 | |
 |
When is The Age, not actually The Age?
Apparently, when you hit the paywall limit of 30 free articles a month. Observe:
Hmmm.
I’m a nerd, and I love most ‘sciencey’ things.
As such, some time ago I subscribed to receive regular email updates from New Scientist magazine. While their articles were always interesting, before long I found I just didn’t have enough time to read them, so I unsubscribed.
Or so I thought.
I continued to regularly receive their emails, to the point where I actually ended up setting up for their emails to be halted by my spam filters, where there are still regularly deposited.
Today I decided to let one of their emails through my filters, to try and unsubscribe again.
Here’s the section at the bottom of the email, purportedly allowing for the recipient to unsubscribe:
Note the ‘conspicuous’ unsubscribe link?
Well, yeah. No.
Here’s what happens when you try to click on it:
Notice that what at first appears to be a link, is not actually a link?
The Australian Spam Act 2003 states (paraphrased) that – a commercial electronic message that has an Australian link most not be sent unless there is presented in a ‘clear and conspicuous manner’ the ability for the recipient to unsubscribe from receiving similar messages in the future.
There is certainly an Australian link to the email. An Australian office address is referenced at the bottom of the email, and the email address ‘[email protected]’ is clearly an email address attached to an Australian domain name.
So we get down to the ‘clear and conspicuous manner’ wording.
The so-called ‘unsubscribe link’ is clearly dressed up to look like a link, but it is not a link.
Clicking on this ‘link’ would for most people, appear to be the most obvious avenue as to what you have to do to stop receiving their emails.
There is a provided email address for ‘queries’, but it’s not ‘clear and conspicuous’ that you should contact them in this way to unsubscribe, given the ‘unsubscribe’ link exists, directing you away from the email address.
If I sent an email to that address now, there is nothing to suggest that this is the right way to go about it. They might be able to help me, but then again, they might not.
But why go to the trouble of making a non-link for unsubscibing look like a link?
I believe they fail the ‘clear and conspicuous’ test.
Hands down.
** UPDATE: 15/08/2013 19:35 ==========
New Scientist’s Twitter account has apologised, and promised to look into the matter. I shall keep things updated.
In another piece of double standard rhetoric from the Coalition, Malcolm Turnbull has refused to submit his policies for his alternative National Broadband Network (NBN) to the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) for costing, prior to the September 7th election.
In a tweet last night, in direct response to being asked about whether or not he would submit his NBN plans to the PBO, Turnbull responded:
In effect, Turnbull is saying he won’t do it, because the PBO doesn’t have the ability to do it properly.
What Turnbull should do is submit it, and let the PBO decide how to handle it. I’m sure a parliamentary department has the ability to find someone with the ability to make judgements on the policy and its submitted costings.
Given the PBO has until thirty days after the election to produce its report on costing for submitted policies, they even have plenty of time to do the work.
Frankly, it is just a complete cop out.
It is also completely against standing what the Coalition has stated they will do with all of their policies before the election – such as this statement from last November:
| All Coalition Policies To Be Submitted To PBO |
“The Opposition has declared it will submit all of its policies to the parliamentary budget office but it will not release final costings until the last week of the election.”
“Coalition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said they will not deliver a ‘consolidated statement’ of all their commitments until after the pre-election fiscal outlook is released 10 days after the election is called.”
Shifting the goalposts yet again.
It also seem curious when Turnbull himself keeps demanding more financial transparency from NBN Co:
| Turnbull Demands NBN Audit |
“Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has called for the Federal Government to ‘immediately’ commit to auditing the National Broadband Network rollout following reports that NBN contractors have stopped work in Ballarat, in news that represents the latest blow to the project’s already delayed rollout schedule.”
Turnbull should commit to the same financial standards that he wishes everyone else to commit to.
It certainly appears that what is good for the gander, is not good for the goose.
** UPDATE: 15/08/2013 13:33 ==========
Malcolm Turnbull has just tweeted that the decision not to submit his NBN policy to the PBO for costing was a ‘mutual conclusion’. While this may be the case, I still believe this is a convenient cop-out by Turnbull, and a lazy position for the PBO to take.
We deserve a far better outcome than a nil-all draw. It should also be noted that Turnbull did NOT mention this ‘mutual conclusion’ in the initial Twitter exchange, and is probably just happy he has a palatable excuse for not having to get the policy fully costed.
Regardless of now the less certain nature of this, the Coalition’s NBN policy remains uncosted – and this is still the major issue here.
** UPDATE: 16/08/2013 07:49 ==========
There still appears to be some doubt as to whether Turnbull did or did not ask for his NBN policy to be costed by the PBO, as reported by the Australian Financial Review late yesterday.
While this now simply may be a matter of semantics/language, there might still be something to this.
** UPDATE: 16/08/2013 08:38 ==========
Curiouser and curiouser. iTNews is reporting that Turnbull ‘decided against pursuing the services of external financial consultants to perform an independent costing after being turned down by the PBO, believing it unnecessary.’
“I don’t know that a lot could have been added [to our policy] by going through an independent costings exercise,” he said.
Sounds more and more like he was more than happy to accept the fact that the PBO felt they couldn’t do any justice towards costing the policy. He certainly doesn’t sound like he pushed back too hard.
…and still, the policy goes uncosted.
** UPDATE: 19/08/2013 12:02 ==========
Well, it seems Turnbull can do nothing but try and avoid the issue of getting his NBN plan costed. He was asked again this morning, and once again made every effort to avoid even answering the very direct question.
His credibility on this issue is fading fast – if it is not already dissolved.
As a devout and life long Essendon supporter, news that the club will almost certainly be charged with various offences following the long-running ASADA drugs investigation hurts – and hurts pretty bad.
However, I am a realist, and I firmly believe that the investigation, the outcome of that investigation, and the handout of any penalties stemming from the investigation need to follow due process and continue with the presumption of innocence, until otherwise proven.
Whatever penalties are deemed necessary, should and will be applied.
All through the investigation, the club has maintained an appropriate level of media caution. It has consistently maintained the line that it will not discuss the details of the investigation, while it is underway.
Yet – (particularly in recent weeks) – we keep hearing about very specific details of the investigation in various media outlets – particularly through Caroline Wilson from Fairfax Media.
How? Why?
If the integrity of the investigation is to remain, who is leaking details to the media?
Someone with the inside running on the investigation is leaking details, allowing Essendon to be tried in the media.
May the outcome of the investigation be what it is.
I bet, however, nobody investigates the leaks – and that’s what should happen next.
I’ve been really irritated in this first week of the election campaign that the debate over the National Broadband Network (NBN) has degenerated into an argument as to which NBN plan hurts Rupert Murdoch and Foxtel the most.
The premise is just ridiculous, as quite frankly, the NBN – (in either ALP or LNP form) – will not kill Foxtel.
I say that in pure mathematical terms.
Since its merger with Austar, Foxtel is permitted to sell subscription television services to 100% of the Australian population.
It does so with a combination of DTH satellite capacity it leases from Optus – (on the C1 and D3 satellites) – and the existing HFC cable network that has been around – (predominantly) – since 1995.
If the Telstra HFC cable runs down your street, your Foxtel is delivered on that cable. If it doesn’t run down your street, they throw a satellite dish on your roof, and it gets beamed at you from on-high.
If Foxtel were to switch to NBN delivery, they would only be able to do so for 93% of the population.
Under the ALP plan, they would get 93% FTTP coverage, and under the LNP plan they would also get 93% coverage – (22% FTTP and 71% FTTN).
Whichever way the network goes, they still have to find a way to service the remaining 7% of the population, and the only way they can do that at the moment is via the existing DTH satellite service.
Foxtel could equally do 100% population coverage with the same satellite deal they have with Optus now.
They could simply stop using the HFC cable, and put everyone on satellite. Their satellite costs would be the same, regardless of the number of homes they are servicing that way.
In fact, doing so would reduce their day-to-day operational costs, as they wouldn’t have to maintain the local cable head-end sites to pump the channels off the satellite into the cable network in the capital cities. There would simply be no need for them to remain in place.
Naturally, there would be an upfront cost to move all their existing cable customers onto satellite, so they’d have to weigh that up if they were to consider such a change.
So in short, exactly how the NBN rolls out does not necessarily have to kill Foxtel. What they do however it rolls out is entirely up to them. Their destiny is in their own hands.
However they choose to deliver their service is – (largely) – irrelevant to the end user.
Sitting in front of your television, you don’t care if The History Channel is coming up out of the ground through a piece of coaxial cable, or being beamed at you from 36,000 kilometres in the sky.
It looks the same.
What Foxtel must do is recognise the market has changed.
Before the NBN, a subscription television service like Foxtel was the only way to get this kind of content in Australia.
Though services like Fetch TV have done a fair job of trying to capture a slice of the IPTV, they just have the economies of scale to provide the financial clout to do the major content deals that a company like Foxtel can do with pocket change.
If you want to watch certain sports in your home, right now, Fox Sports is your only option.
That’s just the way it is, and if you want to watch certain niche content – (like TV shows the FTA networks don’t carry) – you have to go without, pay for a Foxtel subscription, or just illegally download it.
Consumers are no longer willing to accept that these are the only possible avenues.
When decent ubiquitous bandwidth becomes available in this country, the content providers – (who, lets be honest, get shafted on the money they get from the Foxtel’s of the world) – will start selling their individual channels, direct to consumers, bypassing subscription television providers altogether.
That is Foxtel’s biggest fear – and whichever NBN we get does not change this. Ultimately, Foxtel need to change, or they will fail.
If they fail, it will be their own fault.
What they need to do is leverage their content deals, and sell them over the NBN.
Let people pay $15.00 a month for their suite of sports channels, and their sports channels only. Let people pay $10.00 a month for the movie channels, or the news channels, or the general entertainment channels.
Or charge people $1.00 a month for individual channels and make them choose a minimum of 30 channels. Or 20 channels, or whatever number works out at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
To get all the channels I want to watch, I have to pay for a certain package that gives me dozens more channels that I never watch.
So why do I have to pay for them? Let me choose what I want.
HBO would make a killing if they had their own private NBN-streamed channel in Australia, they could sell directly to consumers.
Furthermore, Foxtel delivery methods may have to change – (and to their credit, they are introducing IPTV-based options) – but it’s their customers who’ve changed more.
The NBN opens up opportunities for them, but it opens opportunities for others too.
No, the NBN won’t kill Foxtel – only Foxtel will kill Foxtel, and what happens is entirely up to them.
Just like any other business, they have to adapt to changes in their market.
So if Rupert Murdoch or anyone else thinks the NBN will kill Foxtel, they can cry me a fucking river – because the NBN will have nothing to do with it.
(NOTE: This post was adapted from my response to an article on technology site Delimiter).
Exactly what was Malcolm Turnbull on about at yesterday’s National Broadband Network (NBN) debate between himself and Alan Kohler?
How about this pearler?
“Mr Turnbull said he did not object to fibre-to-the-premises technology in itself, but given the rapid rate of technological change thought it was best not to provision for future demands with today’s technology.”
We can’t provision for future demands with tomorrow’s technology, because tomorrow’s technology doesn’t exist yet!
I guess we’re stuck with today’s technology. You know, tomorrow never comes and all that?
Tony Abbott famously – (infamously?) – declared that Turnbull “practically invented the internet in Australia”. While is this certainly not true, how do we build an NBN today using future technology?
From his statement above, it is pretty clear that he believes that rather than provision today’s technology to cater for tomorrow, we should provision some of tomorrow’s technology today.
Whatever.
At least we now know that Malcolm has apparently invented something after all.
Time travel.
Of course, we know his copper-based FTTN technology is far from today’s technology, let alone tomorrow’s.
Turnbull also appeared to signal yet another shift in his alternative plan for the NBN by once again moving the goalposts by signalling the possible inclusion of existing HFC networks into the new network.
Turnbull has long espoused the virtues of keeping the HFC networks as part of the NBN. Speaking in 2011:
“I think you miss the point about HFC. My simple point is this. If the objective is to provide fast broadband to all Australians at an affordable price then we should try to do so in the most cost-effective fashion. If there is infrastructure which enables us to do that (HFC for example) then it makes sense to use that rather than overbuild it.”
So, don’t overbuild the HFC, right?
Yet in the official policy he introduced in April, HFC appeared to be left out completely:
As per the document, 100% of his network would be made up of 22% FTTP, 71% FTTN, 4% 4G Wireless, and 3% Ka-band Satellite.
No mention of the HFC networks at all.
So if he’s not overbuilding them, and 100% of the network is to be made up of other technologies, what happens to the HFC networks?
Logically, that should mean that they are going to be overbuilt – which according to Turnbull we shouldn’t do, right?
In fact, in the summary of the policy released in April, the term ‘HFC’ was mentioned only seven times, in only four different points in the entire 18 page document.
Here on page 9:
“Approximately 65 per cent [sic] of the FTTN portion of the rollout is expected to be completed in the four years to 2016-17. The remaining 35 per cent [sic] will be deployed in 2017-18 and 2018-19 and will in most cases be in areas served by HFC networks.”
This statement appears to suggest that the areas currently within his 71% FTTN footprint that have HFC, would not receive their FTTN-based service until the very end of the rollout. Once again, it is apparent he intends to overbuild the HFC networks.
HFC rates a mention on page 11:
“Under the existing contracts between NBN Co on the one hand and Telstra and Optus on the other, the two carriers’ HFC networks cannot carry either broadband or voice services to any premise once it is connected to the NBN. The NBN Co has made substantial financial commitments in return for this thoroughly anti-competitive arrangement. Subject to an equitable re-negotiation of these provisions satisfactory to NBN Co and the Government, our goal would be to remove any contractual impediments to the use of existing HFC networks for broadband and voice. A key consideration in such negotiations will be ensuring open access to networks and scope for enhanced competition in the relevant areas.”
Pretty clear he wants his network and the HFC networks to co-exist. Not necessarily a bad outcome, but it still shows his intent is to overbuild them.
But lets remember that by 2019, the HFC networks will be almost 25 years old, and nearing end-of-life. Maybe that’s why overbuilding them isn’t such a bad idea after all?
Lets move on to page 16:
“The Coalition policy delivers greater flexibility in two key areas: competition is permitted between networks (such as NBN Co’s NBN and Telstra’s HFC), helping keep prices down; and wholesale prices can be less that the uniform national wholesale price (UNWP) set by the ACCC for Labor’s NBN (which will be a price cap approved by the ACCC in the case of a Coalition NBN).”
Even clearer.
And here on page 17/18:
“Under Labor, when the NBN is rolled out, Telstra’s copper and Optus’s HFC cables (if present) will be shut down. Telstra’s HFC (if present) may carry Foxtel but not broadband or voice. Australia is unique in the world in deliberately stamping out competition between fixed line networks.”
“The contrast with Coalition policy could not be clearer. Subject to negotiation with their owners, we will remove impediments to the use of HFC networks, and we will allow non-NBN operators to enter the fixed line market (subject to offering their networks to access seekers on equivalent terms.”
Malcolm will remove the impediments to the use of the HFC networks for broadband.
So much for making “sense to use that rather than overbuild it”. Curiously though, yesterday we heard:
“Mr Kohler asked whether a Coalition government would insist on the hybrid fibre-coaxial business being fully separated from Telstra.”
To which Turnbull replied:
“Our assumption is that we will.”
So just to be clear, the released policy document says that the HFC networks – (which he previously said shouldn’t and wouldn’t be overbuilt) – will be overbuilt by FTTN at the end of the FTTN rollout, and now we hear that Telstra’s HFC network would be “fully separated” from Telstra, inferring it would come under NBN Co control.
It would also have been already overbuilt by the FTTN network, leaving NBN Co to operate two competing open-access networks in the same areas.
Huh?
Can we at least get the story straight and consistent Malcolm?
Either that, or use your time machine to go get some of that future technology.
Please.
More lies and misinformation from the Coalition over the National Broadband Network (NBN). They just can’t help themselves, can they?
Just caught this tweet from Sussan Ley, the Coalition Member for Farrer in Southern New South Wales:
Of course, this is just patently wrong, and I followed up here and here.
The Coalition’s alternative NBN plan – (taken from their released policy document) – calls for a deployed network with 71% FTTN, 22% FTTP, 4% wireless, and 3% satellite.
The current NBN plan calls for a deployed network of 93% FTTP, 4% wireless, and 3% satellite.
This is the same 4% wireless and 3% satellite the Coalition can’t get rid of no matter what happens, because the contracts to deploy and complete those parts of the network are already in place.
That’s why both plans call for the exact same result for the final 7% – with 4% wireless and 3% satellite!
Under the current plan, areas to receive fibre will have their copper networks decommissioned. The areas with out fibre – (ie: the 7% with wireless or satellite) – get to keep their copper networks – just as they are right now.
Given that the small towns that Ley is worried about will have exactly the same result from the NBN under either plan, her assertion that small towns with an exchange can only be upgraded to fibre under the Coalition plan is patently false.
It’s just bullshit.
Certain members of our alternative government have certainly been a bit shifty with numbers related to their portfolios in the last 24 hours.
On the National Broadband Network (NBN) front, where it has been claimed that if the Coalition comes to power at the election, and it’s alternative NBN is implemented, that people may be required to pay $5000 for the ‘fibre on demand’ product if you still want a fibre connection you would get for free under the current NBN plan.
Today Shadow Communications spokesperson Malcolm Turnbull stated:
“Well we haven’t set a rate for it but I can tell you that the typical distance from one of these nodes, the average distance would be around 500 metres. And I can only give you the example from the UK the cost of getting fibre on demand is around £1500 which I think would work out at around $3000. So it is not $5000.”
Yet on the 29th of April, on his own website he stated:
“In the UK this product, known as ‘fibre on demand’ is made available for a fee. For a customer living 500 metres from a node, for example, the charge is GBP1500 or about $2,250.”
Three months ago it was going to be $2250, and now it is $3000. Even taking exchange rate variations into account doesn’t seem to explain this significant variance.
For the record, based on the exchange rate as it stands today, £1500 GBP is $2500 AUD, and labour market rates/conditions are going to be different between the UK and Australia as well, making comparisons very difficult.
Regardless, Turnbull can’t even commit to a single figure – exchange rates don’t vary that much.
Over in the manufacturing portfolio, appearing on the ABC Q&A program on July 1st, 2013, the Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science, Sophie Mirabella, made the following statement:
Now, I’m not going to go into an argument and/or analysis as to whether that is right or wrong – (Politifact Australia did rate the claim as “half true”) – but I will point out a tweet Mirabella posted last night:
Apparently in the space of a month the 19 minutes has become 11 minutes.
Regardless of whether either figure is right or wrong, she doesn’t seem to be able to get her story straight.
Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey is also playing outside the accepted playing field, moving away from the accepted methods of costing policies before an election:
“Mr Hockey has previously said the coalition would detail costings of its policies once the PEFO was released.”
“But now he’s casting doubts on its independence.”
“”Quite clearly by flagging an economic statement the government is trying to bully the public service into a set of the numbers that clearly do not properly represent the state of the budget,” Mr Hockey said.”
Hockey says that instead, they have been using the Parliamentary Budget Office, state government colleagues and independent advisers. Let’s hope he’s not using the same independent accountants they did last time around:
“The federal Coalition’s economic credibility has been dealt a blow after a tribunal found that two accountants who costed its 2010 election policies had breached professional standards.”
“The ruling is an embarrassment to shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, who wrongly insisted during the campaign that the accountants’ policy costings had been audited.”
I’m not inspired with confidence.
We’ve all seen so-called “store brand” or “home brand” products in the supermarket. For example, a packet of biscuits that look exactly the same and taste exactly the same as a packet of Tim Tams, but for half the price.
And probably made in the exact same factory anyway.
Well, whilst doing the shopping this afternoon at the local Coles, I discovered that the concept appears to have arrived in the vegetable section.
For $2.98 a kilogram, you can have some “Brown Onions”:
At the other end of the same aisle, for $1.98 a kilogram, you can have some “Coles Brown Onions”:
Apart from the obvious answer of “about one dollar a kilo”, can someone explain to me what the difference is?
Any wonder the “Coles Brown Onion” bin was empty.
I bet they came from the same field of onions.
| NTSB Statement On Erroneous Confirmation Of Crew Names |
“Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft.”
My only question is how the newsreader didn’t crack up laughing, or at least doubt the names given?
If it wasn’t so serious, it would be hilarious.
UPDATE 13/07/2013 13:50: An apology has been issued by KTVU-2 for the “error”. At least they were gracious enough to admit that they should have done their job a whole lot better: