Talk:NBN Co

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

controversy surrounding senior mgmt appointments[edit]

this is notable given the political dimensions of NBN and the government's appointment of CEO/CFO. it was discussed in parliament.

please stop reverting the edits without rationale--Rmarsden (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
As pointed out on your talk page[1], Mike Quigley and Jean-Pascal Beaufret was never linked to the bribery in the investigation.
That's not what I'm saying. Read more carefully. I'm saying their appointment was overshadowed as a politival issue. I do also believe that the investigation is relevant in this appointment. What's the harm in leaving this there? You seem biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmarsden (talkcontribs) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:BLP, there is great harm in posting false information or even hinting at it. The information you posted has no place in Wikipedia. — [d'oh] 01:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not false. Read the sources. I have added several more. There WAS controversy. And there WAS a bribery investigation.You seem biased. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view --Rmarsden (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing this being relevant to the entry, which should focus directly on the corporation itself and not the personal history of the CEO/CFO. I think the page needs to follow similar Wikipedia page formats like the other Australian government owned corporations[2] such as the ABC[3], Australia Post[4] and telecommunication companies like Telstra[5] and Optus[6].

The entry as it stands reads that Mike Quigley was appointed to NBN Co on 25 July 2009 then follows with 'was overshadowed by a bribery investigation' but does not make it clear that this 'controversy' arose in 2011 a considerable time after he was appointed. Because Mike Quigley and Jean-Pascal Beaufret are not directly accused of being involved in the corruption scandal, if it to be included it at it should be on the basis of the Opposition questioning his ability to run NBN Co and balanced with an appropriate quote from the Prime Minister defending the current NBN Co CEO/CFO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.175.50 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

reverted merge with National Broadband Article[edit]

for some reason someone merged the NBN Co article with the NBN article. Given NBN Co is a major Australian Corporation it surely deserves its own article--124.171.43.176 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Funding and ownership section[edit]

This section needs to be rewritten and it also includes items not directly related to NBN Co's funding and ownership. The first sentence which talks about the NBN build cost should conclude the sentence about the amount the Australian government is investing in NBN Co. eg "The Australian Government plans to invest A$27.1 billion to fund the estimated NBN build cost of A$35.7 billion" etc. The NBN build cost should be expanded on to include the expected range for the NBN build cost as the as the A$35.7 billion figure is the median cost of the network build assuming medium construction costs etc. Also the amount should be reviewed to confirm or correct if the build cost is just the FTTP component or also includes the Satellite and 4G Fixed wireless services.

The deal between Telstra and NBN Co should be moved to a new section of the Wikipedia article (or the current section renamed appropriately) as it is not related to NBN Co's funding, the current wording implies $11.7 billion has not been funded for, but in actuality it has been accounted for in NBN Co's operating expenses over the period of the 30 year deal. Optus should also be mentioned as being involved and the details of the deal should be expanded to include information such as it being approved by Telstra shareholders and approved by the ACCC.

The last sentence regarding remaining funds should also be looked at as revenue generated by NBN Co in the early stages of the build will also fund the project. (Need clarification and sources obliviously) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.175.50 (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Start" class[edit]

This article is a mere outline, though more than a stub. It is out of date, gives insufficient detail of the company's relation to, and actions in improving, telecommunications in Australia, and indicates nothing of the current controversy and politicking surrounding it; all information to which the reader is entitled and would expect to find, regardless of precedents in other Australian corporation articles above mentioned. There are ample media and academic sources which could be cited in relation to these and other issues in relation to Nbn. I have therefore changed the class to 'start' in each Wikiproject. JamesMcArdle 03:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


Nbn (telecommunications company)NBN Co NBN Co Limited – move over redirect – correct name is NBN Co Limited (Australian ACN: 136 533 741 ABN: 86 136 533 741 Reg. date: 9/04/2009) Paul foord (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). st170e 22:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Paul foord I'm contesting this technical request because I don't think it's uncontroversial. There are plenty of companies that aren't called by its official name, e.g. International Airlines Group is actually International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A.. I understand this technical request is to move away from the disambiguation title, but WP:COMMONNAME dictates article names. For this, I'm contesting the technical request and community consensus should be sought to determine the outcome of the requested move. st170e 22:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Nbn (telecommunications company) is very inelegant and clumsy and is not clearly the best option for disambiguation, the company uses nbn™ as its trading name, not plain nbn, so Nbn™ would adequately disambiguate. Paul foord (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to NBN Co, which is clearly the most common name in reliable sources. It has been for a couple of years now and even looking at the article you can see every source from the last three years uses "NBN Co". Jenks24 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to NBN Co per WP:COMMONNAME, even the website (nbnco.com.au) uses it. The lowercasing of the current title is a violation of MOS:TM (see how Asus is written, not ASUS). The "Limited" is a bad idea though. Laurdecl talk 07:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing comment: I note that this reverses a series of moves that started with 02:27, 28 April 2015‎ NeoGeneric (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (36 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (NeoGeneric moved page NBN Co to Nbn™ over redirect: Rebranding), IMO probably another baseless move but such moves are currently under discussion in principle, see Wikipedia talk:Another baseless nomination#No consensus on this. Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.