Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Australian Minister for Broadband resigns (gizmodo.com.au)
21 points by discordance 1610 days ago | hide | past | web | 25 comments | favorite



To be fair he's only resigning because we just replaced our Prime Minister, again.

Amazingly, Turnbull, the opposition's communications minister, is even worse.


Hardly. Turnbull, frankly, has been shafted by Abbott and fairly forced into promoting Abbott's ridiculous broadband policy.

In their launch, Turnbull looked quite sheepish the entire time. Turnbull should be the opposition leader, not the Communications Minister, but that's for another debate.


Turnbull was done in by his own flaws. He has a short temper and has let hope to overwhelm experience -- as it did during the Godwin Grech affair.


Excellent.

That guy shouldn't be in charge of a kindle, let alone the communications and internet strategy of a modern nation.


I met with him recently and chatted one-on-one for an hour about Australia's broadband policy. I was very impressed by his technical knowledge as well as the manner in which he communicated it.

He spends a lot of time on Whirlpool (Australian broadband forums) and interacts with the community. I feel a sorry regarding how the media is almost universally anti-NBN (National Broadband Network). The current uptake rates for the NBN are impressive: hockey stick, yet the media go on about asbestos or whatever gets more views / clicks.

On the Labor side of politics I don't think there's anybody that could continue championing the NBN like he has.


He's pro filtering and censorship, a very dangerous and unpopular policy. To the point where he's willing to go against 90% of the population either because he wants to force his point of view on people or is willing to pander to an incredibly opinionated minority for votes.

No matter what else you do, that characteristic doesn't belong in a representative democracy.

The opposition leader (Abbott) is worse on the matter - see RU486, but two wrongs don't make a right, and it's a great thing that he's gone.


Well I hope they find one who isn't so keen on repression of communication, on game and film censorship, secret blocklists and all the other stuff.

The NBN thing is good. Pretty much everything else out of the mans mouth has been "We know what's best for you"


Not impressed with him in the slightest, and he'd be criticised severely if in an American context and the mechanisms shown in this link were noticed.

Lurking on Whirlpool isn't a skill required for championing sensible communications policy.

http://powerhouse.theglobalmail.org/the-australian-governmen...


> I feel a sorry regarding how the media is almost universally anti-NBN (National Broadband Network)

The media (especially Murdoch's group, which part owns FoxTel) is threatened by fast broadband.


That's a bit harsh, the guy was very receptive to technical arguments. Particularly regarding IPv6 and the NBN. He just became Internet Enemy #1 because of filter proposals.


Not just filter proposals, but an unremitting dedication to censorship, including support of some very dodgy blacklists.

I'm sure he did some fine work regarding not getting in the way of the NBN, but the censorship is what he'll be remembered for.


Having spoken with the man in person, I think your original post was entirely unfair and based purely on media representation.

You'd be surprised how much worse candidates for the position are out there. I'm no fan of censorship or filters, but can respect the man's work and the effort he put in to understand things.


>> Having spoken with the man in person, I think your original post was entirely unfair and based purely on media representation.

No it's mostly based on direct quotes.

>> You'd be surprised how much worse candidates for the position are out there.

I'm sure there are far worse candidates out there! Let's hope none of them get a sniff of power either.

>> I'm no fan of censorship or filters, but can respect the man's work and the effort he put in to understand things.

Good for you, I find repressive, censorious measures pretty offensive so I'm sorry if I don't share your viewpoint.


Mate, the last thought I'll leave with you regarding the censorship fiasco: it was party politics. There are elements within both major parties that salivate at the thought of censorship, some of which hold the reigns on some policy directions.

I still feel it's unfair to vilify the man personally like the Australian internet has done so for the past several years. When censorship and filtering proposals return with someone else at the helm, is it still Conroy's fault?


Only when he proposes it and fights for it. Anyone that does that will attract the same attitude from me.

Not to worry, I'm not even an Australian voter, I'm just a brit that bailed a year or so before citizenship was an option, though I do love the country and am under no illusions anywhere else is politically superior.


Your rage is directed at the wrong person. The guy up front isn't the guy who originally proposed it. That's not how political parties work.


He certainly championed the cause of censorship during his time in office, which is not something I could overlook in a politician, in fact I find it abhorrent.

Again, sorry, but I don't share your viewpoint, the censorship stuff is not something I would overlook because of other, more positive work.


You're not understanding, so I'll just stop.

You don't need to apologise for not sharing my view, but you do need to realise things aren't as black-and-white as you like to see them.


I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what?

I understand that a guy in high public office may have done a few good things while there, as well as being on the side of some stuff that many people consider inherently evil and anti-democratic.

I don't care who proposed it. I don't care if it was initially someone else's idea. I don't care if it's party policy and he just got the job of putting his face and political power behind it. He still did and said all those things and to my mind should have no place in politics as a result.


Communications is a traditional landing spot for powerbrokers who don't want a particularly high-profile ministry, but who want nevertheless want to be in a senior ministry.

In general, given a few years, most ministers will sound pretty competent in any given portfolio. Senior ministers tend be the smarter breed, and if you're surrounded daily by people whose job it is to know everything about something, eventually some of that knowledge will rub off.


Thank god! One really shouldn't be the Minister for broadband if you don't send and read your own email...

BTW he was also the guy who wanted to:

* censor Australia's internet with a filter * limit the freedom of the press


Not for the reason most people think. He was a key Gillard backer, and was vocal against Kevin Rudd. Gillard is gone and Rudd is now back in power tonight. Conroy's position was untenable. Good riddance.


For context, here is Stephen Conroy talking about spams and scams coming through the portal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gl7X6peh-w


He sounds like every CIO I've ever heard.


:)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: