michaelwyres.com.au | musings of a geek

Hypocritical Turnbull Demanding ‘Answers’

A most curious post appeared this evening on Malcolm Turnbull’s website, calling for answers from Stephen Conroy over the rollout numbers for the National Broadband Network (NBN) in greenfields estates.

You really want to play this game hey Malcolm?

How about all the questions from Conroy you repeatedly refuse to answer:

What international examples of FTTN-style broadband deployments do you consider most pertinent to the Australian situation, and why?

How long do you estimate it would take, if the Coalition wins the next Federal Election, to deploy FTTN to more than 90 percent of the Australian population?

What, specifically, do you estimate would be the cost difference between deploying FTTN and FTTH as part of the NBN rollout?

Do you consider it possible to re-work the current Telstra/NBN contract to focus on FTTN instead of FTTH, and how long do you estimate this would take?

What broad details of this contract would need to change, and how long do you anticipate the ACCC would take to approve a modified version?

Do you have a long-term plan to upgrade a FTTN-style network to a FTTH-style network, or a medium-term plan to allow ad-hoc upgrades of this network to FTTH?

What do you consider to be the time frame on which a FTTN-style network would continue to be used without an upgrade to FTTH? Will there, in fact, be a need to upgrade in the long-term to FTTH? On what evidence do you have these beliefs?

How would you address the claim that FTTN is a short to medium-term technology that will be superceded over the next several decades by FTTH, and that Australia should only be investing for the long-term when it comes to this kind of telecommunications infrastructure? On what evidence do you feel this way?

Shall I remind you of all the questions I asked you repeatedly one evening some weeks ago on Twitter, that you refused to answer?

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm How much for FTTN? How much to upgrade to FTTH? If total not less than NBN, yours is not cheaper or better! #auspol #nbn”

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm @bradsprigg And you keep talking about price, yet you won’t give even a ballpark costing…”

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm Tell us how much your plan costs and how much the later upgrade will cost…compare apples with apples mate… #auspol #nbn”

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm @ABCtech Only if you tell us how much FTTN will cost, and how much the subsequent upgrade will cost…”

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm You are deliberately obfuscating…how much to deploy YOUR solution, and the later upgrade to FTTP? Stop avoiding it…”

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm @ABCtech For as long as you avoided the question I have asked you many times, you are being evasive and disingenuous…”

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm That’s not what I’m asking you…why do you twist and turn every time someone asks you for the price?”

How about last night?

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm @sortius …as opposed to a policy released versus a policy hidden? When will you have the balls to release it?”

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm @sortius Time to release your policy and stop being condescending? #auspol #nbn”

In Turnbull’s recent George Winterton Lecture performance, he declares an “urgent need for honesty”, and makes the statement:

“There is almost nothing more important to good government and our nation’s future than the quality, honesty and clarity of political discourse: how we explain policy challenges and trade-offs, and educate voters about the constraints we have to work within…how we express our position, our basis for reaching it and why it differs from that of our opponents if this is the case…how we communicate changes in policy and their implications.”

Yet he can’t be honest and answer reasonable questions about his alternative NBN policy, or have the courage to release his policy for comparison.

Dishonest. Disingenuous. Hypocritical.

Or is he just taking the piss?

Either way, we deserve better.

He said so in his speech.

What Exactly Are Coles Doing Here?

I found these two apparently identical chickens – (apart from weight) – in my local Coles store on Sunday, and found myself wondering what was going on with the labeling and the pricing:

The “extra large” chicken came in at 2.178kg, while the “large” chicken came in at 1.944kg. That’s only 234 grams of “difference” between a “large” and an “extra large”. Statistically speaking, probably not really different at all.

What is different, is the price per kilogram. The “large” is $4.90 per kilogram, and the “extra large” is $3.70 per kilogram. A difference of $1.20 per kilogram, just because there is a 234 gram difference in overall weight?

Does an extra 234 grams really justify a whole new category?

If the “large” was charged at the “extra large” price, the large would have cost $7.19, and not $9.53 – a saving of $2.34, for only 234 grams less of otherwise identical chicken. Exactly one cent per gram of extra chicken.

The only difference is an arbitrary label.

While the “extra large” is undoubtedly a better deal – (it even carries a “Big Value Pack” sticker) – once all the “extra large” chickens have been sold, and only the “large” chickens are left, those buyers are being ripped off mercilessly.

Another Contradictory Coalition Broadband Message

I caught an interesting piece of a speech in the House of Representatives last night, a speech which seemed to further muddy up and contradict the broadband message of the Federal Opposition. The speech came from the the Member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt.

“I call on Minister Conroy to intervene and actually try to speed up the rollout, which, in turn, will save taxpayers’ money and improve services to everyday Australians in my electorate of Hasluck.”

Hang on a minute.

Doesn’t Malcolm Turnbull tell us constantly that his alternative broadband plan will deliver “superfast” broadband to Australia more quickly, and more cheaply?

So why is Wyatt calling for Stephen Conroy to “speed up the rollout” of the National Broadband Network (NBN) in the belief that it will “save taxpayers’ money”?

It sounds like he is saying that it will be “cheaper and faster” the “NBN way”. Do they even get together to agree on a position before they speak?

Interestingly, Wyatt also spoke in his speech of a “broadband forum” he had organised over the weekend in his electorate:

“For those in the south of my electorate where the majority of issues with a lack of internet services are, I organised a broadband forum, and Malcolm spoke to a very well informed crowd of local residents.”

I really question the validity of this forum, given this Twitter exchange Wyatt had over the weekend:

TWEET: “@KenWyattMP @TurnbullMalcolm Damn wanted to ask if the FTTN plan would place above ground cabinets all over our beautiful region / country”

TWEET: “@themann @turnbullmalcolm Ken’s office: Sorry but tonight is invite only. Invitations went to people who expressed issues with broadband etc”

So the “broadband forum” was an invite only affair, with those invited being people who complained to their local Liberal member of parliament? I guess they were also hand-picked invitees who agreed with opposition broadband policy?

So what we have is another contradictory message, and a politically motivated “broadband forum”.

Turnbull was of course out west with Wyatt, and as it turns out another local Liberal MP, Steve Irons, earlier in the week:

TWEET: “With @steveironsmp in Victoria Park not finding a lot of evidence of #NBN construction. Got some brochures at the information session tho!”

Turnbull was trying to suggest that nothing was going on in terms of NBN construction in Victoria Park. Up chimed one of my Twitter followers with:

TWEET: “@TurnbullMalcolm: @mwyres fibre went past our work 6 weeks or so ago in Vic park. #justSayin #nbn”

Seems they are doing okay in Victoria Park with NBN construction afterall.

So, another day, another round of mixed up messages on broadband from the opposition.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.

Why The Dangerous Dog Laws Need ‘Fixing’

About a month ago, I was involved in an incident that saw two roaming, uncontrolled ‘pitbull-style’ dogs attacking a tiny little dog being walked by a little girl on a leisurely Sunday morning in my usually quiet street.

I wrote about the incident at the time, happy that I was able to help a young girl in distress, and rescue her mother’s little dog from almost certain death.

It got a fair bit of media attention on the day. While I was a bit gun shy about this at first, once I had come down from the adrenalin rush of the incident, I was quite happy to make a little noise to highlight what had happened, and try and get a couple of dangerous dogs off a street frequented by lots of young children.

I was interviewed by both Channel 9, and Channel 7, as well as the local newspaper, and spoken to by radio station 3AW.

Naturally, the local council got involved as well, and that seemed like enough noise.

And it was.

The dogs and their owners were all successfully identified, and council made plans to have the dogs removed.

The owners apparently hid the dogs away from their property for some time, presumably to try and avoid losing the dogs. In recent days, we noted that the dogs had returned, and notified the council. The owners admitted the dogs belonged to them.

But here is the sucky part.

Because Annie – (the little dog I rescued on behalf of Claire and her mum Amanda) – fully recovered from the incident, the council were not able to do anything.

Because she recovered.

Now, and at the time of the incident, I feel/felt sure that if had I not gotten to Annie only a short period of time later, she would almost certainly have been killed. She appeared completely lifeless at the time of the attack, but has fortunately made a full recovery.

What makes me angry is that by saving Annie in time, it would seem I have inadvertently saved the attacking dogs too.

Imagine if you went out to a nightclub one Saturday night, and someone – (for no apparent reason) – beat you to within an inch of your life. You get rushed to hospital, and taken care of. You make a full recovery, and afterwards you show no signs of the incident.

Would you want the person who attacked you charged and punished to the full extent of the law?

Of course you would.

Little Annie was out for simple Sunday morning walk. Two dogs – (for no apparent reason) – ‘beat’ her to within an inch of her life. She got rushed to the vet, and taken care of. She made a full recovery, and afterwards shows no signs of the incident.

Her attackers will not be punished as the laws currently stand.

How fair is that?

This is why the dangerous dog laws need fixing, and fixing now – before the next little dog isn’t so lucky.

Online Abuse and Feeding The Trolls

The recent online incident where model and television personality Charlotte Dawson was systematically and relentlessly hassled on Twitter, until she attempted suicide, has again highlighted the dangers one can face when interacting online.

Attacks from so-called internet trolls can come for little or no reason, or as part of a targeted and specific campaign against a person, organisation, or idea.

While nobody wishes to downplay the seriousness of the Dawson incident, many have commented on her handling of the situation, and how she could have dealt with it better.

“Online community manager and social media consultant Laurel Papworth said that, by responding to and retweeting attacks such as calls for her to “go hang herself” – and even calling the boss of a woman who abused her online, Dawson gave her enemies the oxygen they craved.”

This is often described online as “feeding the trolls”.

Federal opposition leader Tony Abbott has called for changes to the law relating to “scurrilous” usage of online services. He stated:

“I don’t believe in censoring the internet but we do have to have reasonable protections. What we’re looking at is more capacity for take-down orders.”

In its basic form, this statement is simplistic, and shows little understanding of the legal complications of “taking down” material from the internet.

He also contradicts himself in saying basically that “while he doesn’t believe in censoring the internet, there should be more capacity for censoring the internet.”

That is effectively what he is saying.

Since the incident, Twitter has confirmed that indeed it would not remove abusive messages, such as those that comprised the attack on Dawson. At first glance, this seems like an unusual stance for Twitter to take – however the reality is a little more complicated.

I remember an incident that I reported over a decade ago involving the once massively popular ISCABBS, where a user set themselves a highly offensive profile, in which they insisted that “all Australians were racist bigots”.

I reported the profile, but was told that while it was offensive, almost certainly inaccurate, and that something could be done about it, as ISCABBS was a US-based service – (at that time, hosted at the University of Iowa) – all usage of the BBS fell under United States law, and as such the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which enshrines the right to freedom of speech, applied.

In short, the user had the right to say “all Australians were racist bigots”, even if there was no basis to the statement, and ISCABBS had no power to remove or have the statement removed.

In regards to abusive tweets, Twitter seems to have taken much the same stance. They operate under United States law, and could be challenged under those laws should “free speech” be attacked by such take downs.

Current laws come from an age where the internet was not the ubiquitous communications medium it is today, and without a radical and coordinated change in laws across the globe, there is really only one thing we can do.

Don’t feed the trolls.

Another Turnbull Conflict Of Interest?

Hot on the heels of a potential conflict of interest from opposition communications spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull, and his investments in France Telecom, another possible conflict of interest investment has risen.

It is apparent that Turnbull’s wife Lucy has a shareholding in Vodafone, in information taken from a register of poltical interests published by the Sydney Morning Herald.

It is not clear whether this investment relates to Vodafone in Australia, or other overseas arms of the telecommunications company.

However it is on the register, and presents another possible investment that might be proper to divest from, given Malcolm’s role as communications spokesman. All parliamentarians are required to declare the interests of themselves and their spouses.

Ministers must divest themselves of any conflicts related to their portfolio.

Are the communications investments of the Turnbulls, affecting Malcolm’s policy positions?

Maybe, maybe not.

Given another possible conflict of interest, the question needs to be asked more firmly than before.

UPDATE: 6:25pm – The office of Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed that while Lucy Turnbull did hold shares in Vodafone, she no longer holds them.

Assuming this to be correct, any possible conflict of interest with respect to these shares should now be gone, and the SMH register would appear to have out of date information.

One point still remains though.

I do still however find it curious that these shares were still taken up in 2012 – (when they were added to the register) – and apparently divested also in 2012. At all times while Mrs Turnbull held them, her husband was the communications spokesperson for the opposition.

The question of a conflict of interest remains over Mr Turnbull’s shares in France Telecom.

Rail Failures: A Question of Protocol

Last night, both V/Line and Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) commuters were delayed due to various problems with the rail network in Melbourne.

Some V/Line customers were heavily affected by a points failure at Southern Cross Station which prevented some trains from getting out of their platforms to start their journeys.

On the Frankston line, an arson attack destroyed an electrical switch box between Carrum and Seaford stations, leaving several trains and their passengers stranded between stations for an extended period.

Commuters understand that things go wrong from time to time – it’s a man-made system, so it’s a fact of life that they break down. There’s also not a lot you can realistically do to stop someone from setting something on fire.

Ultimately, you can’t really blame either company for the problems. You could argue that better maintenance might have prevented the V/Line points failure, but brand new infrastructure can fail too.

Here’s where failure can be prevented – customer communications.

I was on the 16:19 train from Southern Cross to Geelong which was blocked into platform 3 by the points failure. Subsequent trains heading to Geelong were scheduled to depart at 16:37, 16:47, 16:55 and 17:08. There shouldn’t have been a problem getting passengers from the 16:19 onto these services.

Well, there was.

After one tweet saying the train would be departing 20 minutes late, and then another saying it had departed – (untrue) – and that it had been delayed 15 minutes, we were assured on board that the train would be departing very shortly.

When the 16:37 departed first, there were a few unnerved glances between the passengers waiting. At 16:44, we were directed to platform 8 South to board the 16:47, as the points failure had not been resolved. With only three minutes to go, people bolted to the other platform.

Only we had not been directed to the 16:47 at all. We’d been directed to the 17:08. Nobody had time to locate and transfer to the 16:47. By the time most people realised what was happening, the 16:55 had left as well.

Leaving everyone who originally boarded the 16:19 to wait for the 17:08 to depart to commence their journey home.

V/Line could have directed passengers to the 16:37, 16:47, and 16:55 services – but instead directed them to the 17:08, whilst telling them it was actually the 16:47. Many people were very pissed off when they realised what V/Line – deliberately or not – had done to their evening commute time.

Yet another demonstration of how badly V/Line copes when something goes wrong.

Over on the Frankston line, people were just as frustrated:

“Five trains, carrying hundreds of commuters, were stranded between platforms for up to two hours before the passengers could eventually alight at Seaford station last night.”

Many of passengers claimed of receiving no information about the continuing situation – and alas, this is entirely believable. It happens over and over.

Things go wrong – it is unavoidable.

What is avoidable is the continuation of poor customer service, despite claims by both V/Line and Metro Trains that their communications are improving.

Well, they’re not. They are getting worse.

There still seems to be no protocol as to what to do when incidents like this occur.

It is undoubtedly a complicated situation, but here is one suggestion for V/Line and Metro Trains. It is not even a complicated suggestion.

Communicate.

Start building a protocol – and part one of that protocol is tell your customers what is happening.

Don’t lie. Don’t make stuff up. Don’t give out clearly inaccurate information.

It would really be nice to not have to sit in a train carriage wondering if you’re even going to get home at all.

Last night, lots of people were wondering just that.

Windows 8 Committing Suicide?

I had a small chuckle to myself the other day, when Windows 8 threw this status message at me:

Note that the title of the application it is complaining about is “Microsoft Windows” and it is asking if it should just end it all!

Euthanasia or suicide?

You be the judge.

Turnbull’s French (Internet) Connection

Despite his constant opposition to the government’s FTTP National Broadband Network (NBN) policy, it seems that Malcolm Turnbull isn’t being totally upfront with Australians with regards to his alternative plan.

Not that this is much of a surprise.

“Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is opposed to putting fibre-optic cables all the way into households – but that is what he is investing in.”

“It was revealed this week that Mr Turnbull owns shares in France Telecom, which plans to connect 60 per cent of French households to fibre by 2020.”

Appearing on the ABC’s Lateline last night – (21 August 2012) – Turnbull tried to argue that making a half effort on building the NBN now using his model, as opposed to the full and current NBN model was far more “prudent”:

“MALCOLM TURNBULL: The point is if the applications that you want are high-definition video streaming, you know, all of the social media and commercial applications that you use – if they can be accommodated within bandwidth that can be provided at a quarter of the cost and, say, a third of the time, then that is a much more sensible deal, and that … now, you may say in 20 years time things will be different. Well, if they’re different in 20 years time, we’ll make some further investments in 20 years time.”

With this statement, Turnbull has committed that he accepts that his plan is nothing more than a stop-gap measure, that will require the later outlay of spending to upgrade later.

Given that his plan was independently costed at $16.7b, and he is now agreeing that a further upgrade to FTTP will be required somewhere down the road, we must now assume that to reach that FTTP endgame, it will require two NBN projects, and two lots of expenditure.

That would be $16.7b, plus some similarly large amount in five or ten years time. Given the forward projections on internet traffic growth, Turnbull’s assertion that it might be twenty years before we needed to revisit the issue is head-in-the-sand stuff.

Further, given that it would take a similar amount of funding later as the government proposes now with the full FTTP NBN, it also is not “cheaper” to go with the plan Turnbull is offering, as much as he would claim it would be.

He is simply proposing a deal that defers potentially the same – (and most likely higher) – cost to a later date.

Of course, it can be more succinctly summed up with the follow-up question to Turnbull:

“EMMA ALBERICI: But then in 20 years time won’t it take another 10 years then to potentially build it, by which stage we would have already built it; doesn’t that make sense?”

Of course it makes sense. Complete sense. This makes the current NBN plan faster and cheaper to achieve.

Maintaining the copper network has also been shown to be more expensive than an FTTP network, to the tune of at least $600m a year.

Adding to other recent disingenuous statements, Turnbull claimed yesterday in this tweet, that Conroy wants HFC “banned”:

“Further on France – most of the high speed broadband is delivered over HFC – that is the technology Conroy wants to ban.”

This is of course is blatantly twisting the facts.

Both Telstra and Optus – (the predominant HFC providers in Australia) – have agreed to decommission their HFC networks for use in providing internet connectivity.

They accept the change. Completely.

However, it is interesting that Turnbull is pointing to the French model at all.

Despite being pulled up about his personal investment in France Telecom, I know from personal experience, just how good internet service in France isn’t.

Having spent time in southern France, my experience is that even if you manage to convince the French providers to come and connect you up to the internet within any reasonable time frame – (my parents-in-law who live in France six months of the year, have this problem every year) – the experienced speeds are dreadful.

That is my experience of internet connectivity in regional France.

Here is what appears to be the “node”, through which all telecommunications in their village is routed.

I must admit I am not aware of what style of upstream connectivity emanates from this device, but clearly the bandwidth available is limited, given the slow end-user speeds.

Given that there are only about 20 dwellings in the village, the upstream capacity must be terrifyingly limited.

Given what I have personally seen in France, referring to France as “the way to go” for high-speed broadband with their current network is just plain laughable. The current French model is not up to the needs of the people.

Importantly, France recognise this, and are moving to FTTP for 100% of the country:

“After implementing a policy for fiber installation and network sharing in urban apartment buildings, France has embarked on a plan to bring fiber access networks to the country’s lower-density areas. This strategy for low-density areas is part of France’s plan to provide broadband access to 70 percent of the country by 2015 and 100 percent by 2025.”

Malcolm, by all means point to France, because they are moving to FTTP as well.

Just like Australia, New Zealand, Qatar, Singapore, the United Kingdom and countless other countries are.

Australia has a chance to be amongst the world leaders with this technology, and we can have it in less than 10 years.

Under your plan, you suggest and agree we should have it in about 30 years – and that’s an utter disgrace.

Please Secure Your Pets

Yesterday morning, I had the misfortune to having to confront two roaming “pitbull-style” dogs, who attacked a defenseless little dog being walked by a distraught little girl, outside our home.

I was in time to save the dog’s life, but only just. A few more seconds, and I’m certain that little Annie would no longer be with her traumatised owners.

When I first reached the attacking dogs, and freed Annie from their mouths, she appeared completely lifeless, but she’s a little fighter and we were able to get her to a vet. She can’t use her left front leg, and she’s still not out of the woods, but she is slowly on the mend.

Hopefully the owners of the attacking dogs – (who have been identified) – won’t be out of the woods, and authorities will be speaking with them today, and the exact breed of dog will be identified.

They abused the Channel Nine reporter with an expletive ridden tirade when she approached them.

One hopes they receive a tirade of their own.

I can only implore that everyone make sure everyone looks after their pets, and everyone around their neighbourhood, by ensuring that their pets are appropriately contained. Train your dogs, and make sure they know their place in your family and your life.

I made some new friends yesterday, but I wish it didn’t take what a scared ten-year-old girl, and a tiny little dog had to endure yesterday.

I’m still pretty shaken up about it myself, and I won’t forget it for a long time.

I don’t want to be a hero, I just don’t want it to happen again. To anyone.

UPDATE: 14/08/2012 – the good news is that little Annie is still on the improve, and although she is still having trouble with her front left leg, she is up and walking around, and trying to be a little dog again. The owners of the attacking dogs are believed to have been identified, and investigations by authorities are well underway.