After 11 Years, Australia Declares Its National Broadband Network Is 'Built and Fully Operational' (theregister.com) 106
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Australia has declared its national broadband network (NBN) is "built and fully operational," ending a saga that stretches back to the mid-2000s. Minister for communications, cyber safety and the arts Paul Fletcher declared the build complete in a Wednesday statement that admitted 35,000 premises remain unable to connect to the network, but seeing as that number was over 100,000 in August 2020 and over 11.86 million premises have been wired, he's happy to say the job's been done.
The statement also pointed out that legislation governing the NBN build requires a declaration the job is done before December 31st. "New premises are being built all the time," the minister said. "This means that there will always be a number of premises around Australia that are not yet 'ready to connect.' The fact that there is a certain number of premises which are not ready to connect is not of itself evidence that the network cannot be treated as 'built and fully operational.'" Thus ends a saga that began in the mid-2000s when Australia figured out that ubiquitous broadband access was a good idea. Dominant telco Telstra proposed to build the network and operate as both a wholesaler to rivals and a retailer, but as that arrangement had stifled competition for years the government of the day wasn't keen on the idea. At the 2007 election the left-of-center Australian Labor Party swept to power in part due to its plans to build a fast national broadband network. That promise evolved into a commitment to build a fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) network...
The statement also pointed out that legislation governing the NBN build requires a declaration the job is done before December 31st. "New premises are being built all the time," the minister said. "This means that there will always be a number of premises around Australia that are not yet 'ready to connect.' The fact that there is a certain number of premises which are not ready to connect is not of itself evidence that the network cannot be treated as 'built and fully operational.'" Thus ends a saga that began in the mid-2000s when Australia figured out that ubiquitous broadband access was a good idea. Dominant telco Telstra proposed to build the network and operate as both a wholesaler to rivals and a retailer, but as that arrangement had stifled competition for years the government of the day wasn't keen on the idea. At the 2007 election the left-of-center Australian Labor Party swept to power in part due to its plans to build a fast national broadband network. That promise evolved into a commitment to build a fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) network...
Goal Posts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Goal Posts (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Its OK, the emperor has declared victory so we can all move on. It worked in Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and Iraq, so why not in Australia?
FTFY.
Now witness the PACKETPOWER of this fully BUILT and OPERATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK.
Also, Artoo.
Re: Goal Posts (Score:1)
Two ACs sitting in a tree S H I T I N G. First comes bull shit. Then comes flaming. Then comes a little coward dropped in a toilet.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm just going to leave this here then.
https://imgur.com/a/8yyhkvo [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you're on FTTN, that's VDSL to your premises, and if you want gigabit (which WILL happen, despite certain idiots claiming that a couple of 1080 video streams per household is more than enough) you need to upgrade to FTTP.
I think the government actually offered a free FTTP upgrade to FTTN users that ask for it, which is nice, but also just throwing even more money at a proble
Re: (Score:1)
Why does anyone offer 1000 Mbps residential service? That is like 500 4K video streams. That is probably about what an ISP would bring into a 1000 pop rural town to service the whole lot. I wonder what data limits they place on that, I always laugh at the plans that some with like 10 hours of data usage, but at 1 Gbps you probably only get a few minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Goal Posts (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends what you're doing...
Traffic is bursty, so if you download something it completes quickly then your connection sits idle most of the time. On a slower line, your connection would be saturated for much longer and this could also increase latency of other things you're trying to do.
Having 1gbps locally also allows for p2p activities, file sharing, low latency voip or gaming etc.
You can also host a NAS with a friend/relative nearby and do offsite backups, very useful if your house burns down or is burgled etc.
Once the service is available, people will find ways to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the service is available, people will find ways to use it.
But that is the problem. Your entire continent is only connected to a 10tbps service, and that includes industry. Putting aside the corporate usage of internet, you only have 400 kbps per person for peak use. This lets a tiny fraction of your population cripple your internet at any point, Australia desperately needs to encourage minimal internet usage.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is the problem. Your entire continent is only connected to a 10tbps service, and that includes industry. Putting aside the corporate usage of internet, you only have 400 kbps per person for peak use. This lets a tiny fraction of your population cripple your internet at any point, Australia desperately needs to encourage minimal internet usage.
Interesting. But how much of the traffic stays within the continent? Aside from local searches like a a local business, I would assume big operators host lots of content locally, meaning lots of traffic never leaves the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, but local content can only be cached in australia through this 10tbps line. So even if we assumed that YT had a 100% complete cache in australia now, clearly they would not be able to keep this cache uptodate, meaning more and more content that would be consumed during peak usage and streamed directly over australia's sea line.
10tbps - (industry) - (consumer use) does not seem like nearly enough data to cache the internet locally. More and more will by necessity be stuck on the other side of the
Re: (Score:2)
There is no point mirroring everything. A YT video will be transferred to the local cache the first time someone views it, and subsequent viewers will be served it directly from there.
Keep in mind that some YT content is also produced in Australia, so the same process will be happening in the opposite direction too, and the lines will be full duplex.
Some videos will never be viewed by anyone in Australia, so they will never be transferred at all. Even the most popular videos will only be transferred once, e
Re: (Score:2)
They also cache massive amounts of frequently-accessed data. I doubt if any provider in Aus actually downloads the Google Scribble from California more than a couple times a day, after that it's all served from the cache.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much total capacity Australia has, i believe they have several undersea fibre links to asia, the americas, new zealand etc.
A lot of end user traffic will never leave the country. The biggest services all have local caches in the country, and in most countries local services also tend to be popular and account for a significant proportion of use. Even for foreign originated content, it can be transferred to the local cache during off-peak times, and then served to end users from the local ca
Re: Goal Posts (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Gigabit is 500 480p streams, maybe, or 150 HD streams. It's around 50 4K streams (Netflix recommends 25Mbps for 4K, but they average under 20Mbps).
But even
Re: (Score:2)
If you look here (https://help.netflix.com/en/node/87#:~:text=Watching%20TV%20shows%20or%20movies,each%20stream%20of%20HD%20video.), 4k takes 7 gigs per hour. 1gbps gets you 3600 gigs an hour. Meaning 500 concurrent streams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the solution is that we need to be satisfied with lower definition video.
By lower definition I don't mean 480p I am referring to using 1080p instead of 4k. How much definition do you really need in the average video? Unless you are trying to diagnose a medical problem remotely do you really need to be able to count the number of pores on the face of the person in the video you are watching? Do you need to actually count the number of blades of grass on the pitch of the sporting game you are watching?
Re: (Score:2)
Based on how far people tend to sit from their screens, 4k is past the point where you can see any additional detail. That maximum lies closer to 1080p than 4k. My assumption is that we'll eventually settle into 4k as the max resolution, and everything made past that point will be pushing the limits of something other than resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
While Australia struggles with the last mile (using copper and wireless), just across the ditch here in New Zealand (CV19 lockdown level 1 ), I have fibre to my desk with 1Gb/S and no data cap -- all for the princely sum of less than NZ$100 (US$71) a month.
Do I need 1Gb/S?
Probably not -- but for that money, why not have it?
I'll probably set up my own video streaming server here and side-step YouTube so that I can be sure my content isn't going to get censored, deleted or banned. Can't do that on an acousti
Re: (Score:3)
Why does anyone offer 1000 Mbps residential service?
Why does that matter? Working from home, gaming, downloading, whatever. Faster connections = less time waiting = more productivity.
When it comes to fibre, the speed you get is whatever you want to spend on the endpoints. Other locations that have had fibre for some time are already upgrading to faster connections - 2, 4, even 10Gbit.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, a lot of people, and even more this year, are working from home. A lot of people have smart devices all over their house, including security cameras that stream or upload across the internet.
Your comparison - do you really think you'll get 500 4K streams out of one gigabit? IBM says it's between 8-14Mb per stream, not including audio. You'd be able to stretch to maybe 50.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the politics of a questionable mix of technologies, coupled with the 2013 election over "debt and deficit disaster".
We have NBN over HFC. And we never had foxtel so an NBN consultant dug up our front yard to install it. So I ask, what proportion of neighbourhoods in suburban Melbourne never had foxtel - why was Abbott's FTTN ever necessary if HFC were running along the street already?
Do to a change in personal circumstances, I might soon be moving to regional Victoria. From the NBN coverage maps it's e
Re: Goal Posts (Score:1)
Radio waves travel at light speed. The latency difference between being next to a tower and at the edge of a large cell (15 km away) is about 50 microseconds. Since internet RTTs are tens of milliseconds, you are talking less than a half a percent difference.
What I think you mean is bandwidth. Being next to the tower lowers the WCDMA noise floor, and you get much higher throughput.
Re: (Score:1)
By the way genius, it's fibre (not fiber)
Definitely not spelled that way worldwide.
Re: Goal Posts (Score:2)
5g is not a solution. Fiber is the only 80 year solution, thatâ(TM)s what government should spend money on, not stop gap solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please no no NO, do not give them the idea to install more mobile towers. Do it right, run the fibre to the premises. Mobile network towers are not a substitute for fibre network that'll be useful for 50yrs+, where's we'd be constantly having to change the towers every ~15 years if they want to keep up with the latest and as the frequency increases we have to typically install more towers per given area.
The throughput from towers also falls off at a more rapid rate due to contention compared to fibre.
N
Re: (Score:2)
ANY wired option is far superior to any wireless option.
I currently can only get Internet via the local cell network (Starlink could be an option if it wasn't so expensive and currently limited participation). This connection gives me ~2mbps (only 3G service is available). I would drop this connection in a heart beat if I was able to get any form of wired connection. I would even take a 500kbps wired connection over the 2mbps wireless connection.
Yes ideally I would like a 1gbps fibre connection but that jus
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Goal Posts (Score:2)
Hey that's racist. All wanker lives matter, bro.
Re: Goal Posts (Score:2)
The UN definition of racial discrimination explicitly calls out discrimination on national origin.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Goal Posts (Score:1)
Let me quote the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination "...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
Can you see the bit about national origin?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Goal Posts (Score:1)
Nice try. Your quote doesn't exist in the convention and is certainly not article 3. The full text is here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/profe... [ohchr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, like me, he's using a mobile OS that doesn't fully localise to en_AU. My preferred system language is Aussie but I either get a choice of a software keyboard with an American dictionary with a US layout or a UK dictionary and with that weirdo pound sterling thingee instead of a dollar sign. (And I can't be arsed Googling how to set UK dictionary with a US keyboard on Android - maybe if I upgrade to 11 they'll let me set a proper AU locale)
If it autocorrects to zed well um close enough. Since I've b
Done, but far from paid for. (Score:3)
The NBN co. is massively in debt, taxpayer-guaranteed debt, which it will never be able to repay.
The plan to sell it off at a profit was always a politician's fantasy, or smoke-and-mirrors.
I have no objection to publicly funded infrastructure, but this is going to cost us a whole lot more than promised, due to government incompetence and corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't care about the cost, if the fucking shit worked properly and they just admitted that they fucked up with "multi-mix technology"
Now "we didn't back flip, we just happened to end up doing what the opposition said to do from the start."
Cunts. 'straya!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Done, but far from paid for. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll blame Conroy/ALP as well for the fiasco. They had enough years to get the momentum going but they burned up a lot of time and social credit with their great firewall crap which let LNP in to white-ant ALPs social standing. Never felt like Conroy was standing up for the FTTP policy, instead just remained weak in defending it when ever LNP was promoting BS about FTTP vs their mixed-tech idea.
Sadly, it's done, and it'll be 30~50 years probably before we get a chance to do it again, if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really fair to blame the whole government for it. It was literally just Tony Abbott who wanted it compromised to politically hurt Labor.
Considering that "the whole government" was run by the Liberal-National coalition at the time blaming one person is just scapegoating. The rot that led to the NBN's demise runs deep and isn't limited to one person's idea. Fucking Australian politics have devolved to American level of shit flinging where it doesn't matter if a party has a good idea or not, the singular goal of the opposition is to oppose it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it wasn't. Tony Abbott has never had an original idea in his life other that to vote against gay marriage despite having the gayest constituency in the country, that has to be a new level of original and stupid for a politician.
Tony Abbott had neither the fucking clue nor the capability to screw the NBN the way it was. That involved an approach within several levels of government and the help of private enterprises too. Blaming one person is stupidly narrow minded, just like blaming Boris Johnson for wha
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you said contradicts anything I said. I never said that the parties were perfect until those three came along. I never said they personally did everything themselves. However, it is very obvious that when those three took over, the crazy factions in their respective parties got confident to tear everything down. Yes, they mobilized the c
Re: (Score:2)
And you seem to be agreeing with me. The entire liberal government coordinated the screw up of the NBN. You said it yourself "Turnbull given the job to screw it up".
Re: (Score:2)
From-scratch fiber network? It takes YEARS to establish. Nothing happened in the beginning because they were establishing, training and deploying contractors (in the US) , I was on a line crew running fiber in '96. I was again in early 2000's , then came the splicing, then a few years later networks began flouting nation-wide broadband. Took over a decade in the US.
But now there is Starlink and friends, likely cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing cheaper about this. They literally left the shittiest most maintenance heavy component in place which will need to be replaced within the coming decades anyway.
Absolutely no one in the industry, in the labour government, or even the advisors from the IEEE thought this "multi-technology mix" was in any way a good idea.
Re:Done, but far from paid for. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no objection to publicly funded infrastructure, but this is going to cost us a whole lot more than promised, due to government incompetence and corruption.
Indeed, They should have never bought the aged and failing telstra copper network [itnews.com.au] considering their initial goal of fiber everywhere.. but public infrastructure competes with private profit interests, so they just porked it up and paid for it.
Of course, none of that would have been a problem in the first place if they hadn't sold telstra (australia's formerly government owned public service telephone company) for a short sighted raising of funds.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Telstra's privatisation was always flawed.
The government owned copper telephone network underlying ADSL became Telstra's, which every competitor had to pay a wholesale price back to Telstra to access - which the government at the time never saw as anticompetitive.
Building a NBN was thus Labor's plan to dismantle Telstra's cosy relationship as an ex-government monopoly and invest in fibre where Telstra were content to keep people relying on their copper lines.
It SHOULD have been better! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see it costing any more to fix later. Fiber is already old fashioned. They will replace the whole thing with some wireless contraption in a few years.
Re:It SHOULD have been better! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
It is fine for now, but fiber's reflective index is horrendous, and with the light bouncing all around in those cables it makes the latency horrendous. There's only so much data a man can use, but people are getting sick and tired of being unable to effectively interact with people in separate continents. Hell, even just a few provinces over isn't great.
Fibre to the premisis was idiocy (Score:3)
Most people do not need to run a data center in their basement.
The idiocy about the NBN was not that it is not Fibre (at even greater expense). It is that it focused on people that did not need or want it. Once you can run a couple of TV channels at once you have enough for most households.
Meanwhile there where and still are many households that have no or terrible ADSL internet. They desperately want it but are zero priority.
In my case, we survived on 1.5 mbs which is enough for TV provided that one can
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
..I'm Australian but spell it "neighbors"
its neighbours you Muppet
Re: (Score:2)
times move on, and modern web page frameworks need more and more and more bandwidth for no particular reason. But 1.5 mbs is still plenty for most.
IME modern internet life begins at 5 Mbps. That's enough for streaming (albeit at reduced quality) while also doing light surfing. If people aren't going to be reduced to third- or fourth-class citizens online, they need at least that much bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone that lived on 1.5mbs for many years I can tell you from practical experience that you are wrong.
TV works fine on 1.5. Not 4K, but perfectly watchable, DVD quality, with modern Codecs. Other web sites have yet to choke on 1.5.
The killer is Windows Update et. al. which all need to be throttled. And they keep trying to escape ip based throttles so you have to keep changing them.
But 5 mbs is better. And was delivered without the NBN to most households.
Re: (Score:2)
Current adoption rates have nothing to do with building infrastructure for the future. I'm reminded of the Story Bridge in Brisbane. When it was built at a huge expense and cost overrun it was done by a premier who at least had the forethought to plan for the future. Most of the state and even people in Brisbane absolutely grilled him for building a 4 lane bridge for such an (at the time) small city. What a waste of money that was.
Yeah, now it's grid lock. My point... I'm glad Labour had some forethought. I
Re: (Score:2)
It is very dangerous to extrapolate demand for a technological service.
If the increase in TV numbers had continued over the decades, we would have 100s of TVs each. And each carry a dozen mobile phones.
The point is, that with some things, enough is enough. And for Internet, enough is being able to transmit video. At that point the human at the end is the bottle neck. And Video can stream OK at 1.5 mbs, well at 5 mbs.
There has never been a use case, even in theory, why any household would need more than
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and with the light bouncing all around in those cables it makes the latency horrendous.
I know. Here I was just thinking how much better life would be if I read your stupid comment 5ms faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately this is true. It could - and should - have been much better. Also sooner would have been nice.
As in - say - New Zealand. Or Croatia, come to that.
I once saw the original specification, when it was fibre, and that was pretty silly. They had such weird specs that only one supplier could actually deliver the required modem - always a bad idea.
As it happens, we were among the last sets of folk to get connected - and we are in the inner city, just by a university and major hospital. We get 50mbps o
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like other countries like USA. :(
thank you Kevin Rudd (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"And no one battered an eyelid."
Ready to be deep fried I take it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
you can pay for FTTP - oh wait - you want free shit...
Re: (Score:2)
you can pay for FTTP - oh wait - you want free shit...
You can pay for a private road - oh wait - you want free shit...
Just to ram the point home for the logically challenged, if you're against "free shit" then just fucking stay home, because you can't go anywhere without making use of "free shit".
re: bullshit (Score:2)
Non-partisan fail (Score:2)
I'm really happy to not see much partisanship here but because I hear it elsewhere a lot, I'd just like to get in ahead of the "party P was doing great but then party Q screwed it all up" argument.
Australian internet was not great but just OK before any of this NBN nonsense. Then along came the politicians with an appetite for takeover. The first of them had a big vision of top-down design, "everyone" gets fibre of some flavour (this isn't quite true but is largely accurate for the sake of argument), accomp
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really happy to not see much partisanship here but because I hear it elsewhere a lot, I'd just like to get in ahead of the "party P was doing great but then party Q screwed it all up" argument.,
all Australians I've met hate their government no matter which one is in.
It's great when the PM goes and visits some random place because the locals are performatively rude to him. They take it to an art form. The Australians are even better than the Brits in this regard.
Re:Non-partisan fail (Score:4, Interesting)
Australian internet was not great but just OK before any of this NBN nonsense.
There were (and still are) massive differences between connection quality, capability, and resilience for internet back when Labor dreamt up the NBN. It was in no way "OK" unless you were serviced by cable, fibre, or close to a non-Telstra ADSL 2+ exchange.
Then along came the politicians with an appetite for takeover. The first of them had a big vision of top-down design, "everyone" gets fibre of some flavour (this isn't quite true but is largely accurate for the sake of argument), accompanied by economic growth fantasies like "now all the lawyers and doctors and researchers can move to the country but it'll totally work because they can send each other GB data files all day long!) all the while being totally ignorant of time and cost. Both of these had blown out before the change of Government.
The vision was very long term I'll give you that. Budget was blown about 10%, same with time. That's nothing though compared to the farce of the MTM, promised at $29.5B with completion in 2016 to $57+B "completed" by end 2020.
Then the Government did change and costs had to be reined in.
This was a made-up problem. (Look at how many hundreds of billions we're throwing at keeping the country out of recession due to COVID for instance). Studies indicate high penetration of fast broadband increases GDP, which increases tax revenue. Fibre is cheaper to run (about $1B a year for NBN), and the payback time to install an expensive FTTP connection vs an ideal cost FTTN connection is less than a decade - far less than the lifetime of a fibre asset. TCO over 10+ years is lowest on full FTTP.
So now we're tens of billions in the hole and everyone's internet is largely similar to before.
. You do realise that NBN have borrowed another $4+ Billion to overbuild some FTTN premises to FTTP? There's only one reason to do that - the cost of those keeping those FTTN connections is more expensive than a complete rebuild with FTTP.
Copper based fixed line internet is a massive waste of money compared to full fibre.
Re: Non-partisan fail (Score:2)
100% correct.
The mistake is some MBa has not depreciated their copper network. Itâ(TM)s worthless.
It's better than ADSL at least (Score:2)
"Completed".. Sure (Score:3)
We set up home networks here for customers. And the number of customers with NBN problems (which included myself) was massive. In fact, it literally took me a year to prove to NBN/TPG that my FTTC connection dropped out EVERY time it rained (and I ended up going to the TIO, who resolved it by replacing the copper cable with ANOTHER obsolete copper cable).
We have a customer in Mt Eliza with Skymuster / Satellite, despite having a school almost next door with Fibre, and FTTN 3 houses away. We have a customer with fixed wireless. They get 1mbps upload, and 10mbps download. Anything over 6/1 is apparently OK and they can't fix.
FTTP was the only system with a standard for VOIP built in. On the rest of it, SIP isn't mandated, so we're stuck installing shitty ISP routers, instead of upgrading them to real ones. They should have required phone lines use standard SIP, and required SIP details to be provided to customers.
NBN techs never confirm if the premises have a lift either, so lots of properties had NBN installed with No phone working in the lift (and I suspect many still don't have working phones in their lifts). Someone will likely die because of it.
One of our customers was a NBN tech, and he said the cabling for lots of premises he's seen was poorly done (including some of the new Fibre ones).
The whole thing is a disaster. This isn't completed. They just lowered the standards to ADSL standards in areas they couldn't be arsed with
Re: (Score:2)
25 Mbit/s ought to be enough for anybody (Score:2)
From wikipedia:
"NBN Co found no significant demand for wired connections above 25 Mbit/s (despite public surveys indicating otherwise) and upgrading the network would not be considered until demand for high-bandwidth services was proven."
Most if it is still copper. I would say... keep trying?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and upgrading the network would not be considered until demand for high-bandwidth services was proven
I.e. company whose sole existence is to build the infrastructure of the future instead focuses on meeting today's demand with yesterday's tech.
Murdoch killed NBN to protect Foxtel (Score:4, Interesting)
While you wont see it in the Murdoch dominated media or even the whipped public broadcaster (ABC), Tony Abbott who was never a popular politician, benefited from Murdoch's unprecedented support. Murdoch papers shamelessly supported the the Abbott LNP government, and relentlessly attacked the ALP, who introduce the full fibre NBN. The LNP narrowly won government, despite obvious failings and lack of policy platform. In return Abbott killed off the 1st significant threat to the Foxtel (cable/sat tv) monopoly in 15 years. However it was plain to see in the News Corp SEC filings, which warned of “risk factors” to its businesses, including its newspapers and Foxtel pay TV.
“Due to innovations in content distribution platforms, consumers are now more readily able to watch internet-delivered content on television sets and mobile devices, in some cases also without charge,”
The innovations “could reduce consumer demand for our television programming and PAY-TV services and adversely affect both our subscription revenue and advertisers’ willingness to purchase television advertising from us”.
The LNP still continues to benefit from the Murdoch media today and Foxtel having been afforded breathing space has ben able to see off rivals, ironically pivoting to leverage the NBN.
Murdoch has now set his sights on Google and Facebook, pushing legislation through the Australian Parliament to force the platforms to pay News organisation for content and expose their ranking algorithms.
Re: (Score:1)
Where have we seen... (Score:2)