ABC’s man leaves objectivity on the cutting-room floor to spruik NBN

THE ABC's editorial policy says information should be presented "according to the recognised standards of objective journalism", and that "credibility depends heavily on factual accuracy".

Not so for the ABC's online technology and games editor Nick Ross, who uses the ABC's technology website to spruik the National Broadband Network.

His latest missive of February 21 purports to analyse the "vast differences between the NBN and the Coalition's (broadband) alternative". Ross claims Malcolm Turnbull's plan for a less expensive broadband upgrade of the existing copper network using Fibre to the Node technology (FTTN) is vastly inferior to, and almost as expensive as the government's $37.4 billion all-fibre NBN.

But far from being an objective analysis of the two policies his attack on Turnbull is based on misrepresentation and glaring factual errors.

His core claim is the existing network can't be upgraded because "over 80 per cent of the nation's copper network is over 30 years old and copper expires after 30 years".

The claim copper "expires" after 30 years is pure nonsense. But even if it were true it would only affect 50 per cent of Telstra's copper network as actually only half of it is more than 30 years old.

Ross also claims the copper isn't maintained and that "Telstra is currently in the process of ripping it up to make way for NBN fibre".

This ignores the $2 billion plus Telstra has spent on remediating the copper in recent years and Ross would understand that as in the UK, where British Telecom is deploying FTTN, copper remediation is an essential part of an FTTN rollout.

Nor is Telstra ripping out the copper.

The copper has to stay in place, in working order until the fibre is cut over. If NBN contractors installing fibre damage the copper, it has to be reinstated.

Clearly Ross has no understanding of the NBN rollout.

Similarly his take on the NBN's economics is ill informed and verges on mumbo jumbo. Ross claims "when it (the NBN) is sold 15 years after completion, it will go for five-to-eight per cent profit meaning the net cost of the rollout is less than zero to begin with."

Small wonder Turnbull's plan can't be less expensive, given that according to Ross the cost of the NBN is an unfathomable "less than zero".

And his curious take on economics doesn't end there. Ross believes the NBN investment will ultimately generate "a seven per cent profit."

Ross has made a fundamental error and confused the NBN's 7.1 per cent internal rate of return with profit. Small matter, as Ross states the NBN has been fully costed and "recently had its renewed corporate plan verified by Analysis (sic) Mason".

Unfortunately the Analysys Mason report Ross cites was on the prudency of the design of its networks. They have never offered any opinion on the corporate plan.

References aren't the only thing Ross misrepresents. In a convoluted argument to prove that Turnbull's plan will involve paying billions to Telstra, Ross says NBN Co paid Telstra "$9bn just to lease the ducts", implying Telstra would want far more for using the copper in the ducts.

Actual leasing payments to Telstra are $5 billion including exchange space and extensive fibre links, as well as duct space.

Yet despite the very high price Ross believes NBN Co is paying, he claims "many (ducts) are collapsed, flooded and filled with crud" implying the copper in the ducts which Turnbull's plan relies on will be in similar disrepair and not useable.

Ross can't have it both ways. Elsewhere in his piece he says that with the Telstra deal "several billion dollars were shaved off the overall (NBN) build costs and the overall rollout duration was shortened" implicitly because NBN Co had access to Telstra's ducts.

Ross may be confused about the practical value of the deal but he maintains it was "an extraordinary achievement" because "NBN Co managed to structurally separate Telstra meaning no more monopoly."

Again Ross has it wrong. Separation, such as it is, was enacted by legislation and Telstra has not actually been separated.

All Telstra has agreed to is to "preference" the NBN fibre network for 20 years and after that Telstra will be free to build its own fibre network, but in the interim the NBN Co has a monopoly.

For Ross there are two kinds of monopoly, the evil Telstra one and the good NBN Co one which Ross believes will, in a world's first, "be subject to market forces"! More disturbingly Ross uncritically accepts NBN Co's claims that under its monopoly prices will "drop over time". That denies the views in the industry, given both Telstra and Optus have slammed the NBN's pricing and have told the ACCC prices could rise significantly.

Not content with accepting NBN Co's assertions, Ross is even happy to make up his own bits of the NBN policy claiming that when the NBN is privatised "the government will remain in control of maintenance -- a good idea." It's a good idea the government has yet to think of.

Under the heading "politics" in his January 23 blog on the ABC technology website, Ross makes no bones about his objective: "With it being election year, there is a great deal to be done in informing the public about the current NBN policy and the consequences of ditching it in favour of a Coalition alternative."

There we have it, an ABC employee sees absolutely nothing wrong in using the ABC website to sell government policy at the expense of the Coalition objectivity. And factual accuracy can go begging given Ross's mission.