No, please no, not another argument about whose position the OECD broadband data supports. This happens every time there's an OECD data release, or even when there's no release, but merely a statement about the last data. It starts, as always, with a political interpretation of OECD broadband data. Since this is practically the …
"...take one of two possible approaches to the ministerial statement: write it into a story without further research or revision; call the minister’s opposite number for a formal refutation; or call some analysts for interpretation of the OECD data."
Beggin' your pardon, but I count 3 options, not 2: (1) do no research, (2) call the opposition, (3) call an analyst.
Thanks! My editing error (I wrote three, then corrected myself into a mistake).
Thanks for writing this up. I guess I should not be surprised at how easy it is to draw the wrong assumptions from the data, but I am.
Malcolm Turnbull is a waste of perfectly good oxygen
He really is the weakest link in the Opposition. If the nation is to be saved the burden of $50bn of debt, we need a better comms spokesperson - and let's face it, Conroy should be a complete pushover!
Malcolm Turnbull's comments need to be simplified down to:
a) how <i>much</i> did you say it would cost? <b>$A27billion</b>
b) how much will this investment improve inbound traffic from USA, Europe etc? <b>NIL</b>
c) therefore how much will 100Mbit connections improve throughput? <b>Not a whit!</b>
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- Bose decides today IS F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent spat
- DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss