Talk:National Broadband Network

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)[1] 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.[2] 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[3] 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)

[4] 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

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)

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)