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 …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections

This topic is closed for new posts.

Friday 15th April 2011 04:32 GMT Neoc

Erm...

"...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.

0 0
1. Friday 15th April 2011 04:34 GMT Richard Chirgwin
  
  Re: Erm...
  
  Thanks! My editing error (I wrote three, then corrected myself into a mistake).
  
  0 0
Friday 15th April 2011 04:32 GMT flibbertigibbet

ta

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.

0 0
Friday 15th April 2011 09:01 GMT Il Midga di Macaroni

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!

0 0
1. Friday 15th April 2011 09:40 GMT John Angelico
 
 In fact...
 
 Malcolm Turnbull's comments need to be simplified down to:
 
 a) how much did you say it would cost? $A27billion
 
 b) how much will this investment improve inbound traffic from USA, Europe etc? NIL
 
 c) therefore how much will 100Mbit connections improve throughput? Not a whit!
 
 HAHAHAHAHA!
 
 0 0