain prepared to work constructively with the other editor but obviously a base requirement would be for the Wikipedia policies regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to be respected. I don't believe it is unreasonable of me to insist upon this and I have no other response for them in the interim... the ball is in their court on that one. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, for not posting the other comment. I've learned to censor myself in that way at Wiki too. ;)

Thanks also for clarifying both your willingness to respect and work with Random, and for being clear that the personal side of things is important to you, which Wikipedia does uphold in principle, though it needs each of us to back that by implementing it.

I can see Random taking some of your ideas on board in recent posts. That strikes me as a good sign. I suspect he (?) felt disrespected by modification of his material without prior discussion. I can understand that.

I'm not sure it's helpful to try to assess who's been more appropriate here. I can see good faith reasons in both parties being a bit miffed. I'd love to hear Random offer some kind of de-stressing post, so we don't keep extending and documenting a passing issue. No big deal, but can you help us out on this one, Random? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very surprised by the conduct of the other editor, instead of trying to move on from this situation he insists on writing comments like the one just above that just accuse me of personal attacks, maybe you should not have posted the comment you did because it is a personal attack on me. Maybe and this is just a suggestion and not an attack the other author should take a deep breath read the Wikipedia policies for himself and move on, this article is bigger than any one person and in order for it to be a good quality article the current situation needs to be addressed properly. Random12347 (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else wish to comment on this? By my count, this is the third time I've been accused of WP:OWN and I don't think it will be helpful for me to add my views on this topic.

Nope, sorry...

"To be a balanced article your opinion should not influence the views of others"

"The major issue seems to be that one editor is insistent on removing information based on their own opinion."

"is not up to the opinion of one editor to decide what readers see and don't see."

"The opinion of one editor does seem to be influencing the article to large extent"

"this article is bigger than any one person"

... it's actually five times. Not to mention lines like "was not the first unnecessary edit performed" or calling me "naive" and "petty", or the insinuation of that last "good quality" comment.

I've given extensive reasoning in minute detail about the changes I made and I've offered to move on if these attacks stop... and have continued to contribute to the actual content discussion below. I don't know what else I can do. We should be discussing the actual topic, but that can't happen while this continues unabated. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have a new thought on this. These kind of discussions go in circles and can go on forever.

Rob is imo justly confident of his opinions on certain matters, and allowed to express these. But Random is right to recognize Rob's confidence, and challenge what he asserts, but not Rob's confidence itself. Yes, because Rob is confident, he's not easily pleased. But there is some truth in the same things with regard to Random.

Rather than pursuing getting the two of you to make some retractions or otherwise wind-down friction from the past, although both of you would be entitled to feel some injustice overlooked, perhaps it is better to simply drop it.

Let's allow both of you to remain convinced of your own assessments in your own minds, but leave it in your minds and keep working together on actual text. The personal side of things should never have come up, and really shouldn't continue. If it can't be resolved quickly, perhaps it needs to be bypassed quickly.

I think progess is being made on content and compromise. I'll hang around to watch that things don't flare up again. But you two are clearly capable of working past things.

Thanks to the other outside opinion below, I think you can each see that there's at least one point for each of you to back-down on: Random needs to accept the one word column (though I personally had no objection to the fuller form), and Rob probably needs to back-down about The Australian. You're simply too smart for the rest of us at Wiki here Rob. Wiki can only travel at the speed of the slowest (theoretically reliable) source.

Let me dare to declare the "personal feud" over—no winner, no loser, no names, no pack-drill.

Further discussion should simply stick to content issues and sources. Any further personal references should be ignored. I'll intervene from here on, only to clarify content disagreement by rephrasing it as questions. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The happy ending section

LOL, thanks for posting Rob, and take your time saying whatever you need to say. I think we tread on one another's toes at Wiki often because real life has priority and typing out our thoughts is far from convenient. The medium makes communication harder ... unless we are willing to be realistic about the time frame. Less haste, more speed ... and fewer bloody noses. ;)

One thing I want to say straight away right here (while I'm trying to catch up with what you're both telling me) is I appreciate you both taking the time to get this sorted out. Thanks both of you for being honest about how you're feeling too.

Can we at least agree to take one step towards one another by admitting that the complexities of the disagreement have led to frustration that's spilled over into making statements that address the other editor's presumed motives (or competence) and hence made things even more complex. Think hard about the other guy here for a moment, innocent until proven guilty, is it so hard to believe he's acting in good faith, how ever wrong (and clumsy) he might be? I'm going to assume, from now on, that you've both worked that out.

I'm guessing, but I think Rob's more troubled by what's been said that shouldn't have been. And Random's more troubled about the way his judgment's been called into question by actions he thinks shouldn't have been taken. We've kind of got forever to work out what should actually happen in the article, text changes can always be fixed; but sorting this other thing out is more urgent and important. You two strike me as extremely competent partners in the work on this page, and we've just gotta get it back to being like that. You two can work out better than I what you should say to one another to fix that.

OK, I'll sign off now, and let you two post next to sort the personal side of things out; that gives me time to work out some more focussed questions for you, to see if that helps the two of you work out the text issues. This article needs the two of you working together to make its text best. It's your baby not mine. I'm sure you two can see where we're going. Your turn, cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Table format: suitable or not?

Coverage column: single word/short phrase?

Data (from The Australian): WP:V RS or not?

Validity of Telstra bid: notable or not?

Comments

Not much middle ground on any of these points, but I can see sense in both sides of each case. Decisions need to be made, but agreement should be possible on all. One or both of you are going to have live with one or all of these points not being settled the way he would like. The situation constrains this, not either of you personally. You're both doing the right thing--the article needs both sides raised and argued, but it also needs only one decision to be taken long term. This should not cost us an editor (either one of you) in the process. ;)

Do I need to add to this list of issues? Have I missed the point? Alastair Haines (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through all the talk, but here is my 2c opinion:

• Table format - the second table should be made into an extra column in the first table labelled "Status" or somesuch.
• Coverage column - OK as is
• Data from The Australian - The Australian is a WP:RS and therefore figures can be quoted from an article. If there is doubt as to the accuracy, use a weasel phrase like "reported to be " or something.
• Validity of Telstra bid - definitely notable - has affected their share price and caused controversy. I think the regulation/competition issues deserve at least a little coverage in this article, perhaps with a link to another article where the issue is described in more detail (Telstra?). The "Status" column could perhaps point to a separate "Telstra bid" section.

Hope this helps. --Surturz (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Surturz, it helps me at least, cause I'm going to refuse to answer questions or take sides until the team here have got themselves reorganized. I'll trust them to make best use of your valuable input. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Surtez, would you be able to elaborate a little on what you were suggesting regarding combining the tables? I'm interested but I don't think I quite follow what you were proposing. I gather you're okay with the first two columns of the table as appears now in the article, but had a suggestion regarding the remainder?

Regarding the issue of The Australian, I'm so not a fan of weasel words but if there's going to be a compromise to include this weak information, it can't happen without them. Unfortunately the Australian is the only source of the information after which it quotes itself and all other articles I can find via Google either source the Australian or outright copyvio the Australian. The Australian claims that Optus/Terria announced the information, yet there's no press releases of it, nor any third party publication that mentions it which just leaves it unsatisfactorily open to doubt about where it came from. Part of me can't help feeling someone's picked it up from previous concepts that were proposed by Terria's predecessor the G9, which were subsequently withdrawn. I've tried Googling this theory but not found anything that can confirm or deny it. I'm just very uneasy about Wikipedia establishing facts that are very weakly sourced... unusually so for the Australian.

Regarding the Telstra bid validity - I think I may have created a misconception regarding my view because in my previous reasoning I contextualised my argument very closely on justification of the specific changes I made and why. I think discussion of Telstra's bid validity is in fact very relevant and deserving of its own section and I compltely agree with your suggestion that the status section for Telstra's entry in the table should simply reference such a section so the issue can get the appropriate coverage. At the moment it is represented in another table that really is inadequate at dealing with the issue. A seperate regular text section in the article would be entirely appropriate to discuss what's widely regarded as to be a pivotal event, although the media hasn't be neutral on this issue at all (though the prevailing bias has remarkably changed in the wake of the formal rejection) and we need to be mindful of NPOV in our approach to it. I would - though - see some things as out of scope for this article, such as the savaging of Telstra's share price, which has been appropriately included in the Telstra article already. The focus here is on the implications for the NBN - so issues like Telstra's focus on HFC and Mobile (something they were talking up long before the recent event) are entirely relevant, but financial issues for their shareholders is only a Telstra issue. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting we merge the tables to look like this:

Click 'show' to view proposed table format -->

Bidder Coverage Details Status Acacia National Proposes 100% population coverage.[ref] Still in contention Axia NetMedia National[ref] Proposes use of FTTP in metro areas and FTTN in regional areas.[ref][ref] Still in contention Telstra National[ref][ref] Submitted non-conforming bid (see SECTIONNAME below).[ref][ref][ref] Rejected Terria/Optus National[ref] Optus Networks Investments submitted a national bid on behalf of Terria,[ref] proposing use of FTTN.[ref] Still in contention Tasmanian Government Tasmania[ref] Still in contention TransACT ACT[ref] Still in contention

I don't have a strong view on including the effect on Telstra'a share price. A wikilink/main article hatnote to Telstra might be appropriate, depending on the contents of that article. --Surturz (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly no objections to that suggestion for the table. Regarding Telstra, at some point over the long weekend I'll write a proposed new section for the article regarding Telstra but absolutely - this article section should have a main article cross-reference back to the FTTN section of the Telstra article. The way I would suggest it be covered is that this article would want to cover Telstra's involvement with and impact on the NBN and the bidding process, while the Telstra article would want to cover the NBN's significance on Telstra. With prominent main article cross-referencing an interested reader will be fully informed, without us setting off the section merge debates that inevitably spring up when the same material starts coming up on two different articles. -- Rob.au (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bidder	Proposed Coverage	Proposed Network Structure	Details
Acacia	National (100% of Population)
Axia NetMedia	National	FTTN and FTTP	Proposes using FTTP in Metro areas, while using FTTN in rural areas.
Telstra	National (80-90% of Population)	FTTN	Proposes FTTN with speeds or 25 Mbps to 50 Mbps within 75% of the network, with speeds of 12 Mbps to 20 Mbps elsewhere.
Terria/Optus	National (98% of Population)	FTTN	The network would require the use of 75,224 nodes and 100,000km of fibre.
Tasmanian Government	State		The Tasmanian Government proposes building a new broadband network in the Tasmania, little information is known on this bid.
TransACT	ACT		TransACT proposes building a new broadband network in the ACT, little information is known on this bid.

This table merges a lot of the ideas and re-words a couple of the sections, but other than that it uses the same information of course referenced (will do that part later) If you can give some feedback on this would be helpful. Random12347 (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I really, really do think this goes too far and loses the ability to quickly scan and compare. The previous suggestion by Surturz has three columns that are easily comparable at-a-glance and are fully populated. A fourth column has four out of six entries populated and while it does not offer the same level of at-a-glance comparability, it captures the key information. I don't think any outcome which has multiple columns with blank spaces is going to achieve the same result. Are you able to come any closer to Surturz's model? -- Rob.au (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a more abrupt version of Random's table. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bidder	Coverage (% pop)	Structure	Details
Acacia	National (100%)	little public information
Axia NetMedia	National	FTTN and FTTP	FTTP metropolitan, FTTN rural
Telstra	National (80–90%)	FTTN	25–50 Mbps over 75% of network, 12–20 Mbps elsewhere
Terria/Optus	National (98%)	FTTN	75,224 nodes and 100,000km of fibre
Tasmanian Government	State	little public information
TransACT	ACT	little public information

I'm less than enthusiastic as per my previous comments, but the most glaring thing about this is the doubtful information about the Terria/Optus bid for which the suggestion previously was going to be to include it only with a weasel word treatment has been re-elevated back to normal fact status again. I don't really want to hit it with a either, which is possibly too strong the other way. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm ignorant about the facts here, I only offered a response to layout objections, as an attempt to refine presentation towards meeting some of those objections. In the same spirit, I'd offer responsible weasling like "some sources claim: 75,224 nodes ..." or even better simply footnoting the source or sources, with some kind of editorial caveat. I like concise tables too, and keeping the caveat/weasle to a footnote keeps the table clean.

Anyway, I've got no particular stake in the table above, I was just having a go at mediating a little. I'll not be hurt if it's rejected by all parties. Would a footnote help Rob? I've got used to contenting myself with that in articles where I can't win others over to seeing the all the issues I think are important. As a reader, I always check footnotes, most don't. They do provide a little scope for bypassing certain kinds of differences of opinion. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A footnote is fine by me... the readability of the table is a paramount concern, but a footnote will address the issue without impacting that. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

NBN discussion at Stephen Conroy

There's currently a discussion over at Talk:Stephen Conroy#Current Issues about how much weight should be placed on the NBN in that article. cojoco (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Media speculation

The media speculation added to the article today appears to be a bit of a WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL issue. The media has been rabbiting on that the NBN is over at every single stage of the process, which has continued happily along regardless... and the citation provided for today's addition is merely an opinion piece. This addition is representative solely of Telstra's point of view and there's as yet no actual indication that there is any impact on the NBN process. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See how the article has been tagged, "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." AS the NBN is a current event and over the next couple of weeks it is expected to change significantly. This means information like the reference to Telstra's HFC upgrade is "currently" relevant to the atricle.Random12347 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm disputing your current event tag as well as the POV. Indeed the opinion piece you're relying on for the addition even goes beyond Telstra's POV judging by comments they have published on their nowwearetalking website. Telstra's spin released yesterday on NWAT and elsewhere and picked up in the opinion piece that is your citation is no more a "current event" than the entire process has been to date. I note the Minister's speech to the Australian Telecommunications User Group conference last night in which he said:

"This process is very much live and I am therefore highly restricted in what I can say. What I can say, however, is that the Government stands 100 per cent behind its election commitment to deliver the National Broadband Network."

I've reverted the changes as they are completely at odds to this and other actual news articles eg. iTWire (1) iTWire (2) ABC News and even the outlet you quoted, the Business Spectator has acknowledged that Kohler's opinion piece that you relied on had been directly refuted. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What you are disputing is every single change that I make on this article. I have made several edits and every time that I make n edit it is removed or challenged by you. The NBN is a current event because it hasn't ended yet has it, it is still very current, this is a $4.7 billion dollar infrastructure project that has a very real chance of stimulating our economy during the global economic downturn. It would be pure ignorance to not believe that this is a current event and as a current event parts of the article may change dramatically. Rob.au you need to settle down and let someone else edit the article, you are not the only person. Random12347 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you continually accuse me of WP:OWN yet it is you who exhibits these features. I have taken it up until now because it's considered poor form and I'd rather be discussing the article, but I've had enough of your baseless accusations. Have a look over WP:OWN and compare it to your actions - you created the article and made most of the edits to it - 3 times as many as any other user (and similarly the vast majority of your contributions to Wikipedia have been on this article and the related Terria one). A cursory view of the statistics easily reveals the real story here is not what you continually claim it to be. [1] [2]

I have made some changes and each and every time I do - or if I dare to question anything you have added, you react as if your article has been damaged and instantly seek to revert/reinstate it. It really is you who needs to allow others such as myself to have a say. We had some discussion last time and the result obviously wasn't what you wanted and it wasn't what I wanted either... but that's how it works.

Getting back to the article... it's interesting that you're applying the "it will make a difference" argument when your addition yesterday was to apply the short-lived Telstra POV that it was dead in the water, when in reality nothing actually happened as per the following reports (and I find it interesting again that you haven't responded to the point I made, but simply attacked me once again - accusing me of "pure ignorance" as well as the tired old WP:OWN claim you keep making when the situation is quite clearly reversed. Let's look at the issue - Telstra's intentions for their HFC network was announced at the same time they announced to the sharemarket that they had indeed been excluded from the RFC process and were going to walk away from it. Some parts of the media have since then continually published opinion pieces saying the NBN is dead and meanwhile the process just continues. The events of this week are no different from anything else has happened since that day. I've provided references to set this out and I don't think there is any basis for the claim that anything will change dramatically as a result of the latest episode... it barely even appears to be notable, given it's no different from the issues that arose when Telstra made the original announcement. The next expected significant event is the announcement of the winning bidder(s).

Regarding "Current Event" status - it's not a current event, it's simply planned infrastructure, the details of which naturally can change fluidly up until commissioning. I'm sure the suitable tag used to be there, but I'll put it on now. -- Rob.au (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be going around in circles and references to completely unrelated topics are being brought up, I'm afraid yet again that a 3rd party is required to help. Accusations against me as an editor do not help the article and are not in good faith, they are border line personal attacks and instead of entering into an endless argument I will wait for a 3rd opinion. Regards Random12347 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I remain, as always, more than happy to discuss the issues if the personal attacks on me cease. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

I have arrived here from WP:3O following the request mentioned above. I have of course read this dispute but it seems to have descended quickly to personal attacks and arguments over reversions. This makes it difficult for me to isolate precisely what issues are in dispute. As a result of this can I request that both sides briefly explain their positions below. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

As far as I'm aware the request is regarding two things, firstly is the article discussing a Current Event and therefore in need of {{current}} article header. My stance on that is that it is adequately covered by a {{future infrastructure}} header.

The second issue was the addition (diff) about the future of the project which I regarded as being isolated media speculation in an opinion piece (although by a widely respected journalist) that even went beyond the stance taken by the main organisation against it, Telstra. It's also worth noting that they began talking about the upgrades to their existing networks on the day they were excluded from the NBN tender process (transcript). I queried this addition further up on this page as being an issue regarding WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL but then that evening the media speculation was roundly denounced by the minister responsible, something which was widely reported the following day, including by the media outlet that was behind the speculation in the first place (article). I saw that as an indication that the speculation was as good as withdrawn and went ahead and reverted it from the article.

It is certainly worth updating the "Criticisms" section of this article to reflect Telstra's modified complaints since being excluded from the NBN process as this hasn't been done as yet and their stance does need to be included in the article, but as always while respecting WP:NPOV and clearly avoiding the media speculation as a result.

If I've missed anything, I apologise in advance. -- Rob.au (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute was over the placement of the {{Current}} status for the article. Following this status being added I added information regarding Telstra and current media speculation, this information was added on the basis that this was a current event and that information about this event may change significantly. The knee jerk reaction by the other editor was to remove the information without discussion.Random12347 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You should both review the documentation for the {current} template at Template:current. It is for articles where either:

• a significant aspect is rapidly evolving, meaning that either key details are not known or may subsequently turn out to be wrong
• where hundreds of editors hit the same article in a short space of time in the light of current events. This is basically a quality issue: where that happens the article can frequently end up redundant, contradictory, or just generally messy.

I don't think you can sustain an argument that either of these situations is the case here. A single comment and analysis piece (not even a news article) does not amount to rapidly evolving events. I'm not familiar with the {future infrastructure} template and while it does not have any documentation it seems very appropriate for this page. I see at the deletion discussion for that template there was concern over whether it was really needed, but the consensus was to keep it and as such I think we should be using it. It certainly helps put the project into context in the mind of the reader straight away which should be one of our primary aims.

On the issue of how to cover this report and other events it appears to me that yes this is worth reporting. Speculation is still speculation even if it is officially denied. However, the diff referenced above does not strike me as in proportion - it is presenting the pro-cancellation case much more forcefully than appears to be justified. I'm reluctant to suggest any particular wording since I am not Australian and unfamiliar with the background of this story. However there are a few issues that seem to be worth covering:

• Alan Kohler in the Business Spectator (he needs attribution in the main text to avoid presenting it as a universal view) argues that the project will be cancelled or scaled back. [ref]
• This is because competition between service providers will serve the bulk of the population who live in towns and cities.
• However, this free market provision will not extend to rural Australia because to the cost and limited population it would cover.
• In response to this, the Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy strenuously denied that the project would be cancelled [ref]

As I said, I hope that between you you can cover this material since I am reluctant to draft something myself when I don't know much about the issue. Happy to discuss this further and I'll be watching this article over the next few days at any rate. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

Fibre to households

Will the fibre cables be connected directly to each household, or will they just be connected to each local exchange?

Fibre to the Home means just that... fibre to each house. Exchanges already have fibre connectivity. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

retail operation

stage one in tassie is going to start delivering access to users soon, ive found a few sites that talk about it but cant think of way to integrate it into the article (major writers block atm)

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/347117/primus_nbn_services_start_39_95/ http://www.iprimus.com.au/PrimusWeb/AboutUs/News/PrimusTelecompartnerswithNBNCotobecomeamongthefirstNBNReadyServiceProvidersinTasmania.htm http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/339557/iinet_internode_iprimus_onboard_tasmanian_nbn/ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/tasmanian-nbn-under-50-primus/story-e6frgakx-1225868619158 http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/39206-primus-reveals-300gb-nbn-plans

Digmores (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I've cleaned up the criticism section by attempting to remove speculation based on published articles, as well as updating some parts that were based on older criticism. The NBN is in a constant state of flux and many people are still focusing on irrelevant details that have been outdated long ago. I also removed a criticism about higher bandwidth being the only alleged benefit, and speeds of 1.5Mbit being available already (which is apparently "sufficient for DVD quality video.") 1bps is sufficient for DVD quality video, you just have to wait a while to watch it. There was no source for the criticism and it just seemed like a misguided user's misunderstanding (confusing bandwidth, throughput, and the real availability of ADSL services).

124.148.167.38 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

the first line of this section implies that the only form of tax paying entity in australia is the "family", and then has a cite number (pointing to a population graph) as though this backs up that claim. i think this section (still? i hadnt seen yr edits) seems disingenuous at least. the fact that no cost benefit analysis has been formed seems to be held secondary to the claims made beforehand, instead of being contrary. frankly, this reeks of bullshit, and i'm gonna chop this paragraph at least out soon. 58.7.105.23 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a double up and added in information not already there, also removed a line that used only news.com.au (no story) as its source.118.208.41.105 (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I just redid the entire criticism section, put in section subtitles detailing the specific criticisms and removed a lot of duplicated stuff and unreffed supposition. Rather than just deleting the old/irrelevant issues (eg complaints specifically about the old FTTN plan) I added an "older criticism" section and put it in there. I also moved the AAB's "NBNv3.0" proposal to a subsection under Lack of Mobility, as it's essentially an alternative from a critical group focussing on that particular aspect of the NBN. --Cruiser-Aust 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"The $26bn investment represents a total of approximately $3150 per Australian household[75], equating to $33 per household per month over the 8-year construction phase, or $9 per household per month over the projected minimum-30-year life of the network. [74]"

This quite strongly implies that every household will have to pay this amount during the construction phase. This is quite untrue.Neither I nor anyone else will have to cough up anything. Saying it will come out of our taxes is untrue as well. eg the Reserve Bank makes hundreds of millions of dollars on currency transactions every year. How do you know it's not coming from there? The truth is the money is probably coming from the mining tax - not from households.

Apologies for my bad editing. Amie.

203.101.250.193 (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I'm not a fan of the entire statistic (relevance?), but I included it as it was already in there when I tidied the section. I'll take a look at it again and see what I can do. Maybe the entire sentence should just be removed.--Cruiser-Aust 11:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

Bringing up to date

After fixing the criticism bit I also updated a few parts of the article that were old. I changed "set to be built" to "being built" given that services are already live, and for that reason also changed "expected to be available by" to "have been available since" (regarding Tasmanian sites). I also removed reference to the network being a PPP as it will actually be a GBE and the differences are quite significant. The article also stated that the network would be sold in ten years, without any source - I just mentioned that there'd be political debate on that and linked an article about the Greens wanting a vote before any sale.

124.148.167.38 (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

30/03/11 - In the last month this article is starting to sound very bias, a lot of the criticism has gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVST (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Network speeds

Hi, im new here trying to workout the best way to edit. I see some issues with the listed speeds. i will dig out the relevant documents, but both the nbn and the coalitions plan with wireless/satelite are not minimum 12mbps, its minimum peak speed of 12mbps. this means that if you on say telstra 3g, you peak speed might be 24mbps on the new gear, regardless of your actual throughput (say average 2mbps) therefore it meeds the requirements. however the nbn proposal is more about fixed point to point wireless, and the coalitions is more about 4g etc. also the 1000mbps is not really acurate. the standard will be 100, with businesses etc being able to order faster connections. this may change with the tech over the course of the roll out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.102.1 (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Best way to get started is to create an account, as it makes it much easier to converse. Anon editors have restrictions and with dynamic IPs it's hard to work out who you're talking to.

You're right about the 12Mbps wireless/sat systems being a peak speed, but the 1Gb will now be a speed offered to wholesalers by NBN Co and available to everyone at launch, not just special order business customers. See refs in the article. Just a tip on wiki refs, it's best to use a secondary source for your references where available (eg a newspaper article), rather than a primary source (eg an NBNCo document). Also, try to use citation templates when you include references. It standardises and makes it easier to find dead links in the future.--Cruiser-Aust 11:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the 1Gbit network speed, I am wondering how this exactly is meant to be possible if its meant to be done via the GPON. The GPON splits a ~2.4gbit link into 32 separate ~75mbit speeds. If 1GBit was going to be offered through the GPON, it would cut the available bandwith (to the rest of the 31 users) by almost half (assuming the person actually uses the speed offered by the 1Gbit link). Having a 1Gbits speed without congesting the rest of the users in the GPON would be something that would have to be done by having Fibre cable going directly from the backhaul to the premises and not via GPON. Is there any clarification regarding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.50.124 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to sure the speeds are possible, as per WP:No original research. All sources including NBN Co says the NBN will be 1Gbits, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned the speed is 1Gbits. d'oh! _talk 10:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but maybe we should write down something along the lines of "although NBNCo has announced 1 gigabit services, how these services are expected to be delivered is unknown since the implementation study has just outlined using GPON for the NBN" which as stated before has issues. Most likely this (being an old announcement) was something that NBNCo forgot to re clarify this as it actually released specifications, but of course we have no proof of this. Maybe this can be mentioned in the criticism section (or in a questions section?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.194.246 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, unless you have a reliable source backing up those clams you can not add them. d'oh! _talk 06:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The specifications released by NBNCo stating such a contradiction isn't a reliable source? I mean the whole issue is that they originally said one thing (1Gbit internet) however later they released specifications which are contradictory to this for obvious reasons, and this is something that should be mentioned (it doesn't have to be said to be proven, and I never said it should be). Same thing as when a company announces the release of the product, and the product isn't to the specifications as what was announced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.14.148 (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the specification explicitly say "the 1Gbits speed is not possible"? If so you can add it, otherwise you are creating a new analysis of published material which is not allow in a Wikipedia article. -- d'oh! _[talk] 12:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I never stated that 1Gbit speeds is not possible should be added as a fact. I said that something along the lines (and this can be paraphrased) as "Even though NBNCo originally stated they would release speeds up to 1Gbits a second, the validity of this is question because of the x and y released under their specifications". That is a perfectly legitimate claim, and it has a source backing it up, and it can be put in into the criticism or questions section. Using your logic, half of the criticism section should be removed, the definition of analysis seems to be very dubious and vague —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.251.27 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything I have seen from news stories and NBN Co tells me the speed will be 1Gbits, you are the one making that claim as such it is original research and is not allow. -- d'oh! _[talk] 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you identify the specifications and documents (with page numbers etc) that contradict the claim that the NBN can offer 1Gbps? If so, please post the refs here so we can see if they are valid or constitute original research. There are several examples of 1Gbps (to the consumer) GPON networks, so it's certainly achievable (here is an example). Perhaps the NBN document you are referring to has not been updated to reflect the announced 1Gbps speeds? --Cruiser-Aust 08:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

Look at pages 8, 63 and 65 of citation 3 (http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/e521de0043c76396ac8aae0dd0100029/NBNCoProductTechnicalSpecification-EXTERNAL100819_19August2010.pdf?MOD=AJPERES). It clearly states that download speeds will be 'up to' 1Gbps. The 1Gbps is a maximum theoretical, not an expected speed. Underlord (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree it should say "up to 1Gbps" but reading the pages you quoted, that speed should certainly be achievable for end users. For residential customers, the default installation will be GPON and offer a peak speed of 1Gbps with a committed speed of 100Mbps. For business installations, it will default to a 1Gbps (with an option of multiple 1Gbps) connection over either GPON or PtoP. Of course, end user speeds will depend on the plan they choose with their ISP. -- Cruiser-Aust (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point here, obviously its possible to get a 1Gbps speed on the GPON. This isn't being disputed. Whats being criticized is the fact that if a user actually does download data at 1Gbps (through that link) then the rest of the 31 users on the GPON split will only be able to download at around 43mbits a second. NBNCo stating that the speeds of up to 1Gbit is correct but so is the above point. Can this be included in Wikipedia (as a criticism) without an actual source stating just that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.171.20 (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Although that is probably correct, a source is required to put that into the article. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Australian

No doubt most editors will know The Australian has ran a number of news articles against the NBN,[3] most of which has very loaded language including the latest article calling the NBN a "chaos".[4] With The Australian history of running campaigns against groups[5] and its growing war of words with the current government, I believe it's wise to confirm all new and old information from The Australian with other sources before placing the information in the article. -- d'oh! _[talk] 05:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this any different from the other sources which have also been accused of being biased in some other direction, such as recently with ABC which (iirc) didn't post any criticism of the NBN apart from just a couple of days ago (in regards to this http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40416.html) after ABC got heavily criticized for being biased on QnA a couple of weeks ago. Not saying that what Australian has done is justified, but the NBN is such a political storm that biased seems to be thrown around everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.171.20 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Of cause, care should always be taken when using any source, to avoid including bias from either side on not just this article but all articles on Wikipedia. The point of my post is to alert other editors to be extra careful using The Australian as a source. -- d'oh! _[talk] 06:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess in this case we need to be extra careful, the NBN debate seems to be an incredibly polarized one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.171.20 (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Network facilities

I visited this article hoping to find information on the types of traffic the NBN is intended to carry. I have heard (by word of mouth) that the NBN will deliver phone and TV as well as internet to subscribers. I spent half-an-hour looking, but it wasn't obvious to me where to find this on the NBN Co website either (http://www.nbnco.com.au/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanvgreen (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That is because it is not NBN Co's job to come up with products and services for this network, instead when the network is built other companies will step in and develop services and products for the network. Think about the NBN as a electricity network it is not the power companies' job to create a microwave or a TV, just the same as it is not NBN Co's job to come up with web apps and other services. That being said NBN Co in some cases will help develop services like IPTV in partnership with other companies. -- d'oh! _[talk] 01:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments for upcoming GAN

I just have some quick comments for the person doing the GA assessment for this;

• Possible WP:NPOV issues with Reception section; seems overly weighted in favor of the NBN
• Article includes both the NBN Proposal and the NBN Company established to build/buy/implement it - in reality these are somewhat separate. To include both, there really needs to be information on the Network itself, for example(some of this is included already): it's background, construction, implementation, design, progress, operation, plan, etc. -- I would expect this in a GA.

Aeonx (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• • some of the wording also needs rework; like "The NBN enjoys large support by the Australian public with 74.5% surveyed support the project"... perhaps "enjoys" is not the most appropriate or neutral word. -- Aeonx (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed "enjoys", but I stand by the rest of the article. The reception section has views from all political parties and all notable companies and lobby groups no matter if they are for or against the project, and the section is written in a neutral form. The section has no NPOV issues. I agree with you about the article needs more information about the network design, etc, but other than the business plan which includes a small details, that information is not yet fully known. -- d'oh! _[talk] 04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As a sign of goodwill and to put this ugliest behind us, I have closed this discussion and started new ones below.

---

Too many unsourced biased comments in article summary, hence rolled back undo's. Eg "digital divide" is not prime objective of NBN. It's economic growth. NBN is also not in "rollout". Tenders for constructions have stopped! It's in trial. --Rmarsden (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmarsden (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The source for the "digital divide" is Ref 3, which is detailed in the article. As per WP:LEAD refs are not repeated in the lead if they are in the article. — [d'oh] 02:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This ref does not support the statement in the article. The ref is a throwaway line of a journalist about the potential benefits, not a statement about the purpose of the NBN by either the government or NBN Co. --Rmarsden (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The NBN is not "in rollout". Why are you saying things that are factually not correct?--Rmarsden (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Rmarsden. This edit introduces, or reintroduces, POV language that seems a bit too close to the company line. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please point out the "company line" language, because it isn't my goal to repeat company or government lines. As Rmarsden pointed out below "digital divide" is not a government or NBN Co line, instead its from a investigative journalist (ref 3). The now current text is incorrect as the NBN is not in a "trial", the trial ended months ago as again pointed out in the article. — [d'oh] 03:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this user is trying to take too much possession over this article. He/she seems vehemently closed to discussion about his/ her biased interpretation of the facts. It's tiresome... --Rmarsden (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiply times I have tried to start a good faith discussion with you. But putting that aside for a minute, I please ask don't personally attack me. NBN is being rolled out, not just in the Tasmania trial areas but in towns and cities in Australia, as pointed out in the article. It doesn't matter if the government or NBN Co used the "digital divide", the goal is outline in the business plan and ref 3 which is to overcome the digital divide. — [d'oh] 03:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"under construction"

• It is clear you are uneasy about "under construction" and I am uneasy about "in trial" since even though the RFP is dead the current rollout is still ongoing[6] with services already connected [ref 13—14, 24]. Can we find a middle ground and move on? and why are you uneasy about "under construction"? — [d'oh] 07:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not being constructed. Only trial sites are being connected at the minute. The "NBN" as such is not under construction as no supplier has been appointed. There isn't even a process or timetable to do that and commence proper construction. What's wrong with "in trial"? Maybe read the NBN Co website itself--Rmarsden (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again I am not sure why "under construction" is a bad thing? These images[7] alone show the NBN is under construction. — [d'oh] 08:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire network is not under construction. Some trial sites are. Use of the phrase in the context is therefore misleading--Rmarsden (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, are you fine with just "under planning"? — [d'oh] 09:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph

The plan also aimed to reduce the digital divide between Australians in central business districts of the major cities plus a few surrounding suburbs with Australians in the outer suburbs, regional and rural areas who have access to slower services.

The reason "outer suburbs" was included is of the Telstra's RIMs installation which limits speeds below ADSL2+ and in some cases doesn't allow ADSL full stop, for examples google "Telstra RIM". Would you be happy if the "few" is dropped, e.g. "plus a surrounding suburbs"? — [d'oh] 07:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you provide the data, eg % of population that can get broadband today which is more than CBD plus a "few" suburbs. By the way, this digital divide isnt a core reason for the NBN anyway, so it's actually debatable whether it adds to the article in the first place--Rmarsden (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PS:according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Australia#Current_state_of_Internet_in_Australia 99% of population can get wireless broadband, so more than a "few" suburbs I'd say--Rmarsden (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because you can get broadband doesn't mean your getting broadband speeds which is what the sentence is trying to say. Wikipedia is not political site its an encyclopedia, so including just "core reason" goes against the reason behind Wikipedia, see WP:FACR #1b. Also can we stay out of the political debate? — [d'oh] 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Assertions

What are these assertions your clean up template highlighted but didn't go into details? I like to point out just saying "everything is wrong" is unhelpful, you need to point out your concerns so they can be addressed. — [d'oh] 08:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed some out. You persist on them. I'm sure there are others. The point of the template is to invite others to read this stuff and fix it. Several of the statements here are biased and not supported by ref's given. Someone has to read them. I think I did my fair share to attempt to fix this article--Rmarsden (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On the ones you pointed out I have attempt addressed in the article. The point of a cleanup template is to point out problems you have seen, not problems you think might be there. The article went through a WP:PR and is currently in a WP:FAC no bias issues was found. I am sorry but I can't keep the template up without knowing how to address it. Also I am not dismissing your concerns, because if there is problem I want them fixed which is why I put the article through a PR and a FAC, but you need to tell me what them are so I can address them. — [d'oh] 09:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please leave the template marker in the article. It needs some work. It's not "your" article, so I don't have to "tell you" to justify the marker. It's designed to draw attention of other editors.--Rmarsden (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you put up a cleanup banner you need to also put up the issues you have with the article, how is *anyone* going to review this article and make changes without knowing the issues? I never say its my article, I said you need to make your issues with the article clear, not just 'everything is wrong it needs a review'. — [d'oh] 11:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

[deleted] — [d'oh] 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have strike my previous statement because at the time I didn't have a clear head and it was unhelpful. — [d'oh] 10:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This all seems rather misdirected. Rmarsden, your tag is not that helpful as it does not identify the actual errors and using the tag to point the finger at one person can only be counterproductive. I've removed this bit. d'oh, chill also. A personal attack is "x is an idiot" not "x appears to have misunderstood the sources" regardless of whether the assertion is correct or not.

I can see that at least one section removed should be re-sourced and re-inserted. The assertion that the NBN was to bridge the "digital divide" was referenced to a 4 corners Interview and as such could only be included as something like "ABC Journalist Stephen Long asserts that the NBN was intended to bridge the digital divide. To support the statement that this actually was the intent you need to use documents that date far earlier (say look through some of these). To my certain knowledge this digitial divide issue was one of the touted reasons for it's creation but I have not read many of the voluminous pile of writing on the subject. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The section was rewritten. — [d'oh] 10:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

digital divide

the references provided simply dont support that the purpose of the NBN is to bridge the digital divide. The main purpose is actually yo foster economic growth. The most recent ref refers only (!) to the most recent annoucement of the satellite service which is specifically only serving people in remote locations - thus can be said to focus on the digital divide. But the satellite service is only going to serve 7% of the population hence is not "the" purpose of the NBN --Rmarsden (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead needs the purpose of the NBN, and unless you got a source, the main purpose is not for economic growth; in fact I would go as far as saying the NBN doesn't have one main purpose, instead it has a number of purposes, one of which is "digital divide". So what do you think the lead should say? — [d'oh] 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose is to delivery fast broadband infrastructure--Rmarsden (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What about: "National Broadband Network (NBN) is an open-access telecommunication network under construction by NBN Co Limited to replace the ageing copper network in Australia."? —[d'oh] 10:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not really true either. It will replace much of the copper network, but not all of it. It will also exist where the currently is no copper. Why not just leave it as "The National Broadband Network (NBN) is an open-access telecommunication network under construction in Australia"? --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed --Rmarsden (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"demolish"

I have restored the "demolish" statement because even though Malcolm Turnbull has backed away from the comment, Tony Abbott did say it. Also these confirm it:[8][9] —[d'oh] 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

then why not use those ref where abbott is direcly quoted? besides this, what does it add to the factual quality of the article? the only fact is that the coalition opposes the NBN. repeating various statements from the political process doesnt add anything in my book. --Rmarsden (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is already a source in the article which support the quote, to add more is a waste of space. Dropping the Coalition's alternative policy will reduce the readers understanding of the subject and the reactions to it, this policy would have replaced the NBN if the Coalition won the 2010 election; so not to even mention the policy is a big problem. Also dropping it would push the section into a real POV problem, since the section is currently evenly spilt between supporters and opposers. Finally, having the "Reception" full with a list of who supports and who opposes without going into at least some detail is limiting readers understanding about the subject. Remember people reading this article might not know the the details of the political division on this project as such the article needs to mention it and if they want more details they can go to the article on the Coalition or the 2010 election. —[d'oh] 11:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying drop the policy, I'm saying drop the phrase of "demolish" which was used by Abbott in a political stout. Nothing to do with the NBN itself. Repeating this childish political stuff is not encyclopaedic.--Rmarsden (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it was a political stout, but it does give the Coalition's views on the project. It is encyclopaedic, because not including will not give a full overview on the reception of the NBN. —[d'oh] 12:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

a more balanced view is called for in an encyclopedia. If you want this quote you'd need to add a broader range of quotes. why not just leave it at the description that coalition is opposing the NBN- after all that's the fact--Rmarsden (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How is the quote unbalanced? The Coalition made the quote. Quotes from who? —[d'oh] 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a deep political debate. You picked one quote to support your viewpoint. "demolish". it's not helpful and makes the point unbalanced. What does it add to the fact that the opposition oposes NBN? Nothing whatsoever.--Rmarsden (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am at a lost. The section summaries the Coalition's history with the NBN: from opposing it, their policy, the appointment of Malcolm Turnbull—where Abbott said a number of times—to “demolish" and calls for a cost-benefit analysis; I spent hours finding reactions to these events to balance it, the reason it is negative, is because the reactions WERE negative and without the reactions it would be like a NBN article without the Coalition's views: unbalanced. So tell me how can the section be "balanced" because I am at a lost and close to giving up. Also what is wrong with the "What policy?" quote? —[d'oh] 12:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. The NBN is a political hot-potato, which should be part of the encyclopaedic content. Abbott's directive to "demolish the NBN" is most certainly a valid inclusion in the article as it illustrates the level of opposition he has to the network, and is well referenced. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

telecommunications companies

[10] The ref 61 has critical comments from Internode, iiNet and Optus, so I am lost on why "telecommunications companies" is wrong? —[d'oh] 12:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

it's those 3 not "all"--Rmarsden (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Coalition released an alternative policy during the 2010 election, but telecommunications companies were critical of the policy; when asked, iPrimus CEO Ravi Bhatia replied 'What policy?'." The text doesn't have an "all". —[d'oh] 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

its implied. my edit accurately reflects the source. your version implies widespread dissent.--Rmarsden (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your later edit[11] accurately reflects the source, not the original[12] which started this discussion; in fact you can plainly see I haven't reverted your latest edit, to include the word "some", which is a error I had during writing, not a "bias". —[d'oh] 12:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Essential Research

The Essential Research's poll shouldn't be included because the company behind it is a lobbyist, who—going by their website—"devis[es] and deploy[s] winning strategies" to "shift public opinion" and "change government policy", this company can not be trusted as a reliable source. —[d'oh] 03:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

same for most sources which is it's important to quote all sides not just supportive or just negative ones. Eg rod Tucker is quoted here who is super biased for the NBN--Rmarsden (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If Tucker said "all Australians love the NBN", it will not be included here, but because he is expressing his view and the article points that out it can be included. Essential Media came out and said it opposes it can be included, but it has created a poll about public opinion and because it doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy it can't be included. —[d'oh] 05:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

what's your source for your statement that they dint check their facts??--Rmarsden (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I went back to highlight a important word in my "statement", even their website hasn't claim reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In either case their reliability is disputed and to be re-added their reliability needs to be proved. —[d'oh] 06:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a lobbying firm. Half the "facts" in the article are sourced from those--Rmarsden (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What facts? —[d'oh] 06:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Eg the Swinburne CCI study. CCI is funded by ARC which is - yes, the government that proposed the NBN--Rmarsden (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the findings of the survey, after a quick read, the questions about the NBN is on pages 42–43, how they conducted the survey is on the last pages from page 49; the calls was done by the University and is apart of the World Internet Project. The survey seems legitimate. —[d'oh] 10:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also—if the poll was a reliable—in the poll the question was "Which of the following are better run by the private sector and which are better run by Government?", where "Broadband service" got 53% of the "Better run by private sector"; as such the poll doesn't support the text. —[d'oh] 03:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dropping future tense

With the construction started and customers already connected, it is time to cross the line and drop the future tense. —[d'oh] 04:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

we've had this discussion already but here it is again: construction of THE network hasn't begung. In fact the tender for the construction work is stopped. The only thing really happening is the trial sites. Until the Telstra agreement is ratified construction cannot happen in the currently planned form--Rmarsden (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The trial is apart of the NBN, and the tender was for the FTTH rollout which is one of four tasks which makes up this project. Also as pointed out in the media, the agreement with Telstra is not required for the construction. —[d'oh] 05:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FTTH is the core of the NBN--Rmarsden (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, NBN Co is not sitting on its hands after the tender for the FTTH. In either case, guessing is not our job as editors, as editors we must reprint the current status; NBN Co says its going ahead. Also using future tense then saying construction has began with customer getting connected is confusing for readers. —[d'oh] 06:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

THye're not sitting on their hands but they're not constructing it--Rmarsden (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

balance

given the political nature of this topic it's v important that both sides - supporters and detractors- be equally represented in text and in references. Especially political sources are inherently biased. Various edits in the past have results in a loss of balance in my view. Fact is that the support is divided in politics, the industry and the public so we shld present the article that way too--Rmarsden (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Above you tried to remove the political information, and now you want more? All views of parties was included. If I am not mistaken, this is about the third paragraph in the lead; the paragraph is balanced and is well-sourced. Businesses, ISPs, public and political parties views were all included in the paragraph. Your new text tries to summaries one section with one sentence, which is not correct and misses the reasons why the NBN is opposed. —[d'oh] 06:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I want balance. So if politics are covered, both sides have to be covered equally. Pretty simple I would have thought. Quoting just one side is not balanced. --Rmarsden (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The summary does not attempt to cite the reason for the opposition of the NBN. It simply says that it's opposed by some and supported by others. After all thats the fact.--Rmarsden (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

... however, political support is divided: Labor, Greens and independents support the project while the Coalition opposes it. The Coalition's main objection is the use of government funds; instead they argue for less government intervention to achieve the same benefits.

The political support of the NBN is divided between Labor, Greens[59] and independents who support it and the Coalition who opposes it. Independent politicians Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter—who played a key role in the 2010 Australian Federal Election—support the NBN; Oakeshott and Windsor cited the NBN as one of the key reasons they decided to back the Gillard Government.[60][61] The NBN was initially supported by the National Party, however, the project was later officially opposed by the Coalition.[62] The main objection to the NBN by the Coalition is the A$27.1 billion of government funds used to build the project, instead they argue for less government intervention and additional private sector funding to achieve the same benefits.[14] The Coalition released an alternative policy during the 2010 election; some telecommunications companies were critical of the policy with iiNet labeling the policy as "focus[ing] on the short term", whilst two industry analysts back the policy as "more bang for your buck".[63][64][65] After the 2010 election, Malcolm Turnbull was appointed as the Opposition Communications spokesman to “demolish" the NBN.[66] Turnbull has echoed his predecessor in calling for a cost-benefit analysis, however, the Minister for Communications, Stephen Conroy, has ruled out a cost-benefit analysis, instead pointing to the implementation study and business plan as proof of the viability of the NBN.[67][68][69]

Do you even read the text? 50% of the political text is about the Coalition's views and the reason for the opposition, supporters of the NBN doesn't need a reason. So please explain how is this unbalanced? —[d'oh] 06:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I didnt say this paragraph wasn't balanced--Rmarsden (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I quoted two paragraphs. So what is unbalanced? and why are you reverting my edit?[13] —[d'oh] 08:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's too detailed for the summary and it's unbalanced: it mentions the Swinburne study indicating strong public support but it doesnt mention the other evidence that public support may not be strong. As it's a summary, there's no point repeating the entire litany of evidence. I don't understand your query: do you disagree that the support for the NBN is split across politics, industry and public??? If you don't then let others' edits be. There is no need whatsoever for you to police every single edit to the article. Unless you have a factual issue with the edits, you should let them be. Again: it's not your article. You are not the authority. --Rmarsden (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What evidence? You have not any sources which point to this evidence, other than a poll conducted by a lobbyist who's goal is to "shift public opinion" and "change government policy". The poll and "There are however continued doubts about the public support of the NBN."—for which even the journalist doesn't even hint at in the source[14] was the only text I removed, for which I explained above and in the edit summary. If you have a problem with the Swinburne study why didn't you bring it up, why do we have to waste time with all these "discussions" and edit warring? Because if you removed the study from the article and pointed out your reason in the edit summary to began with, we could have skipped all this, as I agree with you.

Also what is with the whitespace? —[d'oh] 09:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with the Swinburne study, but other studies should also find inclusion. YOU have an issue with the other one. There's plenty of evidence that the NBN may not have as strong public support as the government claims. Incl. the low takeup rates (which you also removed)--Rmarsden (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: I dont have the time to follow the Wikilinks you paste. I'm not into the he said she said game. Just add some new facts and information and leave others' edits rest a bit more.--Rmarsden (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't see what I have done in my edit, how do you know what I did? (HINT: I didn't click the "undo" button) e.g. I didn't remove the low-take or the supportive quote for the Coalition's policy. I have a issue with the poll which as I pointed out above—which you haven't addressed yet—and the other statement, those two and removing the large amount of whitespace and restoring the summary of the reception section is the only changes I did in my edit. Also you did have a problem with the survey above. —[d'oh] 10:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the changes[15] from just before your edit early today to the last edit I made before you reverted my edits. I didn't revert your edits, I do have issues with some of the changes for which I brought up here on the talk page and in the edit summary. You can't blindly revert my edits without looking at what I did, that is actually a sign of ownership. —[d'oh] 11:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is "Political, public and industry support for the project is divided." a fair summary of the facts? Your opinion sought please

--Rmarsden (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it doesn't give the reader a summary of the reception section, e.g. how is political and industry support divided? Who supports what? As per MOS:LEAD, the lead needs to stand on its own, to allow readers to get a overview of the article without going into details. This statement doesn't do that, as you can assume all government projects have divisions, who is on what side is important. —[d'oh] 10:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

ummm, no. Not all government projects have divisions... It also doesn't really answer my request for help--Rmarsden (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

continued reverts disguised as edits

There have been several reverts which were disguised as edits and were in some cases mislabeled, eg as "restore text". please stop this, it doesn't help. --Rmarsden (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I used "restoring text" when you replaced a paragraph of text with one sentence. Once you finally brought up your issue with the paragraph, I stopped. You are currently reverting my edits (READ: not reverts) without a reason and not addressing my concerns with the text. —[d'oh] 05:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

reason is given in edit summary--Rmarsden (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My edits:

1. [16](→Reception: updating cite) I changed the cite from weeklytimesnow.com.au to theaustralian.com.au; same article but weeklytimes copied theaustralian. What is the issue?
2. [17](→Reception: removing whitespace; three sections for two paragraphs is a bit overkill) See the next section.
3. [18](→Politicians: merging paragraphs; updating and moving cites) Mostly formatting changes but I did replaced a cite with another one and moved the cites to make it clear what cite is for text. What is the issue?
4. [19](→Politicians: moved to Construction of the National Broadband Network, where the details of the deal is located) I moved (READ: not deleted) the text to Construction of the National Broadband Network; because the text is about the deal not the NBN, so I located it where the deal is. What is the issue?
5. [20](→Politicians: "could potentially be safer, more flexible" is not a quote; reworded; minor formatting changes) "could potentially be safer, more flexible" text is from the journalist and not a quote.
6. [21](→Public: sources doesn't support the text) The poll which I still have issues with, of which you haven't addressed; and this source[22] doesn't support this text: "There are however continued doubts about the public support of the NBN.", communication issues != "doubts".

For all you said "(Reverted last few edits who were double reverts from before based on individual POV not fact)", you didn't address any of the concerns raised. —[d'oh] 05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You see, that doesnt make sense from my perspective. If I edit your original text and you dont like it, then its you who has to address the concerns, not I. You can't just revert someone's edits because you don't like them, and then expect the editor to "address your concerns". This approach is what has gotten us here. You have to accept others' edits. You can of course further edit to improve in your opinion. But just reverting because you don't like them? No. --Rmarsden (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

paragraph structure in "reception"

I introduced s sub paragraph structure to separate industry, political and public response to the NBN due tom the complexity and fast changing nature of the topic. This separation has been reverted several times without a solid reason given. Why? What's the harm of having the sub structure? --Rmarsden (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit summary, creating three sections from two paragraphs is overkill. Sub-heading are used to break up a wall of text to increase readability, however, creating three sections from two paragraphs creates whitespace. —[d'oh] 05:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

your opinion not fact. Doesn't warrant continued reversal of someone else's edits --Rmarsden (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please continue the discussion here.

---

• Rmarsden and I are in disagreement over the edits made to National Broadband Network; I created this RFC in an attempt to resolution this NPOV dispute. Until this RFC is completed, I won't make any edits to the article to void edit warring. —[d'oh] 05:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I support this move--Rmarsden (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think either side of the recent editwar has been NPOV. I agree with the division of the section into public, business and political subsections, but some of the info provided has been dubious and there is extensive use of weasel words. I'll have a go at the section tonight, and we can see how it goes from there. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Have rewitten the section which I think makes a good starting point. Reasons for some removals etc are:

• The poll referenced by the techworld study does not support the statement in the article that "53% of respondents favouring a private funding model over the Gillard government's public funding model." The question wasn't about the NBN specifically, and it was "who is better at RUNNING broadband services, not building them. The NBN was not mentioned at all in respect of that question. The only detailed poll on the issue seems to have been the swinburne one.

Might pay to position the data accurately in the article, but totally excluding it seems negligible.--Rmarsden (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• The takeup rates in Tasmania bear no relationship to expected takeup rates, because the conditions of the two situations are not comparable. The 11% takeup in Tassie is a trial site, with only a few ISPs participating, no phone service available, and in competition to the copper network. The 70% assumes an NBN phone service available and no copper network competition. Additionally, the 70% is by year 2025, but by 2013 the NBN only expect a 40% takeup rate. Because the datasets are not comparable, nor relevent to the section, I have removed any reference to takeup rates from here. Perhaps it can be included elsewhere in the article.

Still, it's the only live data available and hence should be included appropriately in the article. It's a trial, so we should acknowledge the trial's data. Of course, if migration in the real NBN will be forced, then takeup will be high. But that's not the point. It's about estiamting the actual demand for NBN services. In Tasmania, people have the choice between the old and the NBN services. Only 11% opting for the NBN services should tell us something about demand for those services. --Rmarsden (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I maintain that it doesn't belong in that section of the article. I'd suggest the article needs a section entitled "Implementation" or similar which can deal with connection rates and activation rates, as there is also considerable info from the mainland sites on this. Takeup (especially tasmania) cannot be extrapolated into overall public reaction due to the issues mentioned. Tasmanian customers who want a phone don't have a choice between the NBN or copper. They have a choice between copper OR the NBN+copper, because there is no NBN phone service available. Customers who have an existing contract for phone/ADSL cannot migrate to the NBN without penalty. Neither of these issues will exist for the NBN in general. It would be like saying a new freeway is unpopular if there's no-one driving on it before half the onramps are built. I would also point out that NBN revealed in the parliamentary enquiry today that uptake in Tasmania is now up to 18%. Will have to wait for the hansard for a ref. I'll put a draft of an "implementation" section on this page in the next week or so, and we can discuss before the protect is lifted. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, however, it is way too early to have this section. —[d'oh] 04:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

To avoid misleading, these numbers need to be placed in context, however, repeating text is not a great idea. Instead, since this article has information about the rollout, including the numbers there—in the current text, not a new section—will give the numbers context without the repetition. —[d'oh] 05:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• The grenade article says telstra gave a "no comment". So this ref does not support the statement that "Telstra have expressed concerns". --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since the section is talking about people's views of the NBN, shouldn't the title be "Reception" or "Reactions"? Other then for bragging rights, political parties is not a stakeholder of the NBN. —[d'oh] 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed, but couldn't think of a good alternative. Not sure that reactions or reception does the job? --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind the section title either way. But the politicians certainly are stakeholders. In fact, the government's survival may depend on it--Rmarsden (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This section will always create disputes and the text doesn't add a lot to the article. So what about this, "Political" is spin off to its own section ("Political response" maybe?), the rest is deleted. —[d'oh] 04:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the scale and national importance of the project, I think reactions (public, political and industry) are a very important part of an encyclopaedic article on the NBN. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Political is important and maybe public, but whether a ISP or lobby group has spoken out for or against the NBN is not important and is close to trivia; and since the views of ISPs can't be pinned down, e.g. Internode. Also no matter who writes this section there is always be neutral issues and since this information can be included in other sections, it might be best to remove the section. —[d'oh] 12:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can go along with that. As you said, ISPs are a bit variable with their support and criticism depending on certain aspects. But the statements from various IT companies (Google, Microsoft, Vint Cerf etc) I think are an important inclusion, and have certainly made big news here. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I take your point. Also I'll been thinking of a way to void future disputes with this section, by turning this section into a timeline of notable responses since the announcement instead of the current 'this group supports and this group opposes'; this will allow the reader to make-up their own mind and avoid the need to rewritten the section when groups changes their views. —[d'oh] 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refs

Just before the dispute, I was planning a expansion of the reception section as such I have collected a few refs; I am dumping them here, as other editors might be able to use them:

• One of the first customers: [23]
• First school: issues: [24] fixed: [25]
• Telstra and CCC:[26]; ACS[27]; alot of info, maybe useful:[28]; SAGE-AU:[29]; AAPT:[30]; AusCERT:[31]; nationals:[32][33];

Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please continue the discussion here.

---

[34] As per MOS:LEAD, the lead needs to summarise the body of the article and shouldn't tease; this edit removes summaries and important information for the sections: "Background" and "Network design". —[d'oh] 11:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take another look, and have a go again tomorrow. The problem is that some of the lead isn't really related to the NBN as such. The stuff about Telstra's 2005 FTTN proposal. It might be a background of how the policy came about, but it's not the NBN, and it doesn't belong in the lead. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The original NBN was to address the issues around the Telstra proposal (going by the Labor policy docs) and the current NBN came from the original NBN. Although it can be shorter in length and reworded, it needs to be in the lead, as it explains where the idea of the NBN came from. —[d'oh] 11:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look through the refs and check this out. I agree with NBN to NBN2, but not sure there is a strong link right back to the Telstra idea, at least as part of NBN policy formation, which is the point in question. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref 6 is the one you will be looking for, Stephen Conroy said at the National Press Club: "Neither [Telstra's or G9] proposal can proceed without regulatory reform ... Rudd Labor government will deliver the reforms necessary to deliver a national open access fibre to the node network."; there is more in the article. —[d'oh] 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

excessive reverts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please continue the discussion here.

---

user d'oh reverted all (!) my edits with some general refernce to the talk page but no specific rationale. wats that about?? --124.168.174.142 (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My reasons for reverting some (READ: not all) of your edits was given on your talk page and in the edit summary.[35] The discussions are the two out of three on this page, above. Please join the discussions, if you disagree. —[d'oh] 13:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my edits to then lead paragraph. You removed my additional section on customer take up. Neither were disputed. You reverted my change to the section header to "history" with a curt explanation of "misleading"- I dont think calling a listing of historic events in sequence "history" can be misleading, you asked me to enter the discussion on talk page before making edits yet you feel free to make edits before doing so. This can only be considered bad form or borderline vandalism.--192.148.117.85 (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Directly about this discussion, Cruiser-Aust raised the same point about the lead. The take up rate is misleading as pointed out in the NPOV discussion. Using "History" for the heading is misleading the reader, because the section only covers events up to the announcement of the NBN, hence not "History". I asked you to enter discussion because the edits you are making is going against the discussions, and as per WP:CYCLE doing a discussion can over come disputes, but only if all parties join the discussion. —[d'oh] 02:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that compelling... Why also remove my new section about customer take up? Seems pretty central to the topic to me.--124.168.174.142 (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said for a number of times already, the take-up issue is under discussion above, join it! —[d'oh] 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What's discussed above is whether or not take up rates have relevance for consumer support or not. I have merely added the fact of take up rates. You should familiarise yourself with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing ("There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.")--124.168.145.159 (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was more than the link to public support, the text is not giving any context and is pushing a POV. The number 11% (which now higher) is clouded by other issues unrelated to the NBN, you are using it to imply the NBN lacks public support. That essay doesn't support your position, the take-up rate was removed by two different editors on the grounds of POV, but I suggested a compromise by adding the take-up rates in the text of the construction article; so the take-up rates are included but are in context. So far there are no takers for the compromise. —[d'oh] 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Did 192.148.117.85 realy edit anything? There is no entry by 192.148.117.85 on the article history in 2011. Or, is he using a different computer? 192.148.117.85 needs an account. Jim1138 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My guess is the editor is using shared IP addresses (in a workspace or school) or has a non-static IP address from a ISP which changes when the connection is reset. —[d'oh] 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

Is there a chance we could both compromise to break this deadlock? How about the edits you made to the now "Stakeholder positions" stands, but the take-up rate is moved to the construction article, the lead is restored and the heading "History" and "Design" is changed back to "Background" and "Network design", respectively. —[d'oh] 11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm always open for compromise, but it's not a used car lot either. Can you please provide a valid reason for your suggested edits other than your opinion? Eg: the article is about the National Broadband Network. Hence no need to repeat Network in headings. Design is referring to the design of the article's subject, the NBN. It's cleaner. History vs Background: not too fussed myself. Don't understand why you would be, really. The section discussed the history of the NBN, so why not call it that? Background goes beyond sequential dated occurences, eg an analysis of the pre NBN state of broadband in Australia, incl. differences in bush vs metro etc. If you extend the section to include these sort of facts, I agree it should be called Background. Why you would want to include this detail in the lead paragraph I can't see and you haven't really explained why either.--124.168.145.159 (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The reasons is already on this page, but I can repeat them:

Lead: As per MOS:LEAD, the lead needs to summarise the body of the article, not the subject, and shouldn't tease, removing summaries and important information for "Background" and "Construction" is going against this idea. The original NBN was to address the issues around the Telstra proposal (going by the Labor policy)[36] and the current NBN came from the original NBN. It needs to be in the lead, as it explains where the idea of the NBN came from.

Background: The section doesn't discuss the history of the NBN, it stops at the announcement of the current NBN which is back in April 2009, a lot of things has happen after that. I am not sure what "analysis" you are talking about, that is forgetting the fact any analysis done by us, editors, is original research and can't be added, while analysis by anyone else can't be taken as fact, instead the opinion needs to be assignment to someone, e.g. "This person says ..." Finally, including anymore information about the copper network is out of the scope of the article, this article is about the NBN not the copper network, which is why Telecommunications in Australia is linked. The only reason the current information about the copper network is included because it is linked to the NBN, see above.

Headings: As per MOS:HEAD, "History" is just too broad, in fact everything in the article but the network designs can be included in the section with the title still being valid; "Design", although correct, is still broad and could be hard to know what is actually in the section, with "Network design" there is no doubt the reader will know what the section will be about. The reason the headings need to be neither too narrow nor too broad is they are used heavily by readers scanning the article looking for a bit of information, with this article set to become large in size the ability to scan the article is important.

Also can you create account or log in, so your edits is under the one account, instead of a growing list of IP addresses. —[d'oh] 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too many generalizations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please continue the discussion here.

---

there are too many generalizations in here. Eg a ref has a quote from one or two people working at an ISP was interpreted in the article as "the telecommunications industry". Or Google, Microsoft and Intel support the NBN was interpreted as "international technology companies". This it totally misleading. The smaller telcos/ISPs support anything that reduces telstra's power. And global tech companies support anything that will increased demand for their products - as long as they don't have to pay for it. Ok to mention it of course but generalize and deduct widespread industry support doesn't reflect true complexity of the situation--192.148.117.79 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, which if you read the NPOV discussion, I proposed a major rewrite. —[d'oh] 03:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you agree, why did you revert my edits that tried to address this?--124.168.145.159 (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I agree with your assessment not your edits, read and join the discussion above. —[d'oh] 06:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

See, this is where you're not right: simply disagreeing with an edit doesn't warrant reverting it. For example, I listed the three technology companies which by any reasonable means is more specific and less generalising than the previous phrase used. So unless you improve it, why revert to the more general one if you indeed agree with the assessment that there are too many generalisations?--124.168.145.159 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Customer take up section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please continue the discussion here.

---

User d'oh deleted my proposed new section on customer take up. Who else thinks this is not relevant for the article?--124.168.174.142 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The take-up rate is already been discuss above, why don't you join the discussion? —[d'oh] 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not. What's discussed is the right way of representing consumer support. It's not what I added. Rather than scolding me to read the discussion, maybe you should do so yourself?--124.168.145.159 (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to log in so that we can follow the threads easily. And if a section has been deleted, put it in the talk, do not make us search through histories. Proper analysis of customer take up is important -- are people actually prepared to actually spend money on better bandwidth, that is the crux of the whole question. Tuntable (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestions and Edit War Summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please continue the discussion here.

---

I have had a quick look through the history and cannot make out the basis of the edit war. Is it over? Maybe a summary of the outstanding issues is due? Frezing edits on an article is not a good look. Tuntable (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit war is about three edits for the adding of the take-up rate,[37][38] the lead removal[39] and the change of the heading "Background" to "History"[40] and "Network design" and "Design",[41] the reasons against are explained here. The dispute is not over, a compromise was offered and is being looked at by the editor. —[d'oh] 08:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Construction of the National Broadband Network be merged with this one. That would resolove history issues etc. Later, a History of the NBN article may be needed, or possibly a Technical Details of the NBN, but for now it is just confusing. The NBN is being constructed now, what about it is not about its construction?! this is particularly so as there is also an Internet in Australia article (which should be better referenced.) Tuntable (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In the History Section, it should note that the government is in fact paying Telstra to switch off its copper. The current reading is confusing, suggests they are not unless one looks at a completely different article! Also, I do not remember the NBN ever being fibre to the node, but I could be wrong. If I am, then some word smithing could make it clearer in the text. Tuntable (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is background information to show the events leading up to the announcement of the NBN, it should show where the idea of the NBN came from, not the full history of the NBN, your confusion proves "History" as a heading doesn't work. A discussion already took place for a deletion, but the result was keep. Finally the current status of the copper network is not in the scope of this article, which is on the NBN; Telecommunications in Australia is a place for that information and the fact that article is not up to scratch is not a issue for the NBN article. The design section is in future tense, because dropping the future tense is not supported by other editors. —[d'oh] 08:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also the Internet in Australia article, which is confusing -- I only just found it. (No reference from here?) But it would seem that any section that discusses payments to Telstra should tell the whole story, or at the very least clearly reference somewhere that does. As it stands, it is plain misleading. Tuntable (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of Internet in Australia, is not a issue for this article and shouldn't be brought up on the talk page of this article. Also the compensation payment is NOT the agreement, the government has with Telstra, again the section's heading is misleading you; since everything in that section is before the NBN, to show where the idea of the NBN came from. —[d'oh] 09:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A Criticism and Support section might be in order. Put down the arguments for against the NBN in one place. Eg. the comparison with the FTTN, what applications actually would use the service, what quality of broadband is available to Australians now. I personally am confused by the NBN -- we built it because we did not want Telstra to monopolize FTTN, but then we pay Telstra anyway, and it is unclear how much bandwidth is required or will really be delivered. The article should address my confusion, possibly in conjunction with Telecommunications in Australia. Tuntable (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:CRIT, a separate sections for criticisms and support is generally not done on articles, because it is hard to maintain NPOV, instead the section should be together; the RFC above is still hashing out the details for a replacement. The "History" section is actually the "Background", the current FTTH NBN, came from the impasse between Telstra and the government and the original FTTN NBN. The $11bn agreement with Telstra, is to use the manholes and pits and to close the copper network when the NBN goes online, if the original FTTN went ahead, Telstra would have about $20bn. —[d'oh] 08:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to put that in the article. It explains some of the reasoning/justification of the NBN. Background is probably a better title, but it should include the why. Tuntable (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The compensation payment in the "History" section is NOT the $11bn agreement; the agreement came later. —[d'oh] 09:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Content dispute for National Broadband Network

Okay, it looks like the previous discussions hit a roadblock. I am asking editors to discuss issues they have with the current version of the article in the one location, so a consensus can be reached. If you want to bring up a issue and there is no section on it, please create a new subsection, with three tiles, e.g. ===title===. —[d'oh] 11:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of a paragraph from lead

Previous discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This edit removed a paragraph from the lead, but as per MOS:LEAD, the lead needs to summarise the body of the article, not the subject, removing summaries containing important details from "Background" and "Construction" is going against this idea. The original NBN was to address the issues around the Telstra proposal (going by the Labor policy)[42] and the current NBN came from the original NBN. It needs to be in the lead, as it explains where the idea of the NBN came from. —[d'oh] 11:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the lead had become too cumbersome, going into to excessive detail which was already repeated in the body of the article. I made a similar edit to the way the lead is now written, which was reverted by you I believe. I don't have a problem with the lead containing a basic reference to how the NBN came about, but in the previous state it was just too much. I'm not suggesting it be a tease, only that it concisely summarise the issue. Off the top of my head, what about a (more polished) sentence along the lines of "The NBN followed unsuccessful proposals to build a FTTN network from incumbent operator Telstra in 2005, and the Australian Government in 2007" , rather than going into the full detail of the proposals and why they failed, which is how the lead was originally written. That info is better left to the body of the article. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree it should be succinct. S0me of the best articles have a one or two sentence lead.--1.152.60.249 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You want to summary the NBN in two sentences? Good luck. Also, can you find any WP:FA which has only one or two sentences? Now, I am not saying the lead can be shorter, in fact I always had that view, but to shorten the lead to one paragraph or one or two sentences is unreasonable, because it will no longer be a summary of the article. —[d'oh] 13:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a wholesale-only open-access data network under construction by NBN Co in Australia. Fibre to the premises (FTTP) aims to provide up to one gigabit per second to 93 per cent of the population, with the remainder serviced by fixed wireless and satellite technologies with a minimum speed of 12 megabits per second. NBN Co has delivered the first fibre services in July 2010 and plans to deliver fixed wireless services from mid-2012 and launch two satellites by 2015, however, an interim satellite service will begin on 1 July 2011. With these technologies, NBN Co sells layer 2 access to the retail service providers (RSPs), while smaller RSPs can purchase from a wholesaler.

The NBN followed unsuccessful proposals to build a fibre to the node (FTTN) network from incumbent operator Telstra in 2005, and later by the Australian Government in 2007. The response to the NBN were mixed, politically, Labor, Greens and independents support the project while the Coalition opposes it. The Coalition's main objection is the use of government funds; instead they argue for less government intervention to achieve the same benefits. Vint Cerf the co-creator of the TCP/IP said the NBN is "stunning investment in infrastructure". A survey in 2009 found 74.5 per cent of surveyed thinks the NBN is a "good idea".

---

Above is a draft lead, I quickly put together, taking aboard Cruiser-Aust suggestion and an overall shorting, although it does need a copyedit it is a start. Comments? —[d'oh] 05:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems fine after a copyedit. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion has been moved here. —[d'oh] 08:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Heading changes

Previous discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The "Background" (now "History") section doesn't discuss the history of the NBN, it stops at the announcement of the current FTTH NBN, which is back in April 2009, a lot of things has happen after that, in fact the new heading has already created confusion.[43] Telecommunications in Australia is linked to provide information about the current copper network, adding this information to this article is going outside the scope; the only reason the current information about the copper network is included, because the information shows where the idea of the NBN came from. "Network design" was also changed to "Design", although correct, can create confusion on what is actually in the section, with "Network design" there is no doubt, i.e. the technical details not policy design, etc. The reason the headings need to be clear is they are used heavily by readers scanning the article looking for a bit of information, with this article set to become large in size the ability to scan the article is important. —[d'oh] 11:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Given the content of the section, I think it's better titled "Background" than "History". --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Background has same issues though. When does background end and content start? I feel that a chronological list of events is better described as Histroy--1.152.60.249 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

But the events listed in the section ends at April 2009, so how can that be a History of the NBN? To have a History section, the construction section and article plus the future "Operation" section, will need to be merge there, which will create a very large wall of text, of which no one will read. —[d'oh] 13:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also can you create account or log in, so your edits is under the one account, instead of a growing list of IP addresses. —[d'oh] 13:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember this section is there to put the announcement of the current NBN into context, because the current NBN wasn't dreamt up overnight, in fact the NBN came from four years of back-and-forth with industry and governments. The heading "Background" came from the idea of background information, to understand the NBN and why it is being done. —[d'oh] 05:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I almost feel like this section would be best split into two. First, a "Background" section (rather small, linking to the telecommunications in Australia section) that explains the infrastructure and previous policies by previous governments and by others (so Telstra privatisation, SpeedReach, OPEL Networks etc). Second, "History" should explain the process of the NBN policy - basically the second paragraph of the current section plus the last sentence of the first. This leads rather nicely into the construction section, which might even belong as a subheading under "History". bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of wrapping the last paragraph of the current "History" section and construction section in a new "History" section, could that paragraph be added to the construction section? —[d'oh] 06:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure -- I think it's important to distinguish between the policy history and the construction history. I'm not sure the history of how the policy developed (the RFP for FTTN, Telstra's exclusion, announcement of FTTH, establishment of NBN Co) should be under the heading of "Construction". Perhaps the right way is a "Policy development" heading or something, that discusses the history of the policy + the way it's structured as a government enterprise (so investment arrangements, the different funding projections, etc). I don't really know. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're on to something.

• Background
• Policy development
  • Request for proposal
  • NBN Co Limited
  • Agreement with Telstra
• ...

Having it structured like this, might help explain what is going on with the public policy side. —[d'oh] 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty good idea. For such a big change, though, I'd suggest the best way forward is to put together a draft at Talk:National Broadband Network/draft and then replace the parts of this RFC with one RFC on the draft. It doesn't seem like this RFC is going to get much more interest, anyway... I'll pitch in with the draft tonight or tomorrow. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion has been moved here. —[d'oh] 08:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Take-up rate

Previous discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The take-up rate in the trial rollout has been used show public support, but that number is clouded by other issues unrelated to the NBN, such as existing contracts, low number of RSPs (three in total) and low internet usage in these areas. Instead I propose the take-up rate is moved to the construction article where context is given. —[d'oh] 11:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote in an earlier section, the takeup rate at this stage cannot be used to assess public opinion because the current status of the Tasmanian (and mainland) trial areas do not represent the conditions that will apply for the main rollout. Previous quote: Currently consumers have a choice between copper OR the NBN+copper, because there is no NBN phone service available. Customers who have an existing contract for phone/ADSL cannot migrate to the NBN without penalty. Neither of these issues will exist for the NBN in general. It would be like saying a new freeway is unpopular if there's no-one driving on it before half the onramps are built. I would also point out that NBN revealed in the parliamentary enquiry today that uptake in Tasmania is now up to 18%. This still applies. I agree that the progressive takeup rate should be included in the construction page, where the issues surrounding it can be better explained. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont see how data on the take up of the NBN would not be in the article. Not to support pro or con but as pure fact on record. In fact, this may be the most interesting aspects of the article as it's rolled out.--1.152.60.249 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not suggested the removal of the take-up rate, I have proposed to put it in the construction article, instead of it being out of place at the bottom of this article. Also, the fact the take-up rate goes into the construction article will mean it will make its way back to this article, because the "Construction" section here is actually a summary of the construction article. Yes, the those numbers are very interesting and they need to be included, but only one number has been used which is the 11%, which is the lowest number. Missing from the current text is putting that number into context, that number is how many premises signed up with a RSP and has an active service, its not showing that in fact 51% chose to have fibre installed to their premise and a number of those could be waiting for their service to be activated. Which is true given—as Cruiser-Aust pointed out—the number is now 18%. —[d'oh] 13:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Consumer take up in the first three trial sites in Tasmania was 11%" is the text from this article, while this is the text already on the construction article, containing all the numbers and place in context: "NBN Co disclosed on 22 October 2010, it offered fibre installation to 4,000 premises in stage one, 51 per cent of the premises took up the offer. 21.3 per cent of those premises has an active service with a retail service provider (RSP), which is 10.9 per cent of the initial 4,000 premises." The numbers are interesting when they are all used and placed in the proper context. "On completion of stage one, 4,000 premises was offered fibre installation, 51 per cent of the premises took up the offer. As of May 2011, 723 premises ordered a service with a retail service provider (RSP)." —[d'oh] 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In Hansard, I have found the 18% figure[44] Cruiser-Aust pointed out above and I have updated the construction article. —[d'oh] 03:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The figure definitely should be mentioned in this article -- it's a pretty fundamental statistic about the project. It doesn't need its own heading, however. It would find a good home as part of the "Response" section you proposed below, or in the construction section (not buried in the subtopic article). bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion has been moved here. —[d'oh] 08:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Reception" section (now "Stakeholder positions")

This section alone has created many disagreements. I propose replacing this section with a "Response" section containing a timeline of notable responses since the announcement of the NBN, instead of the current 'this group supports and this group opposes'; this will allow the reader to make-up their own mind on which group supports or opposes, avoid the need to rewritten the section when views change and hopefully resolve POV issues. —[d'oh] 11:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Cruiser-Aust (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to what? The confusion comes from responses to different events being muddle together. The same stakeholder group may well react positively to one and negatively to another event. I find it better to summarise the position of each group towards the NBN as a whole. Main issue has been that some statements generalise unduly: just because one ISP says something it doesnt mean the industry agrees with it. There were a few of those in here.--1.152.60.249 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to NBN including: quotes, views, surveys, legislation, etc. The current section has been in dispute for one month, the section is not working and no one will be happy with it. Really, all I am proposing is dropping the 'this group supports and this group opposes' and changing the heading, most of the current content will remain, it will just be rewritten in a new format. —[d'oh] 13:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with thendropping of statements that whole groups support/dontn support NBN as thenissue is too complex for those statements (I've always argued against that as misleading). The notion of "response to NBN" though doesn't work for me as the NBN isn't one event, hence my preference for "position" which may be positive rponse to one announcement or event and negative to another.--58.163.175.134 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. The "Political" section in particular needs a good copyedit, some sources to justify the claims that Windsor, Oakeshott, Katter, Xenophon and Fielding support the project (more important for Katter and Xenophon, possibly important for Fielding if it's explicitly mentioned that he supported the NBN Co bills before vacating his Senate seat, and the existing sources in the next sentence can just be repeated for Oakeshott and Windsor). I'd be cautious, however, of turning this section into a laundry list of people who support or oppose the project. For instance, I don't see the paragraph about Rod Tucker as particularly relevant -- as far as I can tell he received no media coverage for his opinion piece. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Typos

Without taking a position on the RFC above, could someone please fix the two typos in the "customer take up" section: "armidale" should be "[[Armidale]]" and "te" should be "the". bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Construction

To be added once edit can be resumed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/01/3232726.htm details of the contract with Ericsson for 4G network. Furthermore it should be stressed that this is a corporation set up by the government of which the public is an investor as opposed to a government operation; the government has no control over contracts which the corporation makes nor the profit logic of the business. Even though it is half owned by the Crown it still does not have government control to reduce the profit - ie money extracted from the economy for the service paid for by the taxpayer in the first place. This should be raise somewhere in the article as it seeks monetary gains as public policy, instead of societal, social gains; it devalues equality and removes normatie arguments and leave price simply up the market as opposed to what is just and fair.Liberalcynic1 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It wuold be good to get a source on the government's actual influence. I thought the government has total control as the majority owner, similar to Australia Post. In theory, these are profit making enterprises, but the governmetn in practice controls via maority Board position. NBN Co Mgmt only has as much freedom as the delegation approved by Board stipulates. So large investment decisinos presumably need Board approval which is akin to government approval. But I havent looked into this in greate detail.--124.169.131.241 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just like any other company, NBN Co implements the shareholder's wishes, however, the technical and commercial decisions is usually done by the company, e.g. the shareholder doesn't care what screw is used, they just want the building built. Also at the moment, NBN Co is fully owned by the government, i.e. the Crown. —[d'oh] 07:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

not really. key decisions are ratified by the Board according to the chart of delegations. --124.169.146.169 (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Board of directors is apart of a company, and board members are elected by shareholders. Therefore, companies implements their shareholder's wishes. —[d'oh] 10:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the shareholders do care "what screws are used" after all? I would expect the government's board to ratify all key decisions of NBN Co.--124.169.146.169 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "government's board", there is the NBN Co's board which answers to the government, i.e. the shareholder. The government sets objectives for the company—which is available on page 12 of the business plan—the board then hires a Chief Executive—which is Michael Quigley—to implement the objectives. Although the government did hire Quigley first, he answers to the board, which hires and fires the Chief Executive. This is how companies are set up, the company's board doesn't goes into details and approve every decision the company makes. The decisions are made by the Chief Executive, who will in most cases hires more people to make the decisions. The board approves big decisions, e.g. annual budgets, the agreement with Telstra, etc. On the government side, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy acts as the proxy for the government and sets the objectives based on government's policies. The board and the government doesn't care what type of fibre cable is used or how it is secured, they just want the NBN built. —[d'oh] 13:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, government owned corporations typically have an additional governance mechanism that supersedes all the usual commercial ones (thanks for the lesson in the corporations law, though:) ). Most key decisions have to be ratified by the minister's office. Because the gov't appoints the Board which hires the CEO, the gov't essentially intervenes at whatever level it likes. It's a bit like a family owned company where the owner does whatever he/she pleases. Yes, technically that power is exercised via the Board, but would you argue with the owner if you were an employee? Only once... --124.171.41.101 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I said that above, as the sole shareholder, the government can do what its wants with NBN Co, at any level, but what I am saying the government is not going over every detail of the project unless there is a reason to, e.g. the number of PoIs, etc. Also this is nothing special, as owners of the company, the shareholders can do what ever they like within the company, even in the private sector. —[d'oh] 11:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, NBN Co Limited links to government-owned corporation which goes into details about this, the NBN Co article is set to be merged into this article but is held up because the new RFC on the draft is getting no comments. —[d'oh] 12:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

External links

Requested edit

==External links==
{{Commons category}}
*[http://www.nbn.gov.au/ Official website] of the National Broadband Network
*[http://www.nbnco.com.au/ Official website] of NBN Co
*[http://twitter.com/#!/NBNCoLimited Official Twitter stream] for NBN Co
*[http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/eea11780451bd3618ebfef15331e6bbb/101215+NBN+Co+3+Year+GBE+Corporate+Plan+Final.pdf?MOD=AJPERES Corporate Plan 2011–2013] for NBN Co
*[http://www.dbcde.gov.au/nationalbroadbandnetwork National Broadband Network website] by the [[Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy]]
*[http://www.accan.org.au/NBNguide.php NBN: Guide for Consumers] by the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network
*[http://data.dbcde.gov.au/nbn/NBN-Implementation-Study-complete-report.pdf Implementation study] on the National Broadband Network written by [[McKinsey & Company]] and [[KPMG]]

Just the addition of a missing link to the official website of NBN and formatting. —[d'oh] 03:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No opposition, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Working draft for National Broadband Network

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This proposed draft came about from the ideas and issues raised in the previous RFC: which includes a shorter lead; splitting the current "History" section into "Background" and "Policy development"; moving and rewording the take-up rate into the "Construction" section and other rewording plus reordering the sections. It should be noted the "Reception" section (now "Stakeholder positions") was left out of this RFC on purpose, because it has major issues which will cloud the issues and ideas brought up in this RFC. A separate RFC will be called later for the section, so if this draft is accepted, the section as written will be added just after "Network design". All comments are welcomed. —[d'oh] 08:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There's not much interest here (and I'm pretty comfortable with the draft, after a copyedit). I suggest the next step would be to bring the "reception" section into the draft and get it up to scratch, and then (unless the commentary here lifts) just get the main article unprotected and bring the draft in. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[45] Why did you move the cites to the bottom of the article? Can the cites be left in the text? —[d'oh] 14:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved the cite definitions to the bottom because they're horrifically unwieldy to work with in a well-sourced article if they're defined inline - the prose becomes almost impossible to work on for new editors because it's buried in between citation definitions, you get redundant citations that are difficult to maintain (I deleted something like 6 or 7 citations that were defined twice), etc. Nothing should have changed in the presentation of the article (except I deleted a couple of redundant citations), just the wikitext. That is, the actual superscripts are still where they used to be, it's just the wikitext definitions of the cites are all in one place. Most larger articles are moving to this sort of format, or even doing away with inline referencing altogether. Revert it if you'd like, but I think it's far easier to work with. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Going against the current de facto inline citing will create more confusion among new users on how to source text, also looking at the edit history for this article I see no new editors getting lost in the cites. If the cites get in your way, you can break up the text while working and glued back together when saving, which is what I do. The duplication of cites is from a merge of two articles into this draft, of which I didn't get a chance to complete. —[d'oh] 09:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:SILENCE, there is no disagreement for the draft. With the article now unprotected, I have implemented the draft and closed the RFC. —[d'oh] 15:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to duck back in to serious content editing until now, so never saw a draft of the response section. First, awesome work. I have two minor NPOV issues that I'd like to fix:

• I think the arrangement of the content here gives a bit of a POV feeling against the Coalition. I'd like to rearrange and rejig slightly so the Coalition policy and their position on the NBN are discussed together, rather than being split by the survey and MS/Intel/Google paragraphs.
• There might be undue weight on the KOB interview, and it's almost certainly synthesis since it only cites the primary sources. I have no doubt there's an abundance of secondary sources about that horrific interview, but haven't got time to look for them right now.

I'll post a draft here before I change anything on the article. Apart from those two minor issues, this article is now awesome, so fantastic work. Thoughts? bou·le·var·dier (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I had to rush when writing the section, so it is largely incomplete. The 'events' in the section is ordered by date they happen (like a timeline), i.e: positions after the announcement in 2009; the implementation study in 2009 and later MS/Intel/Google comments; the survey in early 2010; the 2010 election and the legislation in 2011. The MS/Intel/Google comments are on the implementation study, which was missing from the section; my bad. I agree with you on the OR, I attempted to clean it up a bit. The interview was big news and needs to be mention, however, if you can shorten it more without losing too much detail, I would have no problems with that. —[d'oh] 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally forgot about the timeline thing, that makes sense. I think in that case it'd be clearer if there were some date references in the first paragraph, then (e.g. "The Nationals expressed support for the policy in 200x, but on 00 May 200x the Coalition officially announced its opposition to the project", if there is actually a source for the first time the Coalition stated that sort of policy). The interview section is better now, but I'd like to find a source that expresses better how big a deal that interview was. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit history merge request

Histmerge|Talk:National Broadband Network/draft

• During the RFC, the article was fully protected. A draft version of the article was created to help reach a consensus. With the unprotection of the article and no disagreement on the draft, it was 'cut and paste' here by me, missing the edit history. Could an admin repair my mistake? Thanks. —[d'oh] 17:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

typos and bad grammar

this new version is full of them... Not sure were moving forward here --58.163.175.133 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You know you could fix them yourself, right? The page isn't protected. I intend to do a copyedit when I have a chance. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I know, just not at the minute from my phone. U do wonder why we would have put this live with these mistakes though --58.163.175.133 (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this is Wikipedia, not Encyclopaedia Britannica; our words aren't etched in stone. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Even electronically, bad grammar and typos are a bad thing--124.171.43.176 (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This coming from someone who can't put one sentence together without typos and bad grammar. Currently there is 3,814 waiting for a copyedit, but since there is no deadline grammar is not important for Wikipedia. Since I am one of the only two actual content creators for this article (second being Boulevardier), my limited free time is spend expanding the article, not copyediting. Instead of attacking the work of other editors why don't you actually add content to the article. In fact why don't you help me get through my backlog, heres are committees containing tons of information for the article[46][47][48][49] or maybe theses[50][51]. But of cause you are going to ignore me, so if you bring up these general "issues" again, I will ignore you. —[d'oh] 07:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said bad grammar and typos are a good thing, I said it's better to have something with typos than nothing at all. D'oh! is single-handedly writing an outstanding article. He very generously calls me a contributor but I just clean up his typos and copyedit and tweak things; he's the only one adding significant content to make this article fantastic. Saying we should stop writing because not every word we write is perfect defeats the entire purpose of Wikipedia being a wiki. If we wanted to write a book, we would. We edit a wiki precisely because it lets us publish things without having pitch-perfect grammar and tone. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OPEL and NBN?

OPEL was a notable event for telecommunications in Australia, but how is OPEL connected to the NBN, to be included in the article? —[d'oh] 11:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a (half) government-funded fixed wireless and ADSL network, backed by new fibre backhaul. I think it's important here to outline (i.e. not be the primary article on, but give background) previous government attempts to increase the reach of broadband, to contextualise the progression from ADSL to FTTN to FTTH. OPEL was pretty significant in that respect, as the first serious broadband infrastructure investment by the government. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I will withdraw my concerns as I found a connect in one of the sources. The source also pointed me to more history about the NBN dating back to 2003 and maybe going back to 2000, I am currently looking into it. —[d'oh] 12:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I found some similar connections to older programs, but I couldn't find sources that fleshed them out enough to write about, mostly because of the programs going by so many different-yet-similar names (for instance, Connect Australia and Australia Connected are not the same thing :( ). I should also add that OPEL has been raised fairly often in 2008-9 Senate debates by the Coalition as their alternative to the NBN with lines like "our version would be up and running already". I might look for some sources that reference that later, when I have more free time. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See e.g. [52] [53] [54] - all primary sources and all Senator Macdonald, but that's the point I'm driving at, if I can find some secondary sources to support it. OPEL is definitely relevant to the NBN. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging

I like the merging of the background section to make the policy development piece a sort of timeline. However, I'm not sure merging the response section into policy development is a good idea. I think to some extent it's a good idea to keep the political/industry "opinions" separate from the actual development of the policy, to the extent where those opinions didn't have an effect on the policy development. You could argue, for example, that Tony Windsor's opinion of the NBN did have an impact on its policy development in that it enabled it to exist, but I think again that statement of his support belongs in a response section. As another example, Google's support of the NBN didn't change the way the policy developed, so I don't think it belongs there. I think the best answer might be to reinstate the "response" section, except for the last paragraph about legislation which should stay where it is (and I want to expand it to deal with the NBN Co legislation in general, maybe moving it into the NBN Co section). This keeps the policy development as a chronology of how the policy came to be what it is now (with appropriate mention of opinions that did change it), and the opinions on who likes it in its current incarnation separate. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the 2010 federal election should return to the "policy development" section. Since at the 2010 federal election in respond to the Coalition's policy, the NBN went from 100mbps to 1gbps and because of the independents after the election the NBN rollout is now focusing on the bush first. —[d'oh] 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I struggled rearranging the 2010 election parts. I think the majority of them should stay in the response section, but a small section saying what changed w.r.t 1gbps (is there a source that says the Coalition policy was the reason?) and the bush focus belongs in the development section. I'll add one quickly, but I need to sleep so feel free to toy with it. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Policy development"

Both Telstra's FTTN and agreement with Telstra created and changed government policy. The impasse with Telstra's FTTN created Labor's FTTN NBN and the agreement has change the way the current NBN will be built. As such, both are apart of the policy development, so the heading "Policy development" is valid. —[d'oh] 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also why does the "Telstra's FTTN" need a year in the heading? Was there more than one proposal by Telstra? —[d'oh] 06:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a mix of policy and commercial proposals, counterproposals and develpoments, so the broader header is more appropriate--124.171.43.176 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Even although they were commercial proposals, they needed government and the ACCC approval before they went ahead, so again the heading "Policy development" is valid. A heading of "Development" means "Development of the NBN" aka the construction, which is misleading readers because the section isn't about the construction, its the development of broadband policy. —[d'oh] 07:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The original telstra proposal didnt require government approval. telstra wanted a change in regulation but it could well have proceeded without. so it's not a policy question at all--124.171.43.176 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The heading year makes it easier to follow the developments in a rapidly changing plot. Does it hurt?--124.171.43.176 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is does the years help the readers understanding of the text. Which is a no, because the text is meant to be read in full so the flow of the text suggest the order of events and since there is dates in the text, I doubt the readers will misunderstand or get loss in the text. —[d'oh] 07:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

you ll find readers read what they like, not necessarily "in full". what is the downside of the year in heading please??--124.171.43.176 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• [55] If I was a new reader and I didn't know anything about the NBN, would I want to know the cost of the project before knowing what it is? Wouldn't a better place for the cost of the project is the NBN Co section or the construction section? —[d'oh] 08:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

dont care aobut the sequence but gioven it s the biggest infrastructure investment in history the cost and funding are essential so deserve own section--124.171.43.176 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, with the latest merges you just made, would it be better to just make this section a true timeline? That is, "Howard Government", "2007 Election", "Rudd Government", "2010 Election", "Gillard Government"? I know it's slightly misleading in that 2 month period of the Gillard govt before the 2010 election, but I don't think anything significant happened in those two months? bou·le·var·dier (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I like it. I don't remember anything happening in the two months, but if it did, it can be covered in the 2010 election, since Gillard called the election very quickly after taking over. —[d'oh] 11:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Praise and criticism

I am not sure of the views of other editors, but I am still not happy with the "Response" section. The WP:Criticism essay gives the idea of integrating or embedding praise and criticism within the text. So what are other editors thoughts on the "Response" section and embedding the praise and criticism within the text? —[d'oh] 12:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There used to be callout quotes pro and con the NBN. Now there are only pro ones... why? 124.171.43.176 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the section is "con" and industry views were dropped in the RFC, of which you agreed with. Other than that, no other views were removed. —[d'oh] 12:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd support folding the Vint Cerf callout back into the prose in that section - it was significant, but it doesn't need a callout. The Kevin Rudd quote I don't think there's anything wrong with - it adds to understanding that section. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I said something to this effect a while ago, but my view is the response section should serve to summarise the major viewpoints of stakeholders. The second paragraph does this reasonably well (except perhaps for the Wozniak quote). The first paragraph gets a bit confused. It should to my mind summarise the views of the political parties very briefly. The EIU report that was just added belongs in a dedicated section about the cost of the project (whether that's a subsection of construction or a section on its own, I don't know). I would think there's enough content to discuss in such a section - I'd think there's been a lot written about the veracity of the cost estimates and how they've fluctuated, as well as analyses of the cost-benefit breakdown, but admittedly I haven't done a detailed search. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a stab at drafting up in a sandbox what I mean by this, give me a bit of time. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free, I am out of ideas for the section and you seem to have a good idea developing. —[d'oh] 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[56] As for the costs, to find some middle ground I have moved the cost and funding to a new section between design and construction, as it seem out of place in other sections and at the top or bottom of the article. Thoughts? —[d'oh] 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm drafting this first, actually; the response section I need to do more searching for, but the existing sources are mostly good enough for the costs section to be easy. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done what I intended to do, but I'm too sleepy to proofread it right now. I realise the response section has moved closer to the one we used to have that caused NPOV problems and ultimately the RFC. However, I think by more liberal use of direct quotes and summarising the key positions only in this section we avoid most of those issues. My view is that any viewpoints about specific issues rather than the NBN as a whole should go in the relevant section in the prose, not the response section. For instance, the amendments to deal with FoI and privatisation are dealt with in the Gillard Government section, but are briefly mentioned in the response section as a point of disagreement/difference between the Greens/Independents and the Government.

I'm also pretty content with the expected cost section; I think the prose there stands up for itself. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated bulk reverts

I take issue with repeated bulk reverts of some edits. In many cases no or a very weak reason was given, several of which are simply personal taste. Please discontinue and use the talk page instead. --124.171.43.176 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What "bulk revert"? The only one I see is you undoing all my edits today, including at least two edits unrelated to your edits. All of my edits today is explained fully in the edit summary, some of which reverted your edits with a reason. As per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you was bold and made edits, I reverted some edits, now it is your job to start a discussion. Your edits are not special and I do not have to ask your permission to edit or revert your edits. —[d'oh] 10:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But you should properly label your edits properly and etiquette does ask for a reason--124.171.43.176 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

All my edits was labeled. I am also glad you find this so entertaining, since I have to now restore at least eight edits I did today, instead of spending time converting the large number of sources I have about the Telstra deal into text for tomorrow, because you disagreed with two edits. So before you preach to me about etiquette, why don't you show some yourself. —[d'oh] 12:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Electrical current. @d'oh!

The current in copper wire is not a by product. Rather, electricity is required to transmit the signal and hence the data. All devices that receive a signal use the electrical current to do so. This electricity is sourced at the sender or repeater end, eg the exchange.

The original text said the use of the current for power not data is a by-product, which is it. This text was removed by you, replaced by "Fiber-optic cables use light to carry data, which means power at the sending and the receiving end, the NTU, is required for operation. The traditional copper network only requires power at the sending end, typically the exchange". The text was badly worded of which I could badly follow, so I reworded it to "Fiber-optic cables use light to carry information, which means devices who perviously relied on electric current from the copper network, such as corded analogue telephones, will rely on the NTU to provide power from the electrical grid", the word "by-product" wasn't added back and the text followed the sources better. What is the problem? —[d'oh] 11:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you reasoned your edit with "misleading" not "badly worded". Your version misses the point which is that fibre has a drawback of requiring power at the NTU whilst copper doesnt. --124.171.43.176 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My new version points that out, however, it doesn't label it as a design flaw, as it isn't. When the copper cable was designed, they didn't make sure it would give enough power to support corded analogue telephones. The current was just used to also power these phones. All of this is pointed out in the sources given, none of the sources labeled this as a design flaw or a "drawback". —[d'oh] 11:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, they do. One of the soruces in fact cites the issue that during the NZ earthquake not having corded analogue phones means a breakdown and draws parallel to fibre relying on power grid to work. so in power outage fibre wont work once batteries are out. its not a design flaw buut an integral drawback of fibre technology. --124.171.43.176 (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading the articles, the author actually draws parallel to fibre and the NBN, so to include it would have to be in "Mitchell Bingemann said ..." format. As for the ZDNet article, it relies heavily on an "expect", which is Dermot Cox from C-COR Broadband, which also needs to be in the same format. I am going to now attempt to rewrite the text based on the NBN Co plan instead, give me a second. —[d'oh] 13:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the text, are you fine with it? —[d'oh] 13:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

=ACCC @d'oh!

From the source "However, the ACCC was highly critical of NBN Co's 14 PoI proposal", so not editorial --124.171.43.176 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Did ACCC say they were "highly critical"? No. That text is from the author of the article. To keep the text, it needs to say "iTWire journalist, Stuart Corner described ACCC comments as "highly critical" of NBN Co."—[d'oh] 11:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The source says the ACCC was highly critical, so ... You are splitting hairs here ... by the way, I didnt actually write this... --124.171.43.176 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You may not have written the news article, but you are including it into this article, so unless you are copying and pasting—which is copyright violation—you are writing the text. —[d'oh] 11:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Another editor wrote it. You need to cool off a bit and assume good faith. --124.168.191.67 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, why are you so highly argumentative about every detail? What is the gain here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.43.176 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Me? I am highly argumentative? You have questioned almost every text a editor has added to the article. But maybe you only go over the details when the text doesn't support your view. Well unlike you I am not letting my views cloud my judgement, I am just trying to create a good article, only because I believe very strongly in the mission of Wikipedia. —[d'oh] 11:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Amusing this is...--124.171.43.176 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)